The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jonathan Revusky Archive
Revisiting 9/11, Betty Ong, and the Mystery of “Black Betty”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“As one of the conditions of considering publication of this article, Ron Unz has required me to personally apologize to commenter Rurik for having previously threatened to “dox” him based on our private correspondence. I am therefore providing that apology, and also sincerely promising to make no such threats nor take such actions against him or any other commenters here in the future.”

Je vous parle d’un temps ♫
♫ Que les moins de vingt ans ♫
♫ Ne peuvent pas connaître

Charles Aznavour

I recall how, as a child, in my teens, and as a much younger man than now, people of the older generation would reminisce nostalgically about where they were when they heard that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. When such conversations arose, naturally, people of my generation would feel kind of left out. On the day in question, 11/22/1963, I myself was not yet born. In fact, I did not exist at all, since I was conceived about 4 months after that.

It occurred to me recently that now, with 9/11, things have come full circle. Now, younger readers will have to bear with us oldsters when we reminisce about the events of 9/11/2001. Those who were not there can only imagine the ambiance of the time. In retrospect, we must have been in a state of induced trauma as we were presented a whole series of extraordinary events, a fantastical story with a diverse cast of unlikely characters.

Almost immediately, they presented us with the terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden. In retrospect, Bin Laden seems to be a kind of cut-out cartoon character, an orientalist villain in the mold of Fu Manchu or Dr. No, plotting deadly terrorist attacks around the world from his mountain lair in far-off Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding Bin Laden’s cartoonish aspects, within 6 weeks, the United States, along with her NATO allies, had launched a full-scale invasion of this huge country (about as big as Germany and Italy combined) in order to locate this one man and bring him to justice. Wanted. Dead or Alive.

Suddenly, life was imitating art. (Even worse, bad art.)

One far lesser character (among others) presented to us in those days was the ethnic Chinese flight stewardess Betty Ong, a brave woman who, right before her tragic untimely death, had managed to make a phone call from Flight 11, that (conveniently?) established much of the official hijacking story.

Dead Chinese flight attendants tell no tales. Or do they?

A couple of years ago, maybe in a fit of nostalgia, I recalled the fearless Chinese superwoman, Betty Ong, and was looking for information about her. She has a Wikipedia page with a short (very short, minimal) biographical blurb. Betty was born in San Francisco on 5 February 1956 and, after a rather uneventful life in which she never married or had children or, apparently, much of a social life, made a phone call from a hijacked plane, and then died.

Now, at this point in the exposition, I shall make no bones about the fact that I quickly developed great doubts regarding whether this Betty Ong is a real, flesh and blood person. As much as I looked, I could not find any description of this person that sounded like it was written by somebody who really knew her. The Wikipedia blurb is one thing, but the memorial website maintained by her ostensible family is another. It jumped out at me that whoever had written the description of Betty on that site, obviously never knew this person.

I even expressed these doubts here and here, which is when I broached the subject to Ron Unz.

Now, from the point of view of 9/11 Truth investigations, the only important thing to establish regarding Betty Ong is whether the phone call she allegedly made is real. Whether Betty Ong herself is real hardly matters. The general view in the 9/11 Truth community is that all the phone calls allegedly made from hijacked airplanes on that day, including Betty’s, are plainly fake.

My own view is that, while Betty Ong being a real person is not of any importance regarding 9/11 per se, the issue has a more general significance. If you can establish one case of an invented vicsim in a synthetic event, then there are surely other cases in other synthetic events and narratives. (And probably in the 9/11 narrative itself.)

The Elusive Betty Ong

After I brought up the case of Betty Ong in a discussion that developed under that earlier article, Ron Unz expressed that he was flabbergasted that I could seriously doubt this person’s existence. (N.B. I only ever expressed doubt, never absolute certainty.) “Surely, Ron reasoned, “given the available public information about Betty, it would be easy to verify her existence.”

Well, Betty’s life history is rather sparse. One thing that she is alleged to have done is to have graduated from George Washington High School in San Francisco in 1974. This datum occurs in various places. Ron expressed a very high level of confidence in private email that the high school yearbook of that year would put any doubts to rest.

I got in touch with the school’s alumni association, representing that I was an alumnus from that time period, and was very interested in getting my hands on some old yearbooks.

Oh, the memories…”

My contact there told me that there was a long waiting list to get any original yearbooks. However, she did add that there was a project afoot to digitize them all and put them up on the Internet. So there was little more for me to do on the yearbook front.

I also scoured social media looking for anybody who both claimed to have known Betty and, in particular, described this person in a way that it seemed like they really knew her. I could not find anything. I also discovered that there were very few photos of Betty available and what few there were all seemed to have been photoshopped.

One thing that I did learn meanwhile (from a correspondent in Colorado who had also taken an interest in our gal Betty) is that a site called sfgenealogy.org had all the George Washington High graduating class lists online. In fact, at the time Betty would have attended this school, there were two graduating classes per year: Spring and Fall. For example, the Spring and Fall of 1974 are available here and here.

No sign of Betty Ong. My Colorado correspondent pointed this out to me but then a little while later wrote me a new message to tell me that Betty was indeed on the Spring 1973 Graduating class list. Yes, there she was all right! Right in between Vivian Olsen and Jacki Ono! I have to admit that I was excited by this since it was the first somewhat official corroboration of any of Betty’s meager life history. Of course, she allegedly graduated in 1974, but decades later, surely one could misremember 1973 as 1974. It’s an easy mistake.

Now, I was hardly convinced. It also seemed quite possible that somebody had been pressured to add her name to the list, since, by now, heroic Betty Ong was one of the more famous alumni of George Washington High School.

“There is some innocent ommission on this list and the flight attendant Betty Ong is not on the graduating list. This was obviously an oversight. Could you please add her name?”

What would really have put things to rest would have been a page from the original yearbook with a photo that was clearly a younger version of Betty Ong. However, as I say, I had no access to any yearbooks.

Betty, Betty, where are you?

Nearly two years passed, but I guess I never completely got over Betty. Not very long ago, I was idly typing Betty Ong related search strings into Google, not expecting anything new, but then, much to my surprise, I saw that the relevant yearbooks were now online! On a site called classmates.com. The site required me to sign up for an account which I duly did and I located the 1973 yearbook and eagerly looked for the Spring 1973 graduating class photos.

I assume you are on the edge of your seat by now, dear reader, and I will not keep you in suspense any longer. Here is the relevant yearbook page:

George Washington High, Spring 1973 Graduating Class. No Betty Ong.
George Washington High, Spring 1973 Graduating Class. No Betty Ong.

As I pointed out above, Betty Ong should be right between Vivian Olsen and Jacki Ono, in the right hand page, on the second row. As you can see, those two people directly follow one another and there is no space in between their photos where a photo of Betty Ong (or anybody else) ever could have been.

I reasoned that it was possible that some people did graduate, but for some reason, they were not present the day the yearbook photos were taken. I cannot absolutely exclude that. However, I note that, on the above yearbook page there are 20 people, spanning from Russell Nakai down to Devon Owyang. If you compare this with the people on the sfgenealogy.org Spring 1973 graduating class, there is perfect correspondence — EXCEPT for one person, Betty Ong. On the sfgenealogy.org list, there are 21 people between Russel Nakai and Devon Owyang. The extra person is Betty Ong.

It looked pretty clear that my original suspicion was probably true: Betty Ong was not in the Spring 1973 graduating class either and had been inserted into that list. I was about ready to wrap up the Betty Ong high school yearbook investigation, when I did remember that there were two graduating classes in that year: Spring 1973 and Fall 1973. Betty was not on the sfgenealogy.org list for Fall of 1973, but just for completeness, not expecting to find anything, I looked in the appropriate page in the yearbook.

My Encounter with Black Betty

Whoa, Black Betty (bam-ba-lam)… ♫
She really gets me high (bam-ba-lam)… ♫
You know that’s no lie (bam-ba-lam)… ♫

Consulting the Fall 1973 graduating class list, I saw that, if (contrary to fact) Betty Ong were there, she would have to be in between Wayne Ogawa and Betty Ow. So I located the appropriate page in the online yearbook and I discovered something absolutely extraordinary:

Yes, there was indeed an entry for Betty Ong in the appropriate page of the Fall 1973 graduating class! She’s right there on the right-hand page, second row in the center. However, I had been looking for the Chinese flight attendant Betty Ong, but now I had my first encounter with Black Betty! The Chinese Betty Ong was intriguing enough, but I daresay that Black Betty is even more fascinating!

Here is a close-up:

No Shit, Sherlock

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Sherlock Holmes, famous (fictional) English detective

Like many of you, I read the Sherlock Holmes stories as a child, and I remember Sherlock Holmes’s famous line. To apply the Sherlock Holmes reasoning, we need a comprehensive list of all the various possibilities that we could then eliminate one by one. This is what I come up with:

  1. The page contains no error and has not been tampered with. Ergo, there really was a Black Betty Ong (obviously, no relation to Chinese Betty) who coincidentally attended from the same high school in the same time period that our Chinese Betty Ong, the flight attendant, was allegedly there.
  2. Either by mistake or by deliberate tampering, somebody put the picture of the black girl where Chinese Betty’s photo should be.
  3. The page has been tampered with and the name of the black girl was replaced with that of Betty Ong. (It looks to be inconceivable that this is an innocent mistake.)

I would say that possibility #1, though it is not an outright physical impossibility, is so utterly improbable that we could reject it out of hand. That leaves us with options #2 and #3.

Possibility #2 is a stretch, especially the variant where this is an honest mistake. It is quite a stretch to think that, of all the places for there to be an “innocent mistake” in the yearbook, it is precisely where Chinese Betty Ong should appear. I would add also that I have looked through quite a bit of the yearbook looking for clues, and I can say that, whenever somebody has an obviously Asian surname, the corresponding photo is always of somebody who is clearly Asian! There are no black (or white) students with surnames like Ong, or Wong, or Nakamura anywhere in the yearbook, except for on this page, where we have our Black Betty Ong!

In any case, unless you are willing to believe the coincidence theory of #1, we see clearly that the photo and the name do not match. Finally, in my view, it is far more likely that the name was altered than the photo. I am not myself in the business of tampering with high school yearbooks or any other documents, but I think it stands to reason that altering text on a page is far far less work than altering graphical or photographic content. So the working assumption is that it is the text that was altered.

Based on that, we could certainly make the conjecture that, if you could get your hands on the original page in an original yearbook (not this digitized version) Black Betty would be there, but she would have some other name. Her real name. And the surname would fall in between Ogawa and Ow on an alphabetical list.

O’Leary? Osborne?

I think the above converges on what must have happened. It is hard to understand why anybody would put in Betty’s name in place of a black girl’s on that page, but all the other possibilities really make no sense whatsoever. Granted, it hardly makes sense for anybody to do this as part of a 9/11 cover-up. After all, anybody who goes through the above steps and encounters Black Betty is going to start becoming very suspicious indeed.

Duping Delight

I have a vague memory in my student years of a rather zany professor who liked to party with his students. He had a lot of great stories. He told us that, years back, he had a summer job at the urban planning division of the local government. As a prank basically, in a new suburban area that was in the planning phase, he had named a street or two after himself. Not only was he, even years later, well into middle age, delighted with himself over this caper, but all of the students were mightily impressed as well.

Whoa, dude! That’s soooo cooool!

In retrospect, though I did not know the term at the time, this was a perfect example of duping delight. This is the term commonly used by people in the Truth Community who make a point of analyzing the fake testimony of people in synthetic events. There are some incredible examples of duping delight in videos on YouTube. Well, fewer than there used to be, since, over the past year or so, YouTube has been making a point of scrubbing all of those videos.

One of the more famous examples is one Christine Leinonen, who, just a few days after her beloved son was gunned down in Orlando, looks strangely happy. That video segment is, unaccountably, still up on YouTube.

I remember some private email correspondence in which somebody commented that Ms. Leinonen looked absolutely exalted, more like a woman who had just got laid for the first time after a multi-year dry spell than a bereaved parent. (Come to think of it, that was me that said that…)

This delight we can take in duping others is a dark little corner of human nature and, as such, I think we all have a bit of it. For example, recently, for the fun of it, I created a virtual memorial to a non-existent person on the findagrave.com website. After doing this, I must admit that I also felt a sort of duping delight when I saw how easy this was to do!

Whoa, Black Betty (bam-ba-lam)… ♫
She really gets me high (bam-ba-lam)… ♫
You know that’s no lie (bam-ba-lam)… ♫

When I wrote Ron Unz in private to bring Black Betty to his attention, he did ask the obvious question of why the 9/11 conspirators would create this Black Betty yearbook page. I have to admit that I was initially stumped by this question, but then I realized that I had never said that it was the 9/11 conspirators who had tampered with the page. Actually, I have no idea who did this! Really, I don’t. The best theory I currently have is that somebody in a position to alter text on a page replaced the name of the black girl with that of Betty Ong as a kind of little in-joke. I daresay it is hard to ignore the impish sense of humor in this “Black Betty”.

Still, that is just speculative. The answer to that question is that I have no idea who did this or why.

Black Betty Found at Last?

Now, dear reader, I went the whole 9 yards on this investigation. I looked hard for Betty. Well, now, for either Betty, the Chinese one or the Black one. Aside from the page with Black Betty, there is no other Betty Ong — black, yellow or white — in the 1973 yearbook.

If our Betty Ong was there, she certainly kept a low profile. She did not play any varsity sports, no musical instrument. She did not sing in a choir. She was not in the Spanish club or the debate club… Well, there are a lot of people like that, who just do their course work and do not participate in any extra-curricular activities, but I felt it was still worth looking.

Betty, oh, Betty… where are you?

Finally, it occurred to me that if somebody was a senior in 1973, that person would be in their junior year in 1972 and would usually appear in the 1972 yearbook as a junior.

So I scanned the 1972 yearbook. It turns out that there is no Betty Ong at all there of any color of the rainbow. However, the two people who flank Black Betty in the 1973 yearbook photo, Wayne Ogawa and Betty Ow, both appear in the 1972 yearbook. Here is the relevant page:

Here is a close-up of the relevant part of the page.

Note that there is an extra unaccounted for person, one “Oka, L.”, in between Wayne Ogawa (whose name contains a typo here) and Betty Ow. However, I finally did account for him. That is clearly Lawrence Oka, who, it turns out, graduated in Spring of 1973. He is both on the sfgenealogy.org list and in the 1973 yearbook as being part of the Spring 1973 class. I infer that, at this point, he was slated to graduate in Fall of 1973 but must have then assumed an extra heavy course load in order to graduate finally on time with the Spring 1973 class.

That is a little wrinkle, but Ogawa and Ow are exactly where one one would expect, listed as being in the class of Fall 1973 in both the 1972 and 1973 yearbooks. But what about Black Betty?

Well, on the list of the Spring 1973 graduating class in the 1972 yearbook, there is a black girl listed as “Ole, V.”. Now, I would be the first to admit that these digitized photos are pretty grainy and it is certainly hard to swear that “Ole, V.” from the 1972 yearbook is the same person as the Black Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook. However, I think finally it must be the same person. In the intervening year, she would have changed her hair and lost some baby fat in the face.

Though I am not 100.0% certain, and it is not a sine qua non either, there are some strong indications. For one thing, “Ole, V.”, unlike the previous people, Ogawa, Oka and Ow, does not appear in the 1973 yearbook. Granted, she could have transferred to another school or dropped out entirely. Everything is possible. However, the simplest explanation is that she is in fact the black girl who is labeled as “Betty Ong” in the 1973 yearbook. Note that the surname “Ole” fits right between Ogawa and Ow and this seems like too neat to just be a coincidence.

By the way, I had never heard of the surname “Ole” before. It sounds vaguely Hispanic, but, in fact, it is a moderately common surname in Kenya.

So, this concludes the investigation of Betty Ong’s high school career. We can certainly say that Ron Unz’s conjecture proved wrong: getting one’s hands on the relevant high school yearbook certainly did not put to rest the doubts about Betty Ong. In fact, it looks quite unlikely that there was any Chinese ethnic student by the name of Betty Ong at George Washington High School in the early seventies. The one mention of a Betty Ong corresponds to the photo of a black girl, who is probably “Ole, V.” from the 1972 yearbook. Betty Ong’s name does appear on this Spring 1973 graduating list but, as I point out above, the name is pretty clearly inserted.

Concluding Remarks

Not to worry, dear reader. I am looking for professional help to cure me of my Betty Ong obsession. I hope you find it in yourself to feel some sympathy for me. It is a hell of a thing to become obsessed with a figment of other people’s collective imagination. Maybe my caregiver will tell me that it is best to shift my obsession over from “Chinese Betty” to “Black Betty”. I think the latter is, at least, a real person, and she could perfectly well still be alive, though her real name is not Betty Ong, of course. And most likely, her last name is not “Ole” either. She likely married at some point and that would now be her maiden name.

Last year, I wrote a detailed article, part of which was devoted to minutely dissecting the story of a brawl in the Russian Arctic that apparently never happened. I received the criticism from various people, Ron Unz himself among them, that I had devoted a ridiculous amount of energy to debunking some insignificant little story. Well, that point may be well taken. We are so inundated with bullshit and a brawl that certainly never happened and now, a Chinese ethnic flight attendant who probably never existed maybe don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

But… to such a critique, I would say we have to start somewhere. The real goal is for people to understand, at long last, the difference between real, established facts and storytelling. When we learn that these things are not real, it should really not even come as such a surprise.

After all, there is no particular reason for a character in a fictional narrative to be real. As I recall, in some of the Sherlock Holmes stories, real historical figures, such as Queen Victoria, do make their appearance. However, that is more the exception than the rule. That Sherlock Holmes and Watson and an entire cast of less important characters are not real should surprise no one.

Thus, the flight attendant, Betty Ong, who appears in a fictional narrative we were presented shortly after 9/11/2001 could still be a real person, since a character in a fictional narrative could still be based on a real person. I am still not expressing any absolute certainty over this, and anyway, given all the absurdities and plot holes in the 9/11 narrative, one fake Chinese ethnic flight attendant is really quite minor.

I still tend to believe that there was a real person by the name of Osama Bin Laden. However, if somebody made the case that the person never even existed, I would carefully listen to the arguments. It is really not such a crazy idea. It’s mostly just storytelling, after all. Besides, what’s the difference anyway? If he didn’t exist, then they would have had to invent him!

Now, time for the the closing credits and theme music….

Jonathan Revusky’s website is: HeresyCentral.com

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 9/11, American Media, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 1332 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. If you google for Betty Ong, you find this

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/22128600/harry-ong

    and this

    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Betty-Ong-s-family-remembers-2310213.php

    (and probably much more, I only looked for about a minute or so).

    On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
    Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

  2. after a rather uneventful life in which she never married or had children or, apparently, much of a social life,

    She had a fiancee though:

    http://www.eagletribune.com/news/betty-ong-five-months-after-sept-memory-of-fiancee-still/article_9e014444-65fc-5653-afd4-66319170a59b.html

    Again, this person is fully named, with his place of residence back in 2002.

    Also here, article from 2011:

    http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/local_news/ong-family-returns-to-andover-to-honor-sister-lost-on/article_bfc710b7-e2a1-5d2c-b9fc-ef003892ab94.html

    And finally here:

    http://www.andoverata.com/about-us/robert-landrum/

    Yeah, so much for “no one knew Betty Ong”.

  3. Anonymous[225] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    I used to work federal background investigations for a three-letter agency. I had a federal badge and creds. I uncovered a lot of fabricated biographies, identities and information. Individuals need a past. Where were they born? Where did they live? Where did they go to school? It’s hard for certain three-letter agencies to create such a fabricated past like Revusky investigated. OTOH, it’s easy for them to create recent history like the stuff you linked to. Revusky needs to do some gumshoe work now.

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    , @Joe Wong
  4. Frankie P says:

    Jonathan Revusky,

    Did you make the apology in a personal correspondence? If so, why? The threat to dox him was public, why isn’t the apology also public?

    Frankie P

    • Replies: @Herald
    , @Hunsdon
  5. j2 says:
    @German_reader

    I am no Sherlock, but do you not find those two web pages contradictory? According to the first, Harry Ong (Betty’s father) died in 2007, but in the second link he is in 2011 saying is it ten years already.

    The first link says that Harry died in 2007 at the age of 85:
    Harry Ong, Sr
    Birth 1921
    China
    Death 24 Feb 2007 (aged 85–86)

    The second link:
    Betty Ong’s family remembers
    9/11 A DECADE LATER Flight attendant was first to alert ground crews of hijacking
    By Kevin Fagan
    Published 4:00 am, Sunday, September 11, 2011
    Harry, this time 63 years old, says
    “Ten years. … I can’t believe it’s been 10 years,” said Harry Ong, 63. “Seems like yesterday.”

    As for me, I rather doubt the 9/11 story and the phone calls that were made. I am not flabbergasted by this article with excellent detective work. (are you picking up these words from Thesaurus?)

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Che Guava
  6. Erebus says:
    @German_reader

    … his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

    Bollocks.
    Forty year old high school yearbooks is exactly where one would go for the true antecedents of a narrative if one is to assess whether it’s been doctored. I have little doubt that a hard copy would cement Jonathan’s findings. IOW, we’d find black girl named V. Ole, and no Betty Ong or B. Ong.

    I remember the Betty Ong here exchange well, and I remember Ron Unz’s challenge equally well.

    Well, if Betty Ong isn’t listed in that 1974 high school graduation yearbook, I’ll be hugely surprised, and a serious investigation will be warranted. And if she turns out to be fictional, I’ll be *utterly* astonished, and the entire gigantic “9/11 conspiracy” might suddenly begin to collapse.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/#comment-1476576

    Given Jonathan’s work here adds volumes to the rather odd paucity and banality of information about her and her life, anyone who’d “be hugely surprised” by her absence in the Yearbook, and then “be *utterly* astonished” if she turned out to be fictional should be taken aback. He’s well on the way to the latter. There appears to be nothing concrete about her. Nearly 3 decades before her 15 minutes of fame, she’s as illusory as she is after.
    I’d say that, as “a serious investigation” isn’t in the cards, only a running leap of faith can bring one to a real Betty Ong fit for the role she is said to have played.

    The question now falls on Ron. Following Putin’s words, “Do you hear us (truthers) now?”

    Anyway, congratulations Jon, and good on ya!
    FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.
    IOW, the idea that the name got replaced is probably on the money. Getting the background and lighting right on a dropped in photo would take skills I don’t have, but a pro would. I guess a pro wasn’t available.

  7. One cannot make phone calls with a mobile phone from a passenger plane, as MH370 demonstrated.
    The second pilot tried to use his phone, made contact, but when he began to speak the plane already was too far from the ground antennae.
    The software is too slow, it functions with cars and trains.

    In the Hollywood movie over the Pennsylvania plane, that never crashed there, according to the coroner it ‘atomised’ in the air, therefore the inflight phones were used.

    Then the question how the fake phone conversations could be, well, long before Sept 11 the USA already had voice cloning sofware, the software makes it possible after just a short time of recording of any voice, to construct any message.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  8. Tyrion 2 says:
    @German_reader

    “Research” lol.

    Never has such a self-indulgent, rambling and pointless fantasy been spun by a guy recounting little more than a few ineffectual Google searches from his Ipad in his basement.

    The film noir-style narration is particularly pathetic.

    Also, note Revusky, there is nothing strange about normal humans with normal emotional ranges appearing ecstatically happy a few days after their child has been murdered. Anymore than it would be weird to see someone sob at their own wedding or birth of their child. Any non-autist can tell you this

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  9. Ngo Ng says:

    If you are not on anti-psychotic meds, you should begin taking them. If you are on anti-psychotic meds, you should immediately stop taking them.

    Michelle Malkin’s blabberwith is more relevant than your “I myself” misadled sloppiness. In fact, Trump makes more sense than you. By the way my one really born in Ireland Irish friend adopted a child from Asia (so you can understand, the child is actually an asian) and the rest you can try to imagine.

    You must be a project of Ron’s (a Columbia graduate crack head in rehab type project) for him to put your nuttiness to this site.

    This will trip your wire, if 911 was a false flag operation, and Betty Ong “hersef” does not exist, why?

    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @Ngo Ng
    , @Bill Jones
  10. j2 says:
    @j2

    My error, the second is Harry Jr. Should read to the end. Betty Ong belonging to this family must have lived and had a childhood, but…

  11. El Dato says:
    @German_reader

    but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too

    Actually he has to convincingly show that these people exist and are indeed related to the late Ms Ong, FA on Flight 11.

    “Googling” does not give you convincing access to a base reality.

    Overall, this article sounds like good stuff, Fox Mulder sniffing around school yearbooks comes to mind. However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  12. @German_reader

    Well, your little ad hominem jab says a lot about your own objectivity and you spent a whole minute looking, clever you. The idea of a completely fabricated person might seem outrageous, and it does, but everything we’ve been told about 9/11 is outrageous, as in not believable, fabricated, fake, fraudulent.

    I for one am pleased that there are people still investigating the greatest crime yet least investigated crime of my lifetime and probably yours too. Not every lead in an investigation pans out but following all leads however improbable is what is required, especially since cracking open 9/11 would lead to the necessary outcry that might just wrest America from the evil that has infiltrated and is destroying it.

    • Replies: @Floda
  13. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:

    In fact, at the time Betty would have attended this school, there were two graduating classes per year: Spring and Fall. For example, the Spring and Fall of 1974 are available here and here.

    A search for the name “Betty” on the Spring 1974 list reveals two Bettys:

    Bettylou McAteer
    Betty Ng

    Quick wiki search of surname “Ng”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng_(name)

    Ng is a Cantonese, Shanghainese and Hakka transliteration of the Chinese surnames 吳/吴 (Pinyin transliteration for Mandarin equivalent: Wú) and 伍 (Mandarin Wǔ) meaning “five” or “troops”. In Hokkien (Taiwanese) and Teochew, Ng corresponds to the surname 黃/黄 (Mandarin Huáng) meaning “yellow”; or to 阮 (Mandarin Ruǎn).

    The surname is sometimes romanized as Ang, Eng, Ing and Ong in the United States and Ung in Australia.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
  14. Well, Jonathan, it never hurts to wonder about certain things, speaking of them is possibly another matter. I’m surprised it didn’t cross your mind the possibility Black Betty Ong did indeed exist but someone in the ‘story telling department’ wasn’t paying attention and assumed she was Asian (I don’t ascribe to this, I’ve no idea wtf is going on with ‘betty’.)

    Bin Ladin? There’s much more material to take apart:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/01/16/bin-ladin-the-fourth-estate/

    ^ No smoking gun but there’s this thing call ‘a preponderance of the evidence’

    • Replies: @Anon
  15. Brabantian says: • Website

    Italy’s former President, Francesco Cossiga, flat-out told Italy’s largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra, that major governments in Europe all privately know, that 9-11 was run by USA & Mossad

    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    , @Wade
  16. sarz says:
    @German_reader

    I looked up the SFGate article and saw the video. It’s odd that given the elaborate details connected with the woman, including pictures, there is no picture of the right person in the yearbook. All the more reason for the perps to have tried to patch up the story. Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction. I note the reporter, who gave his email address, is one Mr Fagan. Antisemite that I am, my thoughts turned to our Dickensian friend.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. “The one mention of a Betty Ong corresponds to the photo of a black girl, who is probably “Ole, V.””

    Nah, probably not. The two photos are of girls who don’t look alike, except for their “color” in a black and white format.

  18. llloyd says: • Website

    I just googled findagrave.com The grave is Betty Ong’s father. On second reading, I note his epitaph starts with a paragraph only about hero Betty in 911. It seems a tag. There is also a photograph of Betty. A family photograph appears to have young Betty at the back end. She appears to be missing an arm. I am not of course assuming anything.

  19. Unz is a generous and forgiving man.

    • Replies: @Billy B
  20. Tyrion 2 says:
    @anonymous

    Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

    https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

  21. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Are you 12 years old lol?

    So much faith you have in something digital that can EASILY be fabricated.

    You must not know how the internet works.

  22. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @sarz

    Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction.

    Only one??? There’s so many loose threads it’s insane that it still holds water in some people’s eyes.

  23. mp says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Betty Ong was Betty Ng…

    That blows my theory out of the water, that on picture day Betty was at home playing her violin and studying for the SAT. RIP Betty.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  24. Gordo says:

    There is something odd about 9/11, and something odd about missing gold reserves.

    But this article is just nonsense, and badly written nonsense at that.

  25. Joe Hide says:

    To the author,
    This is great work. Many authors simply list facts (which could be mis-information or dis-information). You carried us through your reasoning process like in an interesting dective story. You even added parts where you weren’t absolutely sure of your conclusions on Betty Ong, but that you sought out the most probable ones.
    Ron Unz should also be given creeps for asking you the right questions to lead you in the right directions of further research and thinking.
    Only downsides are length of this article… and in your previous article replies to obnoxious commenters, you used vulgarity
    Stick with the excellent vocabulary you have in your journalistic toolbox…and write more for us.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  26. Che Guava says:
    @j2

    Jonathon’s article is interesting, as are some of the rebuttals.

    I was suspicious about the phone call, too.

    After checking, it is not the illogical part of this story, there was such a service on this aeroplane.

    In the case of the one that was likely shot down by a fighter jet (and claimed to have been brought down by passengers overpowering the hijackers), the official narrative includes cellular-phone calls, not technically possible.

    For Linh via Jonathon, disappointed that I was not able to be there on Thu., did send e-mail, but know how these mini-package tours within east Asia work (very brief).

    Had put some thought into odd (almost or completely) tourist-free areas near or in Tokyo, timing, too bad.

    Jonathon, I now know what is the meaning of ‘gaslight’ as a verb. Thx.

  27. @Joe Hide

    To the author,
    This is great work.

    Thank you.

    in your previous article replies to obnoxious commenters, you used vulgarity

    I did? Really? I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    • LOL: iffen
  28. This is part of a larger aspect of these false flags, namely “vicsims”, victim simulations. There used to be a bunch of stuff on YouTube, not sure if MiniTrue has taken them down.

  29. @Tyrion 2

    Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

    Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

    Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don’t work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from “Ong”. This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

    Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, “Betty Ng” appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

    She also looks the same,

    LOL.

    Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

    Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5783448/betty-ann-ong/photo#view-photo=163120611

    The above photo is the Betty Ng from the 1974 yearbook. That is clearly not a younger version of Betty Ong the 9/11 flight attendant.

    https://www.google.es/search?q=betty+ong+9/11&client=opera&hs=L7Z&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqyb-HtMvaAhVLMewKHY_cBZUQ_AUICigB&biw=1240&bih=602

    Anyway, nice try….

  30. The attack on 911 was done by Israel and the deep state ziocons and no planes were used only holograms of planes, the WTC was hit with directed energy weapons and 7 WTC buildings were destroyed.

    The pentagon was a preplanted charge ie no plane or missile hit the pentagon.

    Check Dr. Judy Wood.com for details and check the youtube videos the John Lear.

  31. @mp

    Betty Ong was Betty Ng…

    No, Betty Ng is clearly not the same person.

    • Replies: @Client 9
    , @The Scalpel
  32. This is good clean fun hindered by a misconception. Ong is also an African name.

    forebears.io/surnames/ong

    The yearbook page could be genuine with the misdirection solely in the text bio.

  33. @Tyrion 2

    Nailed it.

    Most likely, V. Ole is the “Black Betty”, whose picture is out of order.

    As the misspelling of “Ogawa” shows (and a casual glance at most journalism shows), editors and journalists make mistakes all the time. It is a mistake for the rest of us to parse their work as if it were scripture with hidden meanings.

  34. George says:
    @German_reader

    Thank you for posting that. As near as I can see Betty Ann Ong does have some sort of backstory that can be verified. There may be an explanation for the year book discrepancy.

  35. Anonymous[494] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Well, that is just a guess though. It is another angle that needs to be investigated, but your drawing a conclusion that is pure speculation with no research done.

  36. Why is the disclaimer at the start of the article inside quotation marks? Does that mean we are not supposed to take it at face value?

  37. utu says:

    I remember Ludlum novel where the agency behind changing or creating identity changed entries in the yearbook as well. And this was before internet. Revusky should get a hold of the hard copy.

    What about this? Betty Ong existed in 1973/4 and she was Black. The Asian Betty Ong in 1973/4 did not exist because she went by the name Betty Ng which apparently exist in the yearbook.

  38. gdpbull says:
    @German_reader

    Good points German Reader. There are a lot of readers and some authors here with loose screws in their heads.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  39. My takeaway from all this is that by 1974 George Washington High School was already 3/4 Asian.

    Barely any Latins, though.

    Judging by the Wikipedia page, the only change since the 1970s is that Latins have replaced most of the whites.

  40. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    It may be that the family (or some of them) decided later to change the spelling of their last name from Ng to Ong.

    Ng is awkward because most people in the U.S. would expect to see a vowel in a last name.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  41. The transformation of the Ole girl to the Ong girl in one year is very strange.
    l wondered how nobody managed to contact any of the classmates to find the reality.’

    german reader : In comment 1. harry Ong is her father. In Comment2. Harry Ong is her brother, but german reader from Homeland security does not mention reasons.

    Tyron at comment 20. showed similarity between the Ng girl and the photo published of betty Ong.
    I still say surely someone can find the classmates and end the mystery.

    My punt is that the write is on the ball. there is no Betty Ong.
    The evidence for the false flag twin towers is overwhelming

  42. deschutes says:
    @DESERT FOX

    Hopefully you’re kidding, right? Otherwise you might want to change your moniker to ‘Desert Asshat’ or something similar. Would fit better.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  43. her ostensible family

    Someone has certainly gone to a lot of trouble to conjure out of nothing this “ostensible” family.

    Harry Ong, Sr. Passed away peacefully at home on Feb. 24, with his loving family by his side. Harry Sr., 86, was the beloved husband of Yee Gum Oy, and would have been married 59 years in March. Loving father to Harry Jr. and Dorothy Ong, Cathie Ann and Edward Herrera, Gloria Ann Ong-Woo, and Betty Ann Ong, [!!!] who predeceased him. Cherished grandfather to Dean and Kameron Joelson, Matthew Ong, Lauren Woo and Austin Woo. Also survived by many loving families and friends and will be greatly missed by all. Relatives and friends are cordially invited to attend a Visitation on March 9 from 6pm to 8pm, and Funeral on March 10 at 10am, both at the Tiffany Chapel at Cypress Lawn Funeral Home, 1370 El Camino Real, Colma, CA. Interment , Cypress Lawn Cemetery in Colma, CA. The family would also like to thank Dr. Bertrand Tuan and the wonderful staff of Pacific Hematology Oncology, San Francisco, CA. In lieu of flowers, donations would be sincerely appreciated for the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, P.O. Box 1108, Bakersfield, CA 93302.

    Published in San Francisco Chronicle from Mar. 4 to Mar. 5, 2007

    If Betty Ann Ong didn’t exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Meimou
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  44. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It may be that the family (or some of them) decided later to change the spelling of their last name from Ng to Ong.

    While this (possibly) accounts for a change in spelling, the photograph in the yearbook looks rather different from the later “Betty Ong” pictures.

    Obviously, some people must know what became of the original “Betty Ng.”

    Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Anon
  45. The below article leads one to assume that Betty Ong is not the 1st person to have been created by the Deep State.

    “I taught at Columbia for 46 years,” Graff told Root. “I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American History and Diplomatic History, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”
    Graff further added that none of his colleagues remembered Obama either. He said he was upset that Obama was called “the first President of the United States from Columbia University.”
    The former university professor further cast doubt on Obama’s presence at Columbia in an interview with WND and said, “Nobody I knew at Columbia ever remembers Obama being there.”

    https://www.earnthenecklace.com/fact-check-columbia-university-professor-henry-graff-obama/

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  46. Surely there must be a 1973 graduates who would, or would not, have a memory of Betty.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  47. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:

    “Duping delight” is what E. A. Poe diagnosed as the American delight in “diddling.” See his essay thereon, as well as Melville’s The Confidence Man, and, in an analysis of the finale of Mad Men, “Don Draper’s Last Diddle,” here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/05/don-drapers-last-diddle/

  48. @deschutes

    Serious, do some research , for instance John Lear the son of William Lear of the Lear Jet, explains why no planes hit the WTC twin towers, and Dr. Judy Wood explains how the WTC twin towers steel dissipated with virtually nothing remaining via directed energy weapons.

    Do a search on April Gallup a pentagon employee who walked out through the hole in the pentagon, there was neither a plane nor a missile involved , it was a prewired explosion. There is a lot more to investigate if you want the truth and Israel and the ziocons did it.

    As in all the deep state false flags, none dare call it conspiracy, call it the truth.

    • Replies: @nsa
  49. utu says:

    Christine Leinonen

    The crisis actors meme became quite popular among Youtube Yahoos (also called falseflaggots) who after every terrorist or mass shooting event end up searching for the crisis actors in available video footages. Usually it takes them just few hours after an event to proclaim that they found some crisis actors. The alleged crisis actors often will be the only “evidence” they will have “proving” the “falseflagginess” or “hoaxness” of the event.

    The Youtube Yahoos base their conclusions on their idea how people should or should not express or act out their emotions like in the case of Christine Leinonen who according to Youtube Yahoos did not express her grief according to Youtube Yahoos’ idea about grief manifestation.

    Where do the Youtube Yahoos get their idea how grief is expressed and manifested? Obviously from movies, sitcoms and soaps where these emotions are countlessly acted by actual actors who learned to act them based on other actors not the reality, extreme method actors excepted who may go to funerals to observe people. The emotion of grief for any singular person is rare and any person has only few occasions in her lifetime to observe them in reality while she sees them all the time in the virtual reality acted by actors. If you watch TV you can see it several times a day.

    Basically what Revusky is telling us is that Christine Leinonen did not act as actresses he saw in the movies and soaps on TV. He claims that Christine Leinonen acted artificially unlike the actresses on TV.

    Revusky, when you watch your favorite soap try to keep in mind that what you see is not real. I know it might be hard for somebody who is consumed by his favorite soap but it is prerequisite for somebody who tries to parse the surrounding reality.

  50. MarkU says:
    @DESERT FOX

    I agree that 9/11 was a false flag operation but I cannot agree with most of the rest of your comment. Dr Judy Wood was interviewed by Dr Greg Jenkins, resulting in one of the the most unimpressive interviews in world history.

    I was actually interested in what Judy Wood might have to say but after watching this display of clueless bumbling evasion, I was more than half convinced that Judy Wood was herself perpetrating a a false flag operation, an exercise in misdirection intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Only one of the people in the interview sounds even remotely like a scientist, and it isn’t Judy Wood. It is also notable that totally unlike Dr Steven Jones, Judy wood did not lose her job (at least when last I heard)

    If anybody can watch this video and find her performance even vaguely convincing, I would be astonished.

    • Agree: Wade
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    , @NoseytheDuke
  51. Client 9 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Have you thought about contacting “Betty Ong’s” former classmates?…Of course you have ;)

  52. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    “Ng is awkward because most people in the U.S. would expect to see a vowel in a last name.”

    Also because it looks and perhaps sounds like….

    After all, people get upset if you say ‘niggardly.’

    OTOH, I’ve personally never come across anyone who was “Ong, nee Ng”.

    And what about Ong’s Hat, NJ?

  53. @Carroll Price

    It’s more accurate to state that the article tells the side of the story that includes the words of Professor Graff, then goes on to claim that Obama did indeed attend Columbia and that this and other Obama “conspiracies” have all been debunked, etc.

    This is what Wayne Allen Root wrote on the subject:

    http://humanevents.com/2013/04/14/obamas-plan-to-destroy-america-hatched-at-columbia-university-says-classmate/

    https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/ghost-of-columbia-part-ii-legendary-columbia-professor-never-heard-of-obama

    I would really prefer that Barack Obama never actually existed at all, but nobody can convince me that he doesn’t exist, though he’s obviously a fake on many levels.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  54. @Tyrion 2

    And once again Revusky is shown to be a total loon.
    I was indeed being generous when I referred to his “research”.
    Thanks to you and to “anonymous [307]“!
    Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky’s embarrassing screeds.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  55. @MarkU

    Recommend the book Alice In Wonderland and the World Trade Center by David Icke , can be had on amazon.com, and check the archives at Henrymakow.com, and Rense.com and Whatreallyhappened.com, and Veteranstoday.com, and David Icke.com, etc., etc., the truth is out there.

    The attack on 911 proved that Israel controls the U.S. gov.

    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
  56. @Rhett Hardwick

    Surely there must be a 1973 graduates who would, or would not, have a memory of Betty

    Yes, and a real “reporter” would have made an effort to contact them. As well, of course, as her numerous family members whose names are public.

  57. @German_reader

    I don’t have a photo in my university yearbook. I( do appear in a list of the “camera shy” towards the end of the yearbook, however. Every yearbook that I’ve ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn’t seem to have considered this or checked it out.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  58. @Tyrion 2

    You are an idiot. Tears of joy at a happy event are one thing. But no normal person laughs after the death (traumatic or otherwise) of a loved one, much less launch in public policy talking points, as seems to happen after all of these events.

    • Disagree: Tyrion 2
  59. @German_reader

    Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky’s embarrassing screeds.

    Does one get paid for writing on Unz? I know Ron’s got money to waste, but he I’m sure he could find a better use for it.

    • Replies: @Muse
    , @NoseytheDuke
  60. @anonymous

    I think you, once again and like so many others, have made a fool of Mr. Revusky.

  61. Mulegino1 says:

    There is no proof that any Boeing 767 struck the Twin Towers. Sure, there is the impossible Hezarkhani footage violating the most fundamental laws of physics, and the numerous “Holy sh-t!” videos featuring the same screaming female banshee, but these are about as plausible as what they are purported to show, namely a mostly hollow, light, thinly skinned and fragile cylinder and even more fragile wings- effortlessly penetrating massive structural steel perimeter columns and concrete floor plans. This does not and cannot happen in the real world. Commercial airliners are not warplanes and are not designed to withstand high speed collisions with anything harder than thin air at cruising altitudes of 35,000 feet of elevation.

    The authentic and real time footage from Chopper 4- with an excellent panoramic view of the Twin Towers shows there was no airliner that struck WTC 2.

    Betty Ong may just as well be named Comrade Ogilvy.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  62. @Jonathan Revusky

    You’re an idiot, Revusky. Just give it up will you. A few minutes work by annonymous has demolished your whole nutcake theory. Any reasonable person can see that for themselves.

    • Replies: @Herald
  63. @gdpbull

    Why? Because they doubt the official narrative of 9-11?

  64. The auction price of Ram Jam’s old vinyl-release copies of “Black Betty” remains stable at $0.99.

  65. Ben Gunn says:

    I can’t believe I read through this tripe. High is four years. The first thing to do is check the previous yearbooks for her picture and other info. Chess club, events, or whatever she might be involved with. Obsession is a mental illness: Webster – a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling

    • Replies: @Herald
  66. @Jonathan Revusky

    I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding. But you mention that once a family decides on a spelling they’re pretty consistent with it. Well, not always.

    Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers. (Many will adopt traditional English names over their birth names in later life. Less common, though not unheard of, is changing the spelling to emphasize its ethnic character.) And it isn’t uncommon for them to change around the spelling of their surnames either. This may be done by the family as a whole or, as occurs more often, by a single member. In fact, I actually knew a girl in high school who changed the spelling of her surname from “Ong” to “Ng” when she went from her sophomore to junior year.

    As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

    What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful, yet simultaneously careless, leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

    As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine. Therefore, the “falsity” of these calls must not be as obvious or plain as believed.

  67. Wally says:

    Speaking of “duping delight”, the fake testimonies of people in synthetic events:

    These lying ‘survivors’ are revealing in regards to the fake ’6,000,000, Jews’ / impossible ‘gas chambers’. These examples are a mere drop in the ocean of the endless, impossible, contradictory lies that are all about the minds of perverted liars, nothing more:

    - According to acclaimed & so called “holocaust eyewitness” Henryk Tauber, corpses could be cremated in 5-7 minutes.
    If you question that in many countries you will be imprisoned.

    - “holocaust $urvivor” Irene Zisblatt, repeatedly eating and defecating several diamonds daily over the course of 18 months, escaping from not one, but two gassing chambers at the last second, or her claim that she and many other inmates were forced to stand for days on end in ankle-deep water, laden with urine and feces. She was also chosen for “eye color change” experiments and her blemish-free skin was destined to be used to make lamp shades — but she was able to avoid such fate for reasons she is uncertain of.

    - Jew ‘Freddie the Pimp’ ate human flesh to survive Auschwitz

    - The SS officer [who] was probably a doctor, dressed in white robe, shoved an iron stick, which had a handle on its end, right into my rectum. He then turned the stick and caused an involuntary ejaculation of sperm. A female SS officer [who] worked with the other officer held two pieces of glass underneath my genitals in order to collect a sample of my sperm for the lab. They then made me stand up on a special machine that gave electric waves to both sides of my genitals until again a sperm was ejaculated.

    -Me and a Jewish American (a watchmaker, passport from the USA) were subjected to medical experiments. SS German Shepherd dogs, belonging to the commander of the SS Obersturmfuehrer Rosenbaum, with a special poison on their teeth … we had to run [and] the dogs had to chase us. Afterwards they examined our wounds, the blood. A doctor … ripped the flesh of my legs and examined it. I was able to escape. First to a peasant in a village—afterwards to friends of mine in Krakow.

    much, much more here:
    the so called ‘Holocaust’ / theatre of the absurd

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66

    http://www.codoh.com

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @Uebersetzer
  68. @Erebus

    I remember the Betty Ong here exchange well, and I remember Ron Unz’s challenge equally well.

    Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

    But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

    Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: “If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I’ll eat my hat!”

    And there’s also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. “Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da.” And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

    But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That’s obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

    In case anybody’s wondering (I guess they would be…) Ron has not reached the “acceptance phase” on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day — maybe like the person claiming that this “Betty Ng” is really Betty Ong. But that’s a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That’s not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl’s name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

    FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

    Wow, that’s pretty interesting.

    Now, to be clear, figuring out who “Black Betty” is, that’s not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled “Betty Ong” in the 1973 yearbook, then that’s kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

    Obviously, the black girl labeled as “Betty Ong” cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 — whoever she is… My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong’s existence.

    By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn’t even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

  69. @Jonathan Revusky

    My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text.

    All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???
    I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$. Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

  70. Facebook has a page dedicated to Betty Ong with post from many former classmates who seem to know her:

    Gwhs Reunion Page
    March 30 at 1:14pm ·
    EAGLES! EAGLES!! CALLING ALL EAGLES!!!
    We are still playing catch up on our Celeb Birthdays. We most certainly did not mean to omit our Eagle Angel, Betty Ong.
    Betty was the Flight Attendant wno was first to notify ground crew that the flight was being taken over by terrorists on 9.11.01. Let’s honor her memory with a moment of silence, wherever you are. Bettys’ family has established a foundation in her memory, also. Betty loved chidren. Check out the The Betty Ann Ong Foundation.” Her family has included information here, in this post. Come on Eagles, let’s show our respect and that Eagle pride. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Betty!!
    Class of 1973
    February 5, 1956–September 11, 2001
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAGLE SPIRIT…EAGLE PRIDE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [MORE]

    Betty Ann Ong was born on February 5, 1956 in San Francisco, California, USA to Harry Ong, Sr., and Yee-gum Ong. Betty had three siblings: brother Harry Ong and sisters Cathie Ong Herrera and Gloria Ong Woo.
    Betty grew up in San Francisco’s Chinatown and graduated from George Washington High School. Her family owned a grocery store on Jackson Street.
    Betty began her career as a flight attendant in 1987. Her professionalism and hard work later earned her the position of a Purser, a head flight attendant.
    At the time of her death, Betty lived in Andover, Massachusetts. On September 11, 2001, Ong assigned herself to American Airlines Flight 11, so she could meet up with her sisters. Betty and her sisters had planned a vacation to Hawaii.
    As the highjacking unfurled, Betty called in to American Airlines’ emergency line Betty was the first to contact any ground crew to notify them of the events taking place. She identified herself and alerted the supervisor that the aircraft had been hijacked. Along with fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney, she relayed the seat numbers of the hijackers. During her 23-minute call, she reported that none of the crew could open the cockpit door, passenger Daniel M. Lewin and two flight attendants had been stabbed and one of the hijackers had sprayed Mace in the first class cabin.
    On September 21, 2001, some 200 members of the Chinese American community in San Francisco gathered in a small park to pay tribute to Ong. Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, who was present, gave a proclamation honoring the people who died in the tragedy and called September 21 “Betty Ong Day”.
    Ong is also memorialized on Gold Mountain, a mural dedicated to Chinese contributions to American history on Romolo Place in North Beach, a street where she used to skateboard and play as a child. Betty loved children. In her memory, her family established “The Betty Ann Ong Foundation,” which was
    named in her honor. In 2011, the recreation center in San Francisco’s Chinatown, where she had played as a child, was renamed in her honor. Betty loved children.
    From the Ong family:
    On September 11, 2001 our family experienced a tragic event that will forever impact our lives. We all lost a wonderful daughter, sister, aunt, relative and friend in Betty when she died. At 45 years old, Betty was an active and happy young woman, living her life long dream of being a flight attendant/purser. Betty had a loving, caring nature and she always placed the needs of others before her own, never hesitating to lend a helping hand, express a kind thought, or share a heart felt chuckle. That’s just the way Betty was.
    Our family has spent almost 5 years adjusting our lives without Betty. For each of us that means something different, but for all of us it means missing her everyday. As we go through this difficult adjustment period the hardest part has been the realization that Betty is gone. We live every day believing that something good can be born out of this tragedy. That good is the Betty Ann Ong Foundation. The foundation’s goal is to serve as a helping hand for overweight and obese children.Betty believed that having a positive self-image and self-confidence at an early age was crucial to the development of a well adjusted individual. The message Betty shared with children whose lives she touched was that a positive “can do” attitude will always triumph over life’s setbacks and problems.
    Now, more than ever, the number of children who are overweight and obese is rising at a rapid rate. Obesity in children is a serious disease with many health and psychological-social related consequences. These consequences often continue into adulthood. Implementing prevention programs and working with children to promote lifelong physical activity and healthy eating habits are important in controlling this obesity epidemic.
    In memory of Betty, we ask for your generous support. A tax deductible donation to the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will help sponsor and send obese children to the Western Wellspring Adventure Camp this summer. Please help us help children build a positive self-image and self-confidence so that they can grow to become healthy, strong and productive individuals.
    Your generous support will make it possible for children to:
    1.learn about the positive benefits of healthy eating,
    2.engage in various physical activities in the great outdoors, and
    3.bond with a group of their peers facing and overcoming the same physical and emotional challenges of obesity.
    The cost of sending a child to camp is $4,950.00 and the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will endeavor to send as many children to camp as possible. We want to make it clear that our Foundation is extremely thankful for all contributions received and that every penny will be applied towards our endeavor.
    Please help us remember and honor Betty with your generous contribution and support to the Foundation.
    On behalf of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, I sincerely thank you.
    Cathie Ong-Herrera
    President/CEO
    Checks should be made payable to Betty Ann Ong Foundation and can be sent to the Foundation at:
    The Betty Ann Ong Foundation FEIN 56-2305946
    P.O. Box 1108
    Bakersfield, CA
    93302
    For those of you who wish to learn more about the Western Wellspring Adventure Camp, please log on to http://www.wellspringcamps.com.
    To request a copy of our 501 (c) (3) determination letter, you may do so by sending an email
    Betty Ong was played by Jean Yoon in the miniseries The Path to 9/11. At the National 9/11 Memorial, Ong is memorialized at the North Pool, on Panel N-74.
    Image may contain: 1 person, smiling
    Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing and suit
    Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling
    Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, closeup
    Like
    Show more reactions
    Comment
    Share
    101101
    9 Shares
    21 Comments
    Comments
    Barbara Danielle Colvin
    Barbara Danielle Colvin RIP
    1
    Manage
    LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3w
    Larry Barrera
    Larry Barrera Bless her
    1
    Manage
    LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3w
    Doris Kiesow Dunlap
    Doris Kiesow Dunlap Betty Ong was truly a hero.

  71. Meimou says:
    @El Dato

    However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

    You are asumming that the 911 conspirators would be perfectly logical and not make theses kind of mistakes. Besides, when you don’t fear prosecution you won’t be as circumspect as someone who does know matter how smart you are. Being on the inside looking out changes perspective.

    It wasn’t logical, or didn’t to a truther for the 911 conspirators to have some “random ” guy give a detailed account of how the twin towers collapsed(“mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense”) within minutes when it took NIST months to supposedly come to the conclusion that is was fire. Wouldn’t people how he knew so fast? Some did actually, but not the people who are in a position to dispense justice.

    1. In this video there is actually a man in a black suit that says “yeah” ending the interview.

    2. 3:37. Another explosion in a tower…after the plane hit.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  72. Muse says:
    @for-the-record

    The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

    There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

    God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

  73. @Jonathan Revusky

    I didn’t even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people [Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong]are all just crisis actors.

    Exactly, for all you know they are actors, since it appears you didn’t even make the slightest effort to contact them. And given that Cathie Ong-Herrera is the founder and president of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, that wouldn’t have been too difficult, would it?

    THE BETTY ANN ONG FOUNDATION
    P.O. Box 1108
    Bakersfield, CA
    93302

    http://www.bettyong.org/index.htm

    [email protected]

  74. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Let’s not forget that Ron Unz is generously maintaining this forum for free-ranging discussions, including publication of Jonathan Revusky’s article.

    Revusky has done good work advancing our understanding of a limited but important issue. This may in time lead to further insights.

    One thing that is striking is that (from memory) no contemporaneous media accounts seemed to refer to testimony from colleagues of Betty Ong with whom she would have worked for more than ten years. One would expect some testimony from long-standing colleagues recalling how Betty was always good company on those long night flights, how she dealt with an in-flight emergency, etc.

  75. I copied the photos of Betty Ng from the HS yearbook and Betty Ong the flight attendant, blew them up on Photoshop, and increased the contrast on the high school photo. The features line up very roughly, and both photos have an odd irregularity on the gum line of the front left incisor. But Betty Ong the flight attendant has a curved scar on her upper lip which is not on the high school photo. It almost seems to extend onto her lips. The forehead seems similar in both photos, but the overall face shape is very different, with the high school photo having squirrel cheeks, a wide nose, and a more pointed chin than the stewardess picture. If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery for harelip as a child, and her high school photo was airbrushed, then she went on to have a nose job and a chin implant and possibly liposuction of her cheeks. Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards. Those teeth look strangely similar to me, but my husband says Nah it’s not the same person.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  76. Meimou says:
    @DESERT FOX

    A false flag troll is a troll who pretends to be a member of a group he doesn’t belong to or have views he doesn’t subscribe to in order to put a group or a view in the worst light possible or to simply misrepresent that group or view to others.

    …somethimes people say things so silly that they merly appear to be ff trolls.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  77. Herald says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    What you are just saying is arrant nonsense and has a distinctly disingenuous feel to it. And rather like German Reader you come across as someone desperately trying to stop scrutiny of yet another strange and embarrassing flaw in the 911 official narrative. By god have you (official) types got your work cut out.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  78. Meimou says:
    @DESERT FOX

    Good old Judy Wood, i wonder when she’ll finish that website….it’s only been 10 years. At least.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  79. Yee says:

    “Ong” is a Malaysian Chinese spelling for surname “Wong”(王), not “Ng”.

    A “Ng” will not change their name to “Ong”, because the two are different names. They might change it to “Wu” if they don’t like “Ng”, but very few will do that, I believe.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  80. @Brabantian

    There is an inextricable tie.

  81. @Amilcaro Dolmech-Etxaurren

    Wow, your very first comment on this site! Congratulations!

    And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them….

    Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

    Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don’t change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You’re just talking shit.

    As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

    Oh really, huh? So you are saying that this person:

    certainly looks like a younger version of this person:

    Methinks you are either a blind man or a liar. (I’ll let other people set the betting odds on which is more likely.)

    That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

    Dumbshit, what I said was that the people in the Truth community generally consider the phone calls to be fake. That statement stands.

  82. Meimou says:
    @for-the-record

    If Betty Ann Ong didn’t exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

    Using that logic, the twin towers collapsed from weakened steel because millions of people can confirm that a fire can not make a building explode.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
  83. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Revusky has carefully analyzed a limited range of materials. At the very least, his observations demand some clarification.

    One limitation of this approach is obvious – the analysis is based on scanned versions of the yearbook. Revusky has not attempted to contact a classmate to inspect an original (printed) copy of the yearbook.

    If Ong really lived a normal life, she would have been known to neighbors and others who would have been shocked by her dramatic death and for that reason would clearly remember knowing her.

    She would also have registered as a voter, owned property, gone to aerobics classes, been a “beneficiary” of a $3.72 class action settlement, etc. Where are those records?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hibernian
  84. Mulegino1 says:

    Why should any official narrative- if manifestly true- need an army of “debunkers” to defend it?

    On the other hand, there are many official narratives which do have this need. The Shoah Business and the official account of 9/11 are excellent examples. The latter is easily falsifiable since it is confined to a few hours on a single day and in a few discrete locales, and it involves alleged events which range from the absurdly improbable to the absolutely impossible, and is sustained only by a media which is increasingly being exposed as not only deceptive, but outright mendacious and Orwellian in nature. By contrast, the former narrative is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination and almost impossible to falsify, since it appears to be infinitely malleable and protean and its venues extend over a wide range of time and space. But when reduced to the factual and provable, it also collapses as absurd and impossible.

    9/11 is America’s mini-Holohoax narrative. While the main event served as the engine to perpetually extort and guilt shame western, Christian Europe and to morally justify the expropriation of Palestine, the ancillary event served to galvanize the sheepish and somnolent American public into supporting wars to further that very same Zionist project.

    • Agree: Mike P
  85. nsa says:
    @DESERT FOX

    The picture of the initial 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade is still available on the internet. Supposedly it was caused by a low flying 757 striking the facade. So what happened to the wings, engines, fin, rudder, stab, elevators which could not possibly have fit through the hole? Where is the metal debris which should be plastered and sprinkled everywhere? Where are the cadavers and personal belongings? This is what full spectrum dominance and total information awareness looks like domestically……..

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    , @Si1ver1ock
  86. @German_reader

    All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

    Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to “Betty Ong”. In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don’t really know who did that. I said that clearly.

    Did you even read the article?

    I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

    Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it’s really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand’s worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

    Regardless, even if he didn’t learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It’s like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn’t learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

    But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that’s a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

    But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

    Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

    You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I’m as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

  87. @Wally

    As anyone in law enforcement will tell you, so-called “eye witness” testimony is the least reliable evidence in any criminal case and lawyers will turn to it only after having examined all the circumstantial evidence available.

    But I should amend that with the qualifier that only honest lawyers will examine the circumstantial evidence thoroughly. Lawyers with an axe to grind or those who are driven by unscrupulous motives will instead highlight easily-distorted, eye-witness testimony. Most left-wing causes are supported only by rumor, hearsay and the testimony of the so-called “victims”.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  88. My own 911 doubts are based on things like excessive heat. ( Molten concrete and evaporated steel.)

    Magic passports. The large hole in building 6.

    Four indestructible black boxes go into the towers, all of them completely destroyed. (Jesse Ventura did an interesting show on this issue)

    Failure to address a rogue airliner when it is clearly being tracked heading into D.C. restricted airspace. No air defense at all? Odd.

    Rerouting the air defense chain of command prior to 911, then changing it back the day after 911. Damn queer that.

    Rumsfeld announces trillions missing the day before the attack. On the day of the attack the accountants tracking the money are ground zero at the Pentagon.

    I have to say the the hole in Pennsylvania really doesn’t look like a large jet liner completely buried itself there. Can a jet liner really bury itself completely in the ground? Seems very odd.

    Complete news blackout, by the media.

    There may be answers to some of these things, but I haven’t heard them. I will say, I think a jet airliner did hit the Pentagon as opposed to a missile or drone. I have no idea why the FBI is still withholding video over a decade later.

    Revusky’s mention of Bin Laden is interesting. I have seen some evidence purporting to show that Tim Ossman was CIA cover name for OBL. I have never seen it confirmed or authenticated.

    I try not to obsess over these things nowadays, but the world has split into Truthers (like me) and Mythologists–those who believe in the Zelikow myths of 911.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  89. @Anonymous

    Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

    Well, sure, it’s of interest to figure out what elements of the story do check out. However, I do hope you understand that the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would no more prove that she is real than the existence of 221 Baker Street in London where Sherlock Holmes supposedly lived proves that individual’s existence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  90. @Herald

    It is always revealing how angry certain people get when an official narrative is challenged (be it 9-11 or the Holocaust).

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    , @Anon
  91. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman,

    It is true that Revusky has at times reacted somewhat impetuously, but nothing indicates that he is a “nutcase.” The article above is closely argued and its conclusions are well supported, WITHOUT exaggerated claims of certainty.

    but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too,

    You are missing the threshold question – how do we know that these people DO exist? Two or three paragraphs in a news account are easy to fake.

    Were/are these individuals registered as voters or property owners? Where do they live? Newspapers have no difficulty finding out in a matter of days that the suspect in a sensational criminal case had an assault conviction in Oklahoma in 1994, and was divorced in South Dakota in July 2002. A sophisticated system of “credit reporting” keeps track of residence addresses etc. throughout a person’s life, tied to Social Security numbers and financial records, and thus hard for individuals to fake.

    The ABSENCE of more detailed reports seems suspicious. Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

    his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

    Perhaps “German Reader” is not aware how Gunter Guillaume was unmasked as an East German spy who worked for years in the immediate entourage of West German chancellor “Willy Brandt” (né Herbert Frahm) in the 1970s. West German security services had decided to undertake a major project of verifying the records of all refugees from East Germany who had arrived in the chaos of the early 1950s – quite an undertaking in the pre-Internet age. Guillaume’s early records did not match his later claims.

    (It has been suggested that Willy Brandt knew at some level that Guillaume was an East German agent, just as FDR probably understood at some level that Harry Hopkins extraordinary energy and loyalty were due to the fact that he was an agent for Stalin. Foreign agents are definition committed to advancing and protecting the position of the politicians they serve as long as possible.)

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Anonymous
  92. @Muse

    Fine, I was just asking if he was paid for his ideas that are so deserving of consideration. If so, then I’ve got lots of ideas too.

  93. CMC says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Sisters Cathie and Gloria? Maybe they’re Catholic? Maybe there are baptism, communion, or confirmation records? Or maybe they were in some other religious denomination with something similar? Could be the basis for a new, double-or-nothing wager.

  94. @ThreeCranes

    It’s interesting that with 9-11 (and other false flags like OKC), eyewitness accounts that conflict with the official line are dismissed by the gatekeepers for just this reason, but with things like the Holocaust, the most absurd “survivor” accounts are expected to be accepted uncritically (since there is little other evidence).

    • Replies: @Wally
  95. @Meimou

    Using that logic, the twin towers collapsed from weakened steel because millions of people can confirm that a fire can not make a building explode.

    You lost me there. Her family does exist (until proved otherwise), how can this be compared to “millions of people” confirming something about a building?

    • Replies: @Meimou
  96. @Jonathan Revusky

    The man clearly lost

    No, he hasn’t, you haven’t disproven the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong (contrary to your claims “obviously not the same person!”, the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me).
    If you don’t clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

  97. @Jonathan Revusky

    “Pathetic kraut shithead” is a very accurate summation of the guy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  98. Here is Jesse Ventura in action. Asking commonsense questions.

  99. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Every yearbook that I’ve ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn’t seem to have considered this or checked it out.

    You see, the above is very typical of something that I was getting at in my article before this one. I referred to the “Culture of Bullshit.” You say that I don’t seem to have checked out this or that.

    First of all, how would you know what I have checked out or not?

    You see, the problem is that when you’re a bullshitter, you can’t really conceive of anybody else NOT being a bullshitter like you. So, since you never check any facts and just talk out of your ass, you figure that that is what I do, right?

    Wrong.

    I looked at all of this pretty exhaustively, the text-only class lists and everything. I can tell you that, aside from the black girl, who is labeled “Betty Ong” who I called “Black Betty”, there is no Betty Ong ANYWHERE in these yearbooks.

    Not only that, I really tried. I can tell you that there is no Beatrice Ong, there is no Bettina Ong….

    And I can tell you that the alleged siblings of Betty who are supposed to have gone to the same school are not in any yearbook either. So, her elder brother Harry Ong is not in any yearbook from the sixties.

    And again, I’m not fucking around…. I looked for Harry Ong and I looked for Harold Ong and Henry Ong too. Do you get it? You talk like everybody else is just a completely worthless bullshitter like you. But no, when I say there is no Betty Ong in any yearbook (except for that black girl!) I really scoured the thing and looked!

    Most of you guys simply cannot get your heads around this. Facts??!!! Checking facts???!!! Whoah, dude, what a trippy concept!!

  100. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I did give [Ron Unz] a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I I would say he would be getting his ten grand’s worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

    Ron Unz is being gracious enough to publish your piece here, thus demonstrating that he is open to real and vigorous discussion. Would you have published his piece if the positions were reversed?

    As for a “master class” – your piece above carefully considers the material and analyzes the findings. Ron Unz has quite a number of sophisticated publications to his name and certainly does not need any “class on the difference between real facts and storytelling” from you or anyone else.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  101. @Anonymous

    Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

    Because she was just one of almost 3000 9/11 victims and her life had been completely ordinary before 9/11?
    Besides, there are several newsstories of the “Betty Ong remembered” kind, if you look at post 2 in this thread, I linked to one from 2011 which also features Betty Ong’s former fiancee (a certain Robert Landrum who even today is easily googleable as involved with some karate studio in Andover, Massachusetts).
    And the first story I linked to in post 2 has this about her:
    “An avid collector of Beanie Babies toys and Barbie dolls”

    At the very least, Revusky’s claims “Betty Ong doesn’t feel like a real person, no mention of relatives, romantic partners or hobbies” is manifestly untrue. Even casual googling refutes Revusky’s claims.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  102. Herald says:
    @Ben Gunn

    You intimate that obsession is doing research into 911.

    Then as such, it is legitimate to assume, that by reading and responding to this article, that you are also 911 obsessed. Though your preoccupation seems to in keeping the always dodgy but now crumbling official narrative intact. Now that really is very sad.

  103. Herald says:
    @Frankie P

    Not at all relevant to this article.

  104. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Rubbish. Apart from arrangements to provide for use of mobile phones and internet on long distance flights in recent years there is every likelihood of being close enough to a transmission tower in the NE of the US.

  105. Meimou says:
    @Amilcaro Dolmech-Etxaurren

    Amilcaro Dolmech-Etxaurren
    I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding.

    Lets me guess: “contradictory reality” is the official narrative right? It’s what we’re supposed to believe because the “experts”/government/MSM/establishment say so?

    The problem with “contradictory reality”(the official narrative) is that it is often wrong. The ON holds that the twin towers collapsed because of a office fire. That’s it. An office fire. The ON doesn’t mention an explosion, the only thing that could haved can pulverized metal and concrete in midair and push them away from ground zero. No, just a humble office fire. Pseudo Skeptics/dubunkers don’t have to explain how a fire made a building explode because “contradictory reality” doesn’t aknowlage it.

    What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful…

    Mass strawman. The “conspiracy theorist”(those who don’t subscribe to the official narrative) do not have a monolith belief in an all powerful government or all powerful alphabet agencies.

    ….yet simultaneously careless…

    911 was arguably the most complex black operation in history, at least that we know of, inside job or not. Mistakes would be made. You Winston Smiths can’t acknowledge it because you would have to admit that a ragtag group of goat [email protected] got the best of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NORAD, ect. No, in your mind the gfers just got lucky over a dozen times – assuming you accept that they lucked out 12 times. Do you? Nah.

    …leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

    Pseudo Skeptics are no more pretentious than I am sarcastic.

    As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

    Another mass strawman. You could feed alot of bulls with all that, and I’m sure you’ll enjoy eating what comes out in the end. It wouldn’t be the first time: JFK,OKC,911, Assad chemical attacks.

    The fact that most people believe the calls to be genuine doesn’tmean much considering that most people(at the time) believed the 911 official story

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    , @Anon
  106. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Very wise of you to stick to the only strategy that doesn’t prove at length that you are a dimwitted and offensive fool: that is to prove it as a man of few words.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  107. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    If you don’t clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

    What’s with the personal animosity? Revusky comes across as impetuous, but this does not make him a “con man.” It cannot be easy to con Ron Unz in general. Here, everyone has access to the same information, so we have a level playing field.

    It is true that the Ng/Ong issue needs to be addressed in more detail. But this does not detract from the fact that Revusky seems to have found a striking inconsistency in the yearbooks concerning “Betty Ong.” Remember that the premise is that the Chinese Betty Ong attended the specific high school during the specific period in question. Was her father (Harry Ong) registered as a voter around that time? Did Betty Ong herself register to vote, e.g. at her parents’ address? Same questions for Betty Ng.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
  108. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You pose a lot of questions and possible investigations. You obviously have the time so why not make up for Revusky’s deficiencies and make some of the obvious inquiries. Try birth, marriage and death certificates for a start and births, deaths and marriages as personal ads. The telephone isn’t a bad research tool too…People often have numbers that predate any temptation to invent the person.

  109. @Mulegino1

    a mostly hollow, light, thinly skinned and fragile cylinder and even more fragile wings- effortlessly penetrating massive structural steel perimeter columns and concrete floor plans

    The skin may be thin and fragile, but the 767-200 itself weighs 130 tons, and its load-bearing elements must be strong enough to support that weight, transferring the lift from the wings to the fuselage. This massive structure slammed into a building at hundreds of mph.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  110. @German_reader

    the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong

    You consider it plausible that this person’s name was misspelt in exactly the same way in consecutive yearbooks? AND on the graduating class list from Spring 1974 as well? They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

    Also, why is Betty Ong’s name clearly inserted in the Spring 1973 graduating class list? And this time spelled correctly as O-N-G?

    the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me

    They do, huh? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? If so, have you had your eyes checked recently?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  111. @Meimou

    Good reply, but a nitpick: Winston Smith actually knew something was wrong and, although he ultimately failed, did rebel/resist in some way. The hysterical gatekeepers who crop up here are more like Smith’s neighbor, Parsons, a militantly stupid man whose only joy in life was regurgitating The Party’s lies.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  112. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yee

    Her Chinese surname is “邓/鄧”, not “王”.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  113. Meimou says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    To be fair you must have a rather
    high IQ to agree with Amilcaro Dolmech-Etxaurren…

    but the first photo is in black and white and grainy. The next photo is in color and in better res, so I focus on the features that minimizes the difference in quality.

    The shape of the nose, size of the forehead, look of the cheekbones seem the same. I’m as certain as i can be that the first is younger version of the second considering things.

  114. Rdm says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t tell if the Betty Ong is a factitious hero or a real person existed. However I do like to to point out a few facts here in your analysis.

    1. You followed a trail, i.e., the last or surname Ong. This could be a holy grail or rabbit trail to a hole. Asians tend to change their surname over time which oftentimes makes Westerners befuddled with their last name. Ong can also be Ng, the surname that are very prevalent in Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Singapore, originally from Cantonese speaking part of China. A similar befuddling spelling can also be found in Jackie Chan. Although Jackie uses his last name 陳 as Chan, others use it as Chen. Min-nan speaking Chinese diaspora use as Tan. In their mind, Ng, Ong doesn’t matter, neither do Chan, Chen, Tan. As long as they remotely relate to their last name in Mandarin, Chinese people will use it either one in English.

    The bottom line is, your might be missing out when you followed your trail of Ong all along with an obsession on O. You didn’t expand your research.

    2. 1973 or 74 graduation year with let’s say 2000, give or take 5 years, which makes the time difference is about 25 years. You expect to see the same person facial features? I agree that we could at least tell if the person is the same by looking at two photos. But it’s usually difficult when you compare high school picture with an adult picture where people usually grow really differently. After my high school and went to college, I occasionally visit my high school teachers. Every time I visited, they all mentioned I completely changed my facial structures with more jaw bones sticking out.

    Even with your Black Betty Ong photo in 1973 with spectacles and Ole V. photo in 1972 without spectacles, I still can’t see if they are the same person. The only thing that stand out is both were Black female. Maybe I can’t differentiate Blacks enough? Or I honestly don’t think they are the same person. Enlighten me how to differentiate other races like Sherlock Holmes.

    3. I didn’t have my picture in my high school year book. I intentionally chose not to be a part of it when you feel like you get fed up with the school administration.

    4. Why didn’t you take an approach that look at the first name Betty basis? Would that consume your energy more?

    5. Why didn’t you contact one of the Ong family members and ask them if they can provide you with Betty Ong time at the George Washington High school around 1972-1974. As a family member, they must have kept a thing or two about Betty Ong. Instead of asking them “As I don’t believe Betty Ong existed, …” You could take an approach “Since everyone becomes suspicious of the Betty Ong existence, I would very much like to end this controversy and make the hero stand tall if you could kindly provide me with a younger Betty Ong from GWH.”

    But looks like you love googling instead.

    Just my opinion. I’m still open to your investigation which have some plausible explanations. But to convince more with hard evidence, I honestly believe you need more ground work to do.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  115. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would [not] prove that she is real

    True, but my question was different:

    did Betty Ong’s parents own the store

    It should be relatively easy to check property records to see whether Harry Ong was the property owner of the store premises while Betty supposedly lived in San Francisco. If an Ong owned the premises, this would indicate that there was an Ong family at the time.

    (N.B.: Chinese sometimes use their Chinese given name on property deeds etc., and an English name such as “Harry” for more quotidian purposes. In any case, the last name is likely to be consistent, as you have pointed out.)

    On the other hand, the ABSENCE of ownership evidence is NOT necessarily probative – there could have been an Ong who rented the premises.

  116. Meimou says:
    @for-the-record

    I should have put it better. Lets assume the family exist. Their contradictions of the official narrative won’t necessarily reaches the masses anymore than the absurdity of the official story.

    Personally I think the woman died on 911, but I wouldn’t assume she died in the manner that we are told.

  117. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Given the prima facie plausibility of the transcripts of the calls from Flight 11 and the absence of any whistleblower from American Airlines to say there was no Betty Ong flight attendant you really have a lot of work to do to persuade people of your 9/11 fantasy. That no such Betty Ong existed would certainly be a good reason to persist with your inquiries. But you have done about a tenth of the work needed. Starting with the Wikipedia information you could check with all sorts of birth, deaths, marriages, bankruptcies, donations to political parties, property records etc and telephone directories could help you make televant calls. As you think the digitised Year Book records have been altered – and you think you are doing something important – it is surely elementary to (a) find out who bought the last originals available, (b) advertise for originals – or the viewing of one for $100, (c) try contacting some of those on the relevant Year Book pages even if it means making 50 cold calls to hit one jàckpot.

    Alternatively you could concede that you lacked investigative skills and imagination and so got it wrong. Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different? Maybe because there was some cranky nerd who insisted that Ong must be wrong and would properly be Ng….. or just because the adolescent Betty chose to indicate solidarity with Vietnamese refugees. And maybe the family name was still Ng then…

    • Replies: @utu
  118. Rdm says:

    Look closely.

    Do you think they both are the same person? Who are they?

    http://tinypic.com/r/732otw/9

    • Replies: @Meimou
  119. Hu Mi Yu says:

    Interesting article. My experience is that fake identities are created by using the name of a person who legitimately disappeared. One example I know about was a kidnapped German biologist who was brought to America and given the name of a soldier who died in the Korean War. The Navy allowed such extensive access to their records that it was possible for a certain agent to erase mention of his death and add to his history. After his supposed discharge, his history continues in a far away city where no one would know who he was. So the back history exists, but he was still a fake person.

    Perhaps Betty emigrated to China. An American educated and skilled person would have been in demand there. Possibly she just needed to be disappeared because of some TLA (CIA/NSA/etc/etc) situation.

    I don’t think there is any way of knowing for sure whether the Betty Ong who died on 9/11 was a fake or not. I am skeptical that there would have been cell phone calls from a plane in 2001. The technology was far less advanced than today. And the way those three towers fell straight down hours after the impact of two airplanes leaves me incredulous that anyone could believe the official story.

    • Replies: @Anon
  120. @Meimou

    Do some research, as George Orwell said , telling the truth in a world of deceit is a revolutionary act.

  121. @James N. Kennett

    And it was slammed into by a building weighing 500,000 tons. Conservation of momentum and all that. A bug hits a car with the same force that the car hits the bug, which do you suppose will better weather the impact?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  122. @Red Pill Angel

    If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery (etc… snip)

    Note that the people claiming that this is the same person here are not just claiming that she is the same person but that she is OBVIOUSLY the same person!

    In your opinion, could they possibly be saying that in good faith?

    Regardless, Ng and Ong are two different names. If you were going to assert that these are the same person, wouldn’t the onus be on you to prove that up? They’re trying to argue that there is an onus on me to prove that two people (who, let’s face it, look pretty different) AND have different last names are not, in fact, the same person!

    This is the thing. With these people, there is NEVER any onus on them to prove anything. They always tell some story for which there is no real proof (in this case, that these two people with different names are the same person) and then challenge you to disprove their silly story!

    Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards.

    Well, there’s no mention of that in any of her (paltry) life history. You’d think that would be worth mentioning, how Betty overcame adversity, blah blah.

    But again, it bears repeating: these people are trying to say that this is OBVIOUSLY the same person! Isn’t that crazy?

    • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
    , @Meimou
  123. ANON[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muse

    Yep, and Ron very shrewdly figured that Revusky would be shown to have made a fool of himself – again – and eliminated any claim on that $10,000 once and for all :-)

  124. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    That’s obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult.

    Difficult in general terms, but logically impossible when it concerns an empirical fact.

    …“Betty Ng” is really Betty Ong. But that’s a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That’s not the same person.

    I tend to agree, but frankly the photos on Ong’s official site also cause one to wonder whether they’re all of the same person.
    Anyway, the website photo at http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=40 with Betty presumably being the girl in the centre, could be the Betty Ng in the yearbook if one assumes that someone got the year (1970) wrong.
    People can change a lot in later life, but this girl (http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=10) looks to be only a couple of years older than the yearbook Ng, and I’d be stunned if it’s the same person.

    By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either!

    Is there any Harry/Cathie/Gloria Ngs there?

    My take on this whole affair is that Betty’s existence is going to be difficult to show one way or another. In creating an identity, the creators typically find a real person who died young or otherwise disappeared, emigrated etc and build a life story on top of the old one. That a “memorial website” to a person of Ong’s prominence contains next to zilch about her other than a few grainy photographs of unknown provenance raises an eyebrow. One would expect the gallery to have been full of childhood, school & career milestones and, of course her world travels.
    And where are the memorial statements? Officially from American Airlines, but also from her many colleagues, friends and family? That the yearbook just adds to the mystery is all but damning, to me.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  125. @nsa

    Agree, the whole official story of 911 is bullshit

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @redmudhooch
  126. She doesn’t present well and she can have a very literal, narrow, visual focus. For example, when she says that she doesn’t think there was much heat at ground zero and presents as evidence that workman’s boots couldn’t have melted because if the steel toes melted, it would have roasted their feet, she misses the point.

    The soles of the boots were melting not the steel toes. The neoprene or rubber sole melted making it hard to stay balanced. Which is important when you are walking around on a mound of rusty razor blades. She also ignores copious eye-witness accounts of the heat.

    She doesn’t think the jets could penetrate the building. But at high speed they could. The same way you can stab a pencil through a screen door. It doesn’t have to “cut” the steel. Brute force can break the steel.

    Some parts she gets right though. The toasted cars are interesting. The hurricane is interesting. Her book presents some of the best visual evidence available. Too bad people can’t seem to argue rationally (Judy and Fetzer) and sometimes let their emotions/egos get in control.

    She also filed a lawsuit challenging the official story, which is more than most people have done.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  127. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Some more photos here (for comparative purposes, I suppose):

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5783448/betty-ann-ong#view-photo=163120679

    Also includes the yearbook photo. First one looks quite similar, imo.

    • Agree: utu
  128. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I don’t happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

    I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

    Fortunately, I’ll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

  129. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    Oh dear! As one who takes yourself so seriously, with a damn good third class mind, aren’t you thoroughly embarrassed at having effectually endorsed Revusky’s skimpily inadequate researches – about 10 per cent of what was needed and that’s without counting his lack of imagination about the name being Ng?

  130. @Jonathan Revusky

    They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

    It’s not exactly a misspelling, but an alternative transliteration. I find it plausible.
    Anyway, why don’t you try to disprove this theory and find out who this Betty Ng was?

  131. @Jonathan Revusky

    Dumbshit

    That’s a very profound manner of responding to your critics, I’m sure that you will convince a lot of people that way.

  132. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead

    Again, I think you are just shining a mirror on yourself, so to speak. So what are you going to call me?

  133. Wally says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    “Little evidence” for the so called ‘holocaust’ is an under statement.

    Imagine in a real / legit court of law where someone claims that millions of people were murdered and dumped into mass graves, but then could not produce the claimed mass graves and the alleged contents. They would be laughed out of that court.

    Such is the ‘holocau$t’ scam.

    - If there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ as alleged, then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$”?

    - If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

    - If Jews are so sure that millions of Jews were murdered and dumped into alleged known, existing mass graves, then why do they ask such dumb questions like “what happened to them then?

    http://www.codoh.com

  134. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Interesting. The Chinese version of Wikipedia has Betty Ong’s Chinese name as 鄧月薇 which in Mandarin would be pronounced DENG Yuewei. (Of course, Betty Wong’s family would probably have spoken Cantonese and English, not Mandarin.) The article gives no source for the Chinese name.

    The family name 鄧 Deng could NOT be transliterated as “Ong” regardless of Chinese dialect. It is not clear what accounts for this discrepancy.

    There have been cases where U.S. immigration officials mixed up family and given names, and the immigrants decided to go along with the new “last name” in English while (of course) retaining their traditional surname in Chinese.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Sparkon
  135. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rdm

    It is true that a given Chinese surname can be transcribed in multiple different ways depending on dialect and personal preference, but this discussion is somewhat beside the point.

    A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration. Once established in the U.S., Chinese immigrants rarely CHANGE the spelling of their last name.

    As an exception, an immigrant surnamed Ng might decide to change to the more euphonious Ong which non-Chinese find more intuitive in speech and in writing.

    As noted above, it is puzzling that the Chinese surname for Betty Ong is given as “Deng” on Wikipedia. There is no way that Deng could become Ong, regardless of dialect.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  136. Sean says:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte

    There is not a a single major event in history that could not be found to have 100 such inconsistencies. Every person even found guilty of murder would have walked free if they had been tried using Revulsky’ Rules Of Evidence. As for Sherlock, the author of those stories thought

    “an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came in his way” [which] enabled one “to use observation to deduce meaning from an otherwise meaningless fact.”[ In contrast, the natural human tendency was to “spontaneously construct narratives, and firmly believe in their veracity”, which – as Konnikova writes – is exemplified by the cognitive style of Dr. Watson, in which “it is incredibly difficult to resist our desire to form narratives, to tell stories even if they may not be altogether correct, or correct at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Edalji#Conan_Doyle

    As his creator admitted, Holmes was an idealised reasoner without light or shade. But we are not in the world that Doyle wrote about (an author writes about the world he would like to live in and his readers buy the book for the same reason dare say) No, we are here groping about and blundering on in an uncertain twilight world in which there is always the chance of us making a mistake, but we must act so there is always a chance of us acting mistakenly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there no chance of our conclusion being mistaken. Sherlock Holmes would always vote for an acquittal. Meanwhile, back in the real world:-

    “In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.” (Joseph de Maistre)

    And so the logical positivism of demanding perfect evidence means choosing to be the victim rather than the executioner.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Erebus
  137. Meimou says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Your are right, Parsons is more appropriate.

    Parson:

    One physiologically bound to the official narrative irrespective of its validity. Parson will enthusiastically regurgitate the ON as gospel and ignore anything that contradics it.

    As far as a Parsons is concerned the official narrative is reality. Anyone not in line with the ON is on the outside of reality, those outside this reality are often derided as conspiracy theorist.

    To a Parsons, the only reason why one would disagree with the ON is stupidity, ignorance, gullibility or dishonesty.

    Parsons who put time into debunking alternatives to the ON call themselves skeptics or debunkers. Instead of simply dismissing those who counter the ON claims as conspiracy theorist, crackpots and loons skeptics/debukers will research counter ON claims and give reasons why such claims are wrong.

  138. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest.

    Whatever you may think of Revusky’s CONCLUSIONS, he fully documented his methods and resources in the article. In other words, Revusky he has been careful NOT to waste a reader’s time trying to figure out what he did or didn’t do to arrive at his conclusions.

    It would be great if our formerly great newspapers were even a third as careful and diligent as Revusky.

    • Replies: @Sean
  139. @nsa

    This video seems reasonable to me.

  140. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Afro-Colonization

  141. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record

    Massive operations by secret service organizations are typically protected by MULTIPLE LEVELS of misdirection.

    For example, it is quite conceivable that there was an actual Betty Ong who was murdered on or around 9/11, but she went to a different school, or grew up in another city. The reference to a specific high school (and the “Black Betty” shenanigans) would be intentionally set up to create confusion.

    Alternatively, of course, there never was a “Betty Ong” and the later evidence is designed to mislead researchers into believing that they are tantalizingly close to the solution where they are actually on a wild goose chase.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
  142. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    You don’t really pay attention do you. Revusky pursued totally inadequate research and didn’t even think of the name being changed, in this case only slightly but critically. As to the phone calls they weren’t from ordinary cell phones (which might or might not have been close enough to transmission towers) and you can read the very plausible transcripts by an easy search. BTW why do you think there have been none of American Airlines 1000s of employees to say there was no Betty Ong?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  143. utu says:
    @Anonymous

    Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different?

    Good point but Revusky is subjected to kicking by other so much that he gives himself automatic dispensation and does not kick himself. Any criticism and he doubles down. People are not driven by external realities but by the internal ones. He does not care about the truth more than anybody else but most of all he cares about being right or rather proving his opponents being wrong. Ron Unz kind of challenged him and it hit the soft spot. You will see that as this comment thread evolves he won’t be reasonable or won’t take the constructive criticisms. In the end he will threaten to dox us all, even those who sympathize with him.

  144. nono says:

    “..what the F..” Brilliant! Absolutely

  145. @Muse

    Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

    I don’t know Unz that well, but I’ve been around UR in various guises for many years. While serious, even academically so, in many respects, Unz has an unconventional sense of humor that causes him to, on infrequent occasion, publish the wackadoodles of type Revusky.

    And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.

    Jesus H. Christ.

    • Troll: L.K
  146. utu says:
    @Sean

    Very good comment!

  147. @Anonymous

    Where’d you come up with the 10% number?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  148. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Ong

    An extensive clip from Ong’s call to headquarters was used for the beginning of the 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty. The clip was used without attribution, and without the consent of Ong’s family. They requested that Warner Brothers, the film’s U.S. distributor, make a charitable donation in her name, credit her onscreen,…

    Contact the family. Case closed.

    Lots of students choose not to take school photos.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  149. @Jus' Sayin'...

    I’m afraid this is a non-sequitur; an acquaintance of yours went missing on 9-11, therefore the (alleged) Shanksville plane crash was real?

  150. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Two Ongs don’t make a flight?

  151. @Si1ver1ock

    You’re talking about Judy Woods? She herself does not inspire much confidence, but the DEW theory is worth investigating, something centered around nearby Brookhaven Labs in Long Island is a definite candidate.

  152. Mulegino1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    What is it about what used to be called the “Third Law of Motion” that these people do not get? Ballistics proves conclusively that the “airliner penetrating structural steel and concrete floor pans” is bollocks. Imagine if anyone tried to market a magic armor piercing round composed of a thin aluminum jacket and a hollow core.!

    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
  153. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I had a friend in college who was obviously chinese but had a korean last name because immigration messed up her family name when her parents came to the US. She decided to change it back later. I don’t know if this is what Betty did but my yearbook has a similar inconsistency because of it.

    As for family names. The spelling of my family name has changed 3 time in the past 200 years. I tracked it through census, marriage and death records, personal correspondence etc. My grandfather was the last person who changed it so it is pretty unusual, but I wouldn’t qualify it as an impossibility.

    Discounting these possibilities out of hand doesn’t strengthen your argument that Betty is a fictitious person.

    • Replies: @Anon
  154. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    Why not try:

    1) contacting relatives, as everybody here has pointed out. Harry Ong Jr., his wife Dorothy Ong, Cathie Ong-Herrera, and her husband Edward Herrera are all reasonably public people.

    2) checking other records– City College of San Francisco, for instance, Jean Parker elementary, etc. etc.

  155. anonomy says:

    I worked with a Chinese woman, her name for us Anglo people was Vicki, but that wasn’t her Chinese name, she was here on a visa program. They chose names that were easier for Americans to pronounce and remember. Maybe she made a phone call and went back to China.

    • Replies: @anonomy
  156. anonomy says:
    @anonomy

    also from wikipedia

    “Ong is a Hokkien romanization of several Chinese surnames: 王 (Wáng in Hanyu Pinyin), 汪 (also Wāng), 黃 (traditional) or 黄 (simplified; Huáng); and 翁 (Weng). Ong or Onge is also a surname of English origin, with earliest known records found in Western Suffolk taxation records from ca. 1280 AD.”

  157. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    A person who reasoned in his everyday life like Revulsky does about 9/11 would last about 15 minutes before he was taken advantage of by others. A nation state does not think it’s own worst enemy is its own leadership any more than a normal man who regains consciousness in the gutter covered in blood thinks it is quite possible that their own Death Instinct grabbed control of their brain and tried to kill them. Nation states are like humans, built for surviving. They don’t care whether it (whatever “it” is) is true as much as whether it helps them survive. Nation states that don’t think like that don’t exist, and although the same is not always true of individual humans, those exceptions are not normal and probably headed for a very sticky end.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
  158. Truth says:

    Yo revOO, you won.

    You had to apologize for what you said you were going to do to one of these NeoConscripts, instead you Doxed all of them AT THE SAME TIME.

    The official 9/11 story is not only patently absurd, but so incredibly ridiculous that I would have a hard time believing that anyone who believes it has an IQ over 70.

    They must be those LO-IQ White Nationalist Wiggers another poster is always talking about.

    (heh…heh…heh…)

    • Replies: @Chuck
    , @Rurik
  159. Mulegino1 says:

    The only events that are not in doubt with respect to 9/11 is that WTC 1, 2, 6 and 7 were destroyed and that there were explosions of some nature at the Pentagon.

    The entire airliner story is complete and utter bullshit, including the Shanksville legend, where an entire commercial airliner is swallowed up by the ground.

    The attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned and in the main part carried out by Israeli operatives on the ground, under the watchful eye of the complicit Zionist cabal in NYC and the PNAC signatories in DC. The patsy Arab hijackers were legends created by the Saudis and the Mossad.

    Who benefited from the attacks? The neocons, the Israelis, and the Zionists in the US, including Silverstein, who collected billions of dollars in an insurance settlement. Who suffered for the attacks? Very weak non-involved states such as Iraq and Afghanistan- later on, Libya and Syria.

    Who in the whole world does not now know this? A certain portion of rapture ready “Dumbericans” and their incredibly naive liberal interventionist brothers in arms.

    • Replies: @Anon
  160. @Jus' Sayin'...

    However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash,

    Yeah, sure you did. Did this person have a name?

    Come to think of it, do you have a name?

  161. @Meimou

    Truth does not need updating , truth is truth forever, do some research on 911, find out the truth, the official story is BULLSHIT.

  162. Ron Unz says:
    @German_reader

    Well, I suppose I should explain my own position…

    Back a couple of years ago, Revusky had claimed—based on absolutely zero evidence—that an individual I’d never heard of named “Betty Ong” didn’t really exist, despite the numerous MSM interviews with her friends, close family members, and fiance. I said that sounded crazy to me, and based on presumption I was about 99.9% sure she did exist. In fact, I think I told him I considered it more likely that he himself was a “disinfo agent” than the woman never existed. After his numerous emailed responses became a nuisance, I offered to pay him $10,000 if he would go away and locate some hard evidence that would persuade me that she was actually fictitious, perhaps by getting actual copies of the H.S. yearbook or other things he had started focusing upon.

    He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy. Such a bizarre tongue-in-cheek “forgery” seemed extremely implausible to me, but I did find the mistaken photo sufficiently suspicious that it reduced my confidence of Betty Ong’s existence down to perhaps 80-90%. Since I was too busy to carefully explore his complex argument, I offered to publish an article of his on the subject (if he apologized to Rurik). As I told him, since so many of the other commenters hate him and think he’s crazy, perhaps at least a few of them would be motivated to dig into the matter in considerable detail, allowing me to review the contrasting arguments and decide for myself where the probabilities lay.

    Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist. Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim, though that is still certainly possible.

    This is *exactly* the reason I’ve always explicitly emphasized that I do *NOT* personally stand behind any of the articles published on my website…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  163. Ron Unz says:

    And I should add one more aspect of my “presumptive” case for Betty Ong’s existence…

    I’m certainly not familiar with the details of 9/11, but my impression is that there were something like 5-10 supposed phone calls from the hijacked planes. Now I think the “9/11 Truthers” argue that these phone calls were all faked by the “conspirators.” Maybe they were and maybe they weren’t, but—aside now from the Betty Ong case—no one has ever suggested that that those alleged callers weren’t actually real-life people.

    So why would the “conspirators” fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong’s supposed family members and friends in the “conspiracy,” obviously making it much more complex and vulnerable, especially given her high profile as a victim. Plus they then had the need to forge H.S. yearbook pages over 16 years after the attacks. Very odd behavior for even semi-competent “conspirators”…

    I’ll just put these questions out to 9/11 experts, which excludes myself…

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mike P
    , @llloyd
    , @Erebus
    , @Meimou
  164. @Steve Gittelson

    Your closing paragraph is pure projection.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  165. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    What’s with these assumptions that eitherBetty or her parents were immigrants whose names were changed?

    And even if Betty herself were an immigrant why would her name be changed in high school or later when a person named Betty Ong may not have become an American employee?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  166. @Anonymous

    re deep state you would think they would plan for these eventualities and have yearbooks and such planted with real or fake people they can use in the future

    another theory is ong is a african name and the deep state is stupid and got confused and overlaid a asian story n an african background

    as for coincidence that faulty and of course the major logical fallacy of conspiracy theorists coincidences happen all the time and we wouldn’t even notice them if they didnt happen in the one place that drives conspiracy nuts nuts.

    that said from the perspective of the current year im pretty embarrassed about all the things i called alex jones for a decade at this point i wouldnt even be surprised if elites started pulling of their masks and revealing their lizard faces everything else is pretty much beyond question

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  167. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    And even if Betty herself were an immigrant

    She’s not.

    • Replies: @Anon
  168. @Anon

    How would any individual employee in a large organization know if someone did or did not work there?

    • Replies: @Anon
  169. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

    A few questions:

    Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

    If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

    If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

    Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

    He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

    That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

    Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

    But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

    The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

    I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

    If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

    Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

  170. @Jonathan Revusky

    There are enough small resemblances that I’m still on the fence. But you’re right, it is not “obvious.” The mere fact of the many discrepancies about her high school days is odd to say the least, and I would like to know more.

    Did I even mention the lack of dark eyebrows in the high school photo? Even if she plucked them in 1973 (and it was in fashion then), they seldom grow back as luxuriantly as they appear in the stewardess photo.

    The scar on her upper lip in the stewardess photo is not visible in all the reiterations of the photo online. But it was quite obvious in the one I picked at random, which was on the first row when I googled “Betty Ong 9/11.”

  171. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Instead of putzing about on the internet why didn’t you go to Washington high and ask to look at original copies of the year book? Every high school has them. Why didn’t you claim to be a prospective employer and request her transcript?

    Why didn’t you go to the public records building in San Francisco and request her parents marriage certificate and birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born in the mid 1950s?

    Why didn’t you look at the parents names on the birth certificates?

    That’s research, not putzing about on the internet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  172. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    High schools all keep several original copies of each year’s yearbook.

    High schools also have enrollment lists, graduation lists and transcripts. Yet Revulsky ignored all those original sources

  173. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Your closing paragraph is pure projection.

    Egads, you horrible atheists and your denials of the pure truth of Jesus Christ.

    But, no prob, you wackadoodle conspiracy-chasing Mickey Mouse Club alumnus. What a waste of lifespan by you pathetic dwarfs. Conspiracy? Oh, dear, oh gracious, oh my.

    Then what?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  174. @Anon

    Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958.

    Regarding her birth record, on that Findagrave memorial site there’s a link to ancestry.com, which supposedly has info about that:

    https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=sfs28_ms_f-2_s&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsfn_x=0&gsln_x=0&cp=0&catbucket=rstp&MSAV=1&MSV=0&uidh=000&gsln=Ong&gsfn=Betty&msbdy=1956&msddy=2001&gl=BMD_BIRTH&o_xid=80137&o_lid=80137&o_sch=FindAGrave&geo_a=r&geo_s=us&geo_t=us&geo_v=2.0.0&o_xid=62916&o_lid=62916&o_sch=Partners

    One has to subscribe to use that service (though a free trial is apparently possible), and I’m not going to do that…but maybe some other commenter who already has an account with that service could look it up.

  175. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra

    She didn’t use a cell phone. She made a direct call to American Airlines operations using a phone on the plane installed so crew could communicate directly with the operations center if necessary.

  176. @Ron Unz

    Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

    Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

    Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn’t actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

    Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

    This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

    I really think you’re totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you’d like to take a “bet” how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I’d still pay up.

    Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren’t negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I’d say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

    I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

    But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can’t be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can’t be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

    What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

    He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

    Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a “duping delight” prank. But I don’t know for sure and I never claimed to know.

    Also, I did not claim that “the photo was wrong”. In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

    Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

    But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

    Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

    What “astonishing claim”, Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn’t work.

    You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

    Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

    So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn’t have the time to go through the information I sent you.

    Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don’t have time to reply. I’m too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah… This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

    I mean, that’s how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don’t make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don’t understand basic things like this.

    But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

    But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you’d see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

    You can’t really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool…

    And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren’t in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn’t check out! So you didn’t just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

    So, that’s where we’re at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @FKA Max
    , @Erebus
  177. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    So who made up the transcript of the FA’s call to the operations center? Regardless of who made the call, or didn’t make the call, the transcript was recorded and made by American Airlines.

    Better investigate how the transcript was faked from the operations center and who faked it. Have any of the internet researchers ever tried to debunk the existence of the 3 operations people on the transcript?

    Has anyone tried to prove no one at American operations center spoke with anyone on that flight?

  178. While my attitude on the research is less abrasive than others. I think the real press would have been to obtain an actual yearbook of the years in question. And to have done so very low key so as not to taint the process.

    Then of course there is locating classmates. That an echoing obtaining transcripts, though I prefer a route that doesn’t trounce on “due process”.

    But I will admit the article was interesting.

  179. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    We’re i trying to prove that American employed a flight attendant named Betty Ong I would check payroll.

    Every 2 weeks payroll prints the paychecks. Easy to check if one has the records.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  180. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I know she’s not an immigrant. But many commenters blathered on about name changes during immmigration as if immigrants changed their names several times after arrival

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  181. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    So, who made the recording and transcript of the phone call that never happened.

    Who ordered American Airlines to claim the call was made to the operations center and recorded and transcribed there?

    Crazy crazier craziest

  182. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren’t in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn’t check out! So you didn’t just lose the wager, frankly.

    They have maximal life details, in that they actually exist and have addresses and phone numbers. Why not shell out a dollar or so and write them? After all, it’s only an investment on a 1M% return.

  183. @Anon

    So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

    Actually, all I set out to do was to see whether she was in the appropriate high school yearbook, because I had a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over that precise question.

    If it had not been for that, I doubt I would have gone as far with this as I did. In fact, to be honest, I never thought the question was of all that much interest, for the reason I give in the article. There is no particular reason to believe that some character in a fiction is a real person. They might be or they might not be.

    And that’s about it. But… with Ron Unz dangling $10,000, I finally figured it was worth trying a bit harder. Not just the 10 grand but the fact that Ron was making such a big deal about this. “Oh, Revusky doesn’t believe Betty Ong is real. What a nutter he is!” Even independently of the ten grand, that kind of shit is tiresome and, obviously, if I could show him up on this, I would!

    But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be. How hard should it be, at long last, to understand that finally?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  184. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

    That idiot internet researcher whose [sic] never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC. [sic]

    Well, what do you know. It looks like my exchange last summer with Shouting Thomas at UR may have have morphed into an urban legend, which anon[257] uses here as the basis for a big bullshit story in a gold frame.

    Just to set the record straight, here’s that conversation between me and Shouting Thomas from last summer about his claimed sighting of both WTC crashes:

    9. Shouting Thomas says:
    August 14, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT • 100 Words

    I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

    I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

    I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

    Airplanes were indeed flown into the Twin Towers.

    • Replies: , @Sparkon

    And my reply:

    23. Sparkon says:
    August 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @Shouting Thomas

    I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane’s approach — and crash — would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

    I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top — like some additional office space was tacked on up there — and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

    It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I’d be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

    • Replies: @Shouting Thomas,

    Shouting Thomas replied:

    24. Shouting Thomas says:
    August 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Sparkon

    By God, you’ve got me!

    I’m one of thousands of conspirators living and working in Manhattan who were paid off by secret agents of the New World Order to pretend that I saw two jets deliberately crashed into the WTC.

    The Bushes paid me millions. I’ve retired in luxury to the Bahamas where they continue to pay for my daily intake of beautiful whores and coke.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz, @jack daniels

    http://www.unz.com/ldinh/george-orwell-and-mohammed-atta-were-here/#comment-1967928

    The overreactions are always telling…

    • Replies: @Anon
  185. @Steve Gittelson

    What’s pathetic here is that you think you’re being funny.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  186. Mike P says:
    @Ron Unz

    To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence. A very good exposition can be found on the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    This website has been endorsed by about 3000 members of both professions – these people know what is and what is not physically possible when it comes to collapsing buildings.

    Among many other compelling items, the collection features a very solid scientific paper that shows directly and unambiguously the presence of explosives in the dust produced by the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. A direct link to the paper is here

    http://tinyurl.com/wtc-dust-thermite

    In this study, small chips of unreacted explosive could be extracted from the dust, characterised by chemical and microscopic analysis, and ignited by heating to 420 degrees centigrade. Unlike jet fuel, this kind of explosive/incendiary (nanothermite) is known to melt steel, and it thus can account for the otherwise unexplained observations of molten metal immediately before the collapse and also for a considerable time afterwards.

    Just invest two hours or so – the question is more than important enough to merit this much time from even the busiest individuals – and for these two hours, suspend disbelief, and set aside all questions about actors and their motives, ethics, and honesty. Focus on this question only: what do the demonstrable physical facts indicate about possible mechanisms of collapse? If you approach this question with an open mind, you should find the answer to be quite clear and compelling.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Anon
  187. @Anon

    Yeah, IF one has the records. Do you really think a corporation’s payroll data are publicly available? Do you know how HR departments of big corporations operate?

    • Replies: @Anon
  188. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Next time I’m up there, I might just go to Washington high and see what’s what.

    Or maybe not.

    Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  189. Tyrion 2 says:

    Ong is to Ng what Mohammed is to Mohamed, Muhammad, Muhammat and Mohammad. Transliterations are what happens when languages use other alphabets. How do you spell the name of the former dictator of Libya? Did he not exist because every newspaper spelled his name idiosyncratically?

    You’ve certainly lost your bet until you somehow demonstrate that the two women who graduated in the same year – with the same face – from the same high school – with the same Chinese surname – and same Anglo first name are actually different people – good luck!

  190. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I personally know a few immigrants that have changed their name several years after arrival. Sometimes they want to use their actual name once citizenship is sorted out instead of using what fit in the visa application.

    Also perhaps they are tired of people continually being mistaken about their nationality. Going on and on about how it never happens is factually incorrect as people have and do change their names for all sorts of reasons.

    • Replies: @Anon
  191. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    by the letter of the wager, [Ron Unz] already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

    Not so fast. A key term of the wager was this:

    Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates.

    So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

    If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000.

    According to Revusky’s post, Betty Ong’s name IS listed on the digitalized pages, although perhaps falsely inserted and/or falsely associated with the picture of another girl. Revusky’s observations suggest – but do not prove – that Betty Ong’s name

    If – as Revusky’s observations suggest – Betty Ong’s name is not listed in the 1974 hard copy, then he should win.

    One would hope that both of parties will be gentlemanly rather than pedantic in interpreting the terms left unstated in the exchange – i.e., Revusky concedes that he loses if Betty Ong’s name appears in the yearbooks for at least 1973 and perhaps 1975 as well as 1974, and Unz concedes that he loses if Betty Ong’s name appears in the hard copy yearbook juxtaposed with the picture of the “black Betty Ong” rather than a Chinese girl, even though technically Betty Ong’s “name” would be in the yearbook under this scenario.

    This could be the beginning of a fascinating race. Let’s keep to 19th century rules and decorum, like the wager made among members of a gentlemen’s club in “Around the World in 80 Days.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  192. @Anon

    Contact the family. Case closed.

    A number of people are saying this, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why they think this would resolve the matter. If Betty Ong really existed and was this person’s sister, they would say: “Yes, of course, I had a sister named Betty who died in a plane on 9/11″

    AND… if these people were just crisis actors, they would say the EXACT SAME THING!

    Like, you think maybe the various board members of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will, when contacted, come clean and admit that Betty Ong never existed.

    It doesn’t seem likely to me, but if (unlke me) you think that is a promising approach, then contact them yourself! And report back!

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  193. @Mike P

    To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence.

    Well, of course, you’re right. The physical evidence accumulated by AE911Truth is much stronger than this stuff about Betty Ong or anybody else of the cast of characters they presented us in this silly narrative. Moreover, once you understand how preposterous the overall narrative is, you really have no particular reason to believe that any of these characters, like Betty Ong or any of the others, are real people. They might be, but they might not.

    BUT…. here’s the thing. I did have a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. And that was actually the origin of this article.

    The point of the article was certainly NOT to present Betty Ong as the strongest key evidence regarding 9/11! (Like, what do you take me for!!?? LOL!)

    • Replies: @Mike P
  194. @Anon

    Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

    He hasn’t won anything, because he completely refuses to deal with the very plausible theory that the Betty Ng in the spring 1974 yearbook (whose picture turns up on one of the memorial sites for Betty Ong) actually is Betty Ong.
    As is usually the case with Revusky, he just tries to wave that away, ridicule it and wear out his critics with endless, tiresome ramblings that never really address any of their substantial points of criticism.
    The man is completely incapable of engaging in reasoned dialogue.

  195. @Anonymous

    So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

    Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

    That’s a rather strange scenario, isn’t it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

    It’s very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  196. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “I am therefore providing that apology” …. That’s an apology?

    Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng and your dismissiveness of that fact demonstrates your conceit and ignorance.

    Many people have narcissistic tendencies, but not many have the true personality disorder. Unfortunately, based on this episode as well as your past responses to commentators, you are one of the latter. You have a bit of a knack for writing, but it is my impression that you believe you are much more intelligent than your readers think you are.

    I’m trying to understand why Ron Unz accepted any more of your articles. My best guess is that you are a sort of a lightning rod. I think your stuff would be better suited to a site like Infowars.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
  197. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You lost at like a 1000% level!

    So, does that mean Mr. Unz has to pay you $100,000….

    Mr. Revusky,

    you are an absolute hoot to me! I am very pleased to read that you have sincerely promised to refrain from doxxing anyone. Very honorable of you.

    I also want to correct commenter Frankie P:

    Jonathan Revusky,

    Did you make the apology in a personal correspondence? If so, why? The threat to dox him was public, why isn’t the apology also public?

    http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-911-betty-ong-and-the-mystery-of-black-betty/#comment-2297871

    I regard and consider his opening statement as and to be a public apology:

    “As one of the conditions of considering publication of this article, Ron Unz has required me to personally apologize to commenter Rurik for having previously threatened to “dox” him based on our private correspondence. I am therefore providing that apology, and also sincerely promising to make no such threats nor take such actions against him or any other commenters here in the future.”

    http://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-911-betty-ong-and-the-mystery-of-black-betty/#p_1_1

    Thanks to Ron Unz for inspiring Jonathan Revusky’s better angels and for fostering authentic and uncompromising “free speech and debate” culture:

    The utilitarian defense of and justification for free speech is as follows:

    Case 1: The minority view turns out to be true (e.g. Galileo’s statement that the earth revolves around the sun) and the majority view (the earth-centered universe) is false. In this case, it should be obvious that allowing the minority view to be expressed is beneficial to the whole of our society.

    Case 2: The minority view is partially true and partially false. For example, suppose one were to argue that evolution never occurred. Even though this claim defies both a lot of evidence which supports various theories of evolution and it also brings the theory of natural selection under perhaps unjustifiable scrutiny, it nevertheless forces defenders of of various theories of evolution to reexamine both their methods (e.g. carbon dating) and their theoretical commitments (e.g. micro vs. macro evolution). Since the vast majority of social issues, and many accepted scientific theories (e.g. “Big Bang” theory) have at least a ‘touch of gray’, hearing a variety of views forces those who defend them to sharpen and enliven their arguments.

    Case 3: The minority view is false and the received view is true. For example, suppose a scholar were to write a book defending the thesis that slavery never happened in the United States. Why should we even tolerate such an outlandish view?

    1. Even though the scholar’s claims are false, again this forces us to revisit and perhaps rediscover much of the evidence we have documenting the history of slavery. This in turn informs both the way we do history, the way we accept truth claims, and the way we view the present.

    2. The falseness of the scholar’s claims actually strengthens many of our commonly received views about not just the fact of slavery, but it’s legacy also.

    http://www.unz.com/article/americas-cultural-revolution-the-obsession-with-self-esteem/#comment-2294657

    Americans Have The Right To Be Stupid – John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State

  198. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, you did prove that there was no Asian Betty Ong in blurry internet year book pages

    Elizabeth Ong would have been on the same page as the other Os. But still, I think a look at an original print copy and school enrollment lists would have been solid proof that she did or did not exist.

  199. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Is Revusky real?

    I think he’s really Paul Craig Roberts trolling us.

    • Replies: @iffen
  200. @Anonymous

    A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration.

    EXACTLY!

    It’s not even specifically about Chinese surnames, I don’t think. What it’s about is that, typically, when the patriarch of the clan came to America, the guy had some window of opportunity to choose how to trans-literate his name. So, for example, my surname of Revusky is the same name as Revutsky, which is Ukrainian. My grandfather was a Jew from Ukraine, but it has come to my attention that most of the people with that surname are Orthodox Christian Ukrainians.

    But, never mind that, Revutsky and Revusky are the same surname originally. Fine, but it’s not like I’m going to start writing my last name differently. At different times, I could go by Jonathan or Jon or something else, fine. But I have NEVER spelled my surname differently than how my paternal grandfather chose to spell it. And none of the people who spell their surname Revutsky are going to start writing it the way my name is written without the t! And some people spell the final y as an i. Fine. But they ALWAYS spell their own last name consistently!

    And it’s exactly the same with the Chinese, I’m sure. The patriarch maybe showed up in America a hundred plus years ago and, at a key moment, had a choice of writing his name one of various ways, like Wong or Wang or Huang or Ong (or maybe the immigration official decided for him) but once it’s established, it does not change!!

    The whole idea that Betty Ong was Betty Ng in high school and then started spelling her last name differently, just for the pure heck of it, that just does NOT ring true! And there is no evidence for it anyway. As far as I can see, all of this stuff about how Chinese are constantly writing their surnames differently is just a bunch of complete bullshit!

    They confuse matters talking about first names. Sure, somebody with a Chinese given name could adopt a western name to fit in. But they don’t go around changing their surnames!

    In any case, they’re saying that the onus is on me to prove that Betty Ng (who looks completely different!) is not the same person as Betty Ong!

    Anyway, speaking of choosing names, you seem like a reasonable person Anonymous #249. Why don’t you choose some screen name and stick to it? This whole business of trying to keep track of who you’re talking to with different numbered Anons, it’s just a total cock-up.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Anonymous
  201. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    What do I ask?

    “Hello, Ong Family. Are you for real or a bunch of crisis actors? Some guy named Revusky wants to know.”

  202. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Polish, sry Lankan, some Hindu, Thai and other nationalities have very long names that when translated to English are difficult to pronounce and spell in English.

    But Chinese names are very short and simple. When translated to English they are written as pronounced and pronounced as spelled.

    Her father was an immigrant. If he came through immigration in California, especially in the Bay Area there is no chance any immigration officer would have been confused about the name.

    The children were all born here. Why change a short simple easy to pronounce name?

    Any legal name change would be reflected on the filing, court order, social security records etc. what’s the use of rambling on about immigrants who might have changed their names.

    The information would all be in San Francisco government records. If the idea is all so important why not just request the records and pay the small fee?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  203. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

    That’s a rather strange scenario, isn’t it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

    It’s very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

    I am not suggesting ANYTHING about the substance of the wager. As you will see, my comments in this thread go both ways. You have certainly raised some fascinating issues.

    My sole point is that the express terms of the wager as cited by you (Revusky) require you to come up with an original hard copy of the year book. This was an expressly stipulated precondition to which you agreed by taking up the challenge.

  204. Mike P says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan – I did not mean to suggest that you are a moron; I generally try to only treat people as morons (and then silently) once they have unambiguously proven themselves.

    I find your findings neither implausible nor irrelevant – they will just not sway anyone who is not already convinced that 9/11 was indeed a staged false flag operation. My suggestion was meant for this group of people (which seems to include Ron, to whom I replied). Until just a couple of months ago, I was in that group myself, and what swayed me, quickly and decisively, was indeed the physical evidence.

  205. @The Scalpel

    Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng

    Bullshit. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same person. You really think that they misspelt this person’s surname the exact same way in two consecutive yearbooks AND the graduating class list on sfgenealogy.org!

    That’s pretty much a total non-starter already. And the photo is clearly of a different person. Just look.

    And don’t give me this nonsense about Ng being the same surname as Ong. It obviously isn’t. Like you think this person

    is the same as this person:

    And not only that you think this is OBVIOUSLY the same person??? OBVIOUSLY???

    C’mon. The people claiming that this is obviously the same person are OBVIOUSLY shills!

  206. Here’s what the Times (of London) published as Bin Laden’s Tora Bora cave.

    http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/cave.htm

    It has, of course been scrubbed from their site.

    The bullshit never ends.

  207. @Beefcake the Mighty

    What’s pathetic here is that you think you’re being funny.

    What’s pathetic is that you conspiracy wackadoodles thinks it makes any difference if any of it IS a product of conspiracy. It doesn’t.

    Fine, let’s say the 9/11 events are products of conspiracy. Let’s say the CIA colluded with Mossad to do it so that America will support and fund Israel ad infinitum. Media foments distrust for all things Arabic. “Hate Islam” reigns, etc.

    So what? What are you going to DO???? How are circumstances and conditions going to change?? How will the corrupted ship of state right itself?

    Heck, personally, I’m inclined to believe the CIA and Mossad had a lot to do with what happened. I think the CIA and Mossad made some converts, provided ideas and support, and let external actors run with it. It doesn’t surprise me a bit. Worse, I believe that puneto of a President was in on it from the git-go. Washington is corrupt, criminally treasonous right down to its last little toenail.

    But, so what? The MI-complex rules. Israel dictates at least 80% of all US government policy. The productive class of American citizens is being systematically stripped of all wealth and power.

    So, you want to expose “conspiracies” with a weak sauce of conjecture and Internet gossip? And everything will be fixed? America will return to equal rights under constitutional democracy? The sky will be blue, babies will laugh under the Sun of Freedom, and the Mexicans will go back to Mexico?

    WTF, man? Grow the f–k up.

  208. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You really think that they misspelt this person’s surname the exact same way in two consecutive yearbooks AND the graduating class list on sfgenealogy.org!

    Could it be possible that it was purposefully spelled that way?

    As long as you’re comparing photos, here are some more:

    Yearbook

    Others

  209. Winifred says:

    I don’t understand the animosity of some commenters towards Jonathan Revusky: is he not simply doing some legitimate detective work to establish the truth or otherwise of one aspect of the 9/11 story? Is he not simply applying the microscope to the story the same way many have done to subsequent false flags like Sandy Hook, the Las Vegas shootings etc? In other words, he’s a seeker after truth.
    Some time ago I read a book called “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence” by Elias Davidsson. It analysed in detail the transcripts of many of the 9/11 phone calls made from the planes (including Betty Ong’s). In my judgement, it proved conclusively that the calls were fake – they were certainly not made from an aircraft in the air and under siege. The callers were clearly reading from a script. That being the case, why not move to the next stage and, as Jonathan Revusky is doing, examine the existence or otherwise of the callers?

    • Replies: @Ngo Ng
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  210. Joe Wong says:
    @Anonymous

    Claiming the security agencies in the Empire of Chaos has honesty? This is a new bench mark for the morally defuncted.

  211. Erebus says:
    @Sean

    There is not a a single major event in history that could not be found to have 100 such inconsistencies.

    I can’t come up with one other historical event that is in even one aspect inconsistent with Classical physics. That’s what makes 9/11 unusual.

    • Replies: @Sean
  212. iffen says:

    How do we “know” that Betty Black didn’t say, “the heck with white privilege, I’m going Asian privilege” and have a reverse Rachel Dolezal procedure?

  213. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Are you sure you exist?

  214. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous

    All normal people go to aerobics classes.

  215. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    who spell their surname Revutsky are going to start writing it the way my name is written without the t!

    That goes without saying. Some might start adding a t.

  216. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @DESERT FOX

    True, but why do you want to bring energy weapons into it? Like with Mini Nukes, trying to insert this one into any sensible discussion is just subterfuge.

    For the record, the evidence is clearly that cutting charges were pre-placed on the steel support columns and then triggered electronically. The triggering would have been remote and software controlled, and the triggering network may have been wired or wireless. As to the exact nature of the cutting charges, this paper provides the most likely conclusion:

    http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  217. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    ” But I have NEVER spelled my surname differently than how my paternal grandfather chose to spell it.”

    I do so my experience is different than yours.

    “In any case, they’re saying that the onus is on me to prove that Betty Ng (who looks completely different!) is not the same person as Betty Ong!”

    The onus is on you. You’re the one pushing some wacky conspiracy theory. You need to come up with more than a misspelled name in a highschool yearbook to prove someone’s nonexistence.

  218. iffen says:
    @Anon

    Is Revusky real?

    I think he’s really Paul Craig Roberts trolling us.

    Another commenter mentioned that he is likely R. Unz.

    • Replies: @Anon
  219. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Like I said before my friend was tired of people thinking they were korean. But that doesn’t matter.
    The point is that it is a possibility that Betty changed her name. It is also possible that the yearbook editors weren’t terribly competent and made a mistake. Your right that certainly he can rule this out by getting relevant court filings, public records etc… I doubt he will because, in his mind, it is all fake planted by the CIA like dinosaur bones to test the faithful.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  220. @MarkU

    I know very little about metallurgy but I am curious to know how steel below ground level of WTC 1 & 2 can remain liquid hot and run “as in a foundry” for over a month after the event. I try not to speculate on the details of 9/11 believing that the first order of business is to show that it absolutely did NOT happen as was widely reported, then and now. A proper investigation was never conducted and much has been covered up. This needs to be addressed.

  221. Ngo Ng says:
    @Ngo Ng

    Mike P – you missed it the message in the name Ngo Ng, not so clever are you.

    Read below to number 13. More than one person on this comment list understands his explanation.

    Funny you don’t understand someone and then call the a troll just because they read this site without feeling a need to comment for years. Typical.

  222. @for-the-record

    It’s no business of yours or mine what Ron Unz chooses to do with his money. He’s successful and has used some of his money to provide this forum. Just be appreciative.

  223. Ngo Ng says:
    @Winifred

    What’s your evidence that they were “clearly reading from a script”?

    • Replies: @Winifred
    , @Wade
  224. @Anonymous

    The steel mostly disappeared from the twin towers ie was pulverized into dust, while thermite was used in addition directed energy weapons were used and that is what caused most of the resulting disappearance of the steel columns.

    There were 7 WTC buildings destroyed on 911, these were WTC buildings 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 plus the twin towers, no one mentions this, only buildings 7 and the twin towers, this is strange, take a look at the 911 archives on the site Serendipity.li , and I recommend Dr. Judy Woods book where did the towers go , can be had on amazon.com.

    WTC 7 was taken down by conventional explosives when Larry Silverstein told them to PULL IT, very strange , Silverstein made 5 billion in insurance on the WTC buildings, strange, just like the twilight zone.

    Israel and the ziocon deep state did 911 and got away with it, just like they did in the attack on the USS LIBERTY.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  225. Ngo Ng says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It’s the same person and it’s obvious.

  226. Isapf says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Interesting that most of the photos of “Betty” on findagrave.com were added in 2017, 16 years after she died, by someone going by “paradise965.” Clicking over to paradise965’s profile on the site, I see they’ve added 81 (!) memorials on the site:

    https://www.findagrave.com/user/48815958/memorial?type=added

    Just a casual perusal of this list shows that not only has this person added a bunch of photos of “Betty”, but also has added memorials for victims of:

    1) Bataclan terror attack:

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186006474/nicholas-alexander

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186570008/thomas-ayad

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/189047868/baptiste-chevreau

    2) Malaysia Airlines Flight 370:

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/185741453/yuanhua-bao

    https://news.artnet.com/art-world/19-chinese-artists-among-those-missing-aboard-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-4988

    + I’m assuming all the others listed as “lost at sea”

    3) Sandy Hook:

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186605148/victoria-leigh-soto

    Gosh! What are the chances of that?

  227. As you can see this is the 25 minute long conversation with Betty Ong and it was recorded. It is so real. It is a record of the heroic acts which the Mayor of San Francisco said she did. She gives a lot of useful information, although she does gets her flight wrong in the beginning and is corrected. And the airline people are very concerned about the first class passengers. Anyone who says this is not a serious conversation involving a genuine hijacking but is just a role playing exercise planned for that day should have his, or her, head examined.

    Transcript of Flight Attendant Betty Ong.
    Date: Recorded September 11, 2001; entered as testimony before the
    National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9–11
    Commission) on January 27, 2004.

    [MORE]

    About the Author: Betty Ong (1956–2001) was a flight attendant aboard
    American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to strike the World Trade Center in
    New York City in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Nydia Gonzalez
    was an American Airlines Operations employee who took Ong’s cell phone call
    that morning. Gonzalez testified before the 9–11 Commission investigating the
    attacks.
    INTRODUCTION
    At 7:59 A.M. on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767
    took off fourteen minutes late from Boston’s Logan Airport. The plane, under
    the command of Captain John Ogonowski, was bound for Los Angeles with 81 passengers.

    Ong remained on the phone until it crashed into the World Trade Center. Her
    call, which was recorded. Transcript of Flight Attendant Betty Ong.

    PRIMARY SOURCE
    Betty Ong: [I'm] Number 3 in the back. The cockpit’s not answering.
    Somebody’s stabbed in business class and—I think there’s mace—that we
    can’t breathe. I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.
    Male Voice: Which flight are you on?
    Betty Ong: Flight 12. [Note: This is incorrect. The correct number is Flight 11.]
    Operator: And what seat are you in? Ma’am, are you there?
    Betty Ong: Yes.
    Male Voice: What seat are you in?
    Female Voice: Ma’am, what seat are you in?
    Betty Ong: We’re—just left Boston, we’re up in the air.
    Female Voice: I know, what—
    Betty Ong: We’re supposed to go to LA and the cockpit’s not answering their
    phone.
    Female Voice: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of
    your seat?
    Betty Ong: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.
    Female Voice: Okay.
    Betty Ong: At 3R.
    Female Voice: Okay.
    Male Voice: Okay, you’re the flight attendant? I’m sorry, did you say you’re the
    flight attendant?
    Betty Ong: Hello?
    Female Voice: Yes, hello.
    Male Voice: What is your name?
    Betty Ong: Hi, you’re going to have to speak up, I can’t hear you.
    Male Voice: Sure. What is your name?
    Betty Ong: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.
    Male Voice: Okay.
    Betty Ong: And the cockpit is not answering their phone, and there’s somebody
    stabbed in business class, and there’s—we can’t breathe in business class.
    Somebody’s got mace or something.
    Male Voice: Can you describe the person that you said—someone is what in
    business class?
    Betty Ong: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If
    you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.
    Betty Ong: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody
    knows who stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now
    ’cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else
    is?

    Male Voice: Okay, and do we—
    Betty Ong: And our number 5—our first class passengers are—galley flight
    attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit,
    the door won’t open. Hello?
    Male Voice: Yeah, I’m taking it down. All the information. We’re also, you know,
    of course, recording this. At this point—
    Nydia Gonzalez: This is Operations. What flight number are we talking about?
    Male Voice: Flight 12.
    Female Voice: Flight 12? Okay. I’m getting—
    Betty Ong: No. We’re on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.
    Male Voice: It’s Flight 11, I’m sorry Nydia.
    Betty Ong: Boston to Los Angeles.
    Male Voice: Yes.
    Betty Ong: Our number 1 has been stabbed and our 5 has been stabbed. Can
    anybody get up to the cockpit? Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Okay. We
    can’t even get into the cockpit. We don’t know who’s up there.
    Male Voice: Well, if they were shrewd they would keep the door closed and—
    Betty Ong: I’m sorry?
    Male Voice: Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?
    Betty Ong: I think the guys are up there. They might have gone there—jammed
    the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get
    inside. Is anybody still there?
    Male Voice: Yes, we’re still here.
    Female Voice: Okay.
    Betty Ong: I’m staying on the line as well.
    Male Voice: Okay.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Hi, who is calling reservations? Is this one of the flight
    attendants, or who? Who are you, hon?
    Male Voice: She gave her name as Betty Ong.
    Betty Ong: Yeah, I’m number 3. I’m number 3 on this flight, and we’re the first—
    Nydia Gonzalez: You’re number 3 on this flight?
    Betty Ong: Yes and I have—
    Nydia Gonzalez: And this is Flight 11? From where to where?
    Betty Ong: Flight 11.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Have you guys called anyone else?
    Betty Ong: No. Somebody’s calling medical and we can’t get a doc—
    With that, the portion of the tape played at the commission hearing ended.
    Then, the commission heard a recording of a second phone call, the call Nydia
    Gonzales placed to American Airlines’ emergency line. Gonzales was still on
    the phone with Betty Ong as well. She relayed what Ong was telling her to the
    emergency operator.
    Male Voice: American Airlines emergency line, please state your emergency.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Hey, this is Nydia at American Airlines calling. I am monitoring
    a call in which Flight 11—the flight attendant is advising our reps that the pilot,
    everyone’s been stabbed.
    Male Voice: Flight 11?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Yep. They can’t get into the cockpit is what I’m hearing.
    Male Voice: Okay. Who is this I’m talking to?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Excuse me. This is Nydia, American Airlines at the Raleigh
    Reservation Center. I’m the operations specialist on duty.
    Male Voice: And I’m sorry, what was your name again?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Nydia.
    Male Voice: Nydia. And what’s your last name?

    Nydia Gonzalez: Gonzalez— Gonzalez.
    Male Voice: (Inaudible)—Raleigh Reservations. Okay, now when you—
    Nydia Gonzalez: I’ve got the flight attendant on the line with one of our agents.
    Male Voice: Okay. And she’s calling how?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Through reservations. I can go in on the line and ask the flight
    attendant questions.
    Male Voice: Okay. I’m assuming they’ve declared an emergency. Let me get
    ATC on here. Stand by.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Have you guys gotten any contact with anybody? Okay, I’ m
    still on with security, okay, Betty? You’re doing a great job, just stay calm.
    Okay? We are, absolutely.
    Male Voice: Okay, we’re contacting the flight crew now and we’re, we’re also
    contacting ATC.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay. It seems like the passengers in coach might not be
    aware of what’s going on right now.
    Male Voice: These two passengers were from first class?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay, hold on. Hey Betty, do you know any information as far
    as the gents—the men that are in the cockpit with the pilots, were they from
    first class? They were sitting in 2A and B.
    Male Voice: Okay.
    Nydia Gonzalez: They are in the cockpit with the pilots.
    Male Voice: Who’s helping them, is there a doctor on board?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Is there a doctor on board, Betty, that’s assisting you guys?
    You don’t have any doctors on board. Okay. So you’ve gotten all the first class
    passengers out of first class?
    Male Voice: Have they taken anyone out of first class?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Yeah, she’s just saying that they have. They’re in coach.
    What’s going on, honey? Okay, the aircraft is erratic again. Flying very
    erratically. She did say that all the first class passengers have been moved
    back to coach, so the first class cabin is empty. What’s going on your end?

    Male Voice: We contacted Air Traffic Control, they are going to handle this as a
    confirmed hijacking, so they’re moving all the traffic out of this aircraft’s way.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay.
    Male Voice: He turned his transponder off, so we don’t have a definitive altitude
    for him. We’re just going by—they seem to think that they have him on a
    primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay.
    Male Voice: Okay, Nydia?
    Nydia Gonzalez: Yes dear, I’m here.
    Male Voice: Okay, I have a dispatcher currently taking the current fuel on
    board.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Uh, huh.
    Male Voice: And we’re going to run some profiles.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay.
    Male Voice: To see exactly what his endurance is.
    Nydia Gonzalez: Okay.
    Male Voice: Did she—
    Nydia Gonzalez: She doesn’t have any idea who the other passenger might be
    in first. Apparently they might have spread something so it’s—they’re having a
    hard time breathing or getting in that area.
    What’s going on, Betty? Betty, talk to me. Betty, are you there? Betty?
    (Inaudible.)
    Okay, so we’ll like—we’ll stay open. We—I think we might have lost her.
    SIGNIFICANCE
    Betty Ong provided the authorities with crucial information about the hijacking.
    By providing the numbers of the seats occupied by the hijackers, she enabled
    the authorities to determine their identities. By maintaining her resolve, the
    information she relayed to ground control over a 25 minute
    period confirmed that a hijacking was under way. Authorities assumed that other planes might
    have been hijacked that day, but that their plans were thwarted as the scope of
    the attacks rapidly became clear and flights were grounded.
    Betty Ong was not the only flight attendant who placed a call to the ground that
    morning. Also on an Airfone was Madeline “Amy” Sweeney, who at 8:20 A.M.,
    placed a call to Logan’s flight services manager Michael Woodward. “Listen,
    and listen to me very carefully,” she told Woodward. “I’m on Flight 11. The
    airplane has been hijacked.”
    Over the next 25 minutes Sweeney, too, remained on the phone and provided
    details about the hijacking (her call was not recorded, but reconstructed from
    Woodward’s notes). At one point she said that the hijackers had stabbed the
    two first class flight attendants. She also noted, “A hijacker cut the throat of a
    business class passenger, and he appears to be dead.” At another point she
    said that the hijackers had shown her a bomb. Still on the phone at 8:45, with
    the plane flying very low and ground controllers attempting to determine its
    location, she told them chillingly, “I see the water. I see the buildings. I see
    buildings.” After a pause, she said quietly, “Oh, my God.” At about the same
    time, Betty Ong was repeatedly saying, “Pray for us. Pray for us.”
    On September 21, 2001, a memorial service for Betty Ong was held in San
    Francisco’s Chinatown, where she was born and her family still lived. In
    declaring the day Betty Ong Day, San Francisco mayor Willie Brown said “It is
    with pride and sadness that I join in paying tribute to Betty’s courage and her
    heroism. I hope it is a comfort to her family that so many people remember and
    honor her heroic acts.”
    Transcript of Flight Attendant Betty Ong .

  228. NGO NG says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    you call people dumbshit? you have zero credibility. go doxx yourself.

  229. NGO NG says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    @ Jonathan Revusky

    ” They potentially can be, but usually are not.”

    wow. You need to take Logic 101. Is that still a class anywhere? It seems not.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @Anon
  230. Miro23 says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Thanks for the link, and this is a longish extract from that must read article:

    http://humanevents.com/2013/04/14/obamas-plan-to-destroy-america-hatched-at-columbia-university-says-classmate/

    [MORE]

    But, it’s the second thing you really need to know about Obama at Columbia. He says he graduated Class of ’83. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Well then Obama had to attend the same Political Science classes as me and I can tell you, almost to a man, my classmates in the Class of ’83 proudly called themselves Marxist, communist or socialist. They bragged of being radical like a badge of honor.

    In my class the typical Columbia political science student vowed to destroy capitalism, bankrupt business owners, and vaporize what they called “the white power structure.” For the most part these were spoiled brat white students of privilege and power. They were children of wealth, given everything on a silver platter and all they felt was anger and guilt. Their goal was to destroy their own fathers. They talked about it all day long.

    So let me tell you a story. Back in 1981 I was sitting in a political science class. The president at the time was Ronald Reagan, a man reviled by the left just as viciously as any Republican is today. Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently—whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into the room screaming, “The president has been shot! They’ve just assassinated President Reagan.”

    Ronald Reagan was my hero. The news hit me like a ton of bricks. I instantly felt sick to my stomach, and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered. They clapped, they yelled, they high-fived, and whooped in sheer unadulterated joy. My fellow classmates, the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical leftist views, were HAPPY that my hero President Ronald Reagan was dead (or so they thought). They were celebrating what they thought was the assassination of America’s president.

    Incidentally, if Obama actually went to Columbia, he’d almost certainly have to have been in that class leading the cheers. Feel like you need a shower yet? Lest you think I’m exaggerating, British leftists just celebrated and cheered upon hearing of the death of Margaret Thatcher only days ago.

    But wait, the most frightening and eye-opening is still to come. You see political science students at Columbia were taught a detailed plan designed by two former Columbia professors named Cloward & Piven to bring down “the system,” destroy capitalism, and turn America into a socialist state. We discussed it in class, wrote about it, and debated it outside class. It was our #1 topic for four years.

    Need to read the rest:

    http://humanevents.com/2013/04/14/obamas-plan-to-destroy-america-hatched-at-columbia-university-says-classmate/

    Folks, this is Cloward & Piven. This is Karl Marx, who despised the middle class and vowed to wipe it out. This is Saul Alinsky (Obama’s mentor) who dedicated his book (Obama’s favorite book) to Lucifer, the devil.

    That’s true, I’ve got a copy of “Rules for Radicals”:

    “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all out legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

    - Saul Alinsky

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  231. Winifred says:
    @Ngo Ng

    It’s not my evidence, it’s the writer’s evidence, and it’s very compelling. From memory, it includes things like lack of emotion in the voice of the caller, lack of any background noise to suggest anything sinister is taking place etc. (despite the caller claiming that there’s a hijacker a few feet away and pointing a gun). He’s dissected each transcript in detail. You really need to read the book.

    • Replies: @Anon
  232. anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Isapf

    About the same chance that your own Y chromosome package had to meet up with your Mom’s X and mitochondrial DNA package but with less unfortunate consequences for cognition…. or were you joking?

    Your point please.

  233. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @iffen

    Another commenter mentioned that he is likely R. Unz.

    No way. Revusky looks like a Mongo-Russian

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/114290

    • Replies: @iffen
  234. llloyd says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    I am not a 9/11 expert but I try to use deductive reasoning. Maybe, one of the “phone callers” would be high profiled and turned into a Joan of Arc saint. So that person would need to be without flaws or bad past events. That is not possible to find such a person in present America. Not a real person

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Twodees Partain
    , @Anon
  235. This thread is entertaining but they’ve got you, it’s Betty Ng. She looks very similar.

    It’s easy to imagine why a child who was born with a surname Ng would change it to Ong because many English speaking people would not know how to pronounce Ng. If you were sitting in a doctors office they would be calling for “en-gee” probably, which is no where near Ong.

  236. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Troll or sockpuppet? Sockpuppet for the obsessive Revusky is my bet.

  237. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:

    As an example of the kind of work Revusky can start on, a Gloria Ong graduated from Galileo HS in ’72. Is this the mysterious Gloria Onq Woo (no doubt after marrying this character:

    )? Did her other siblings go to Galileo or Telegraph? Will they tell, if asked?

    Tune in tomorrow, for our next exciting installment!

    • Replies: @Anon
  238. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Winifred

    Sure if you have bought one of the mad truther packages start picking away at what appear to be significant questions if prima facie evidence is raised. But let it be done competently and comprehensively and not just as one tiny sliver of investigation – botched at that – to see if he can cheat the busy Ron out of $10,000.

  239. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @llloyd

    Your point?

  240. @ploni almoni

    This recorded conversation is said to have been a 25 minute cell phone call from an airliner in flight. Questioning the likelihood of a cell phone in 2001 being capable of remaining connected for more than a few seconds at even the minimum altitude and speed required to sustain flight doesn’t make the questioner some kind of nut.

    For a person to believe without question that such a call took place with a cellphone of the type used in 2001, however, would indicate that the believer is gullible and easily deceived.

  241. ValmMond says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    No. But one can argue that establishing the truth for its own sake is a self-sufficient moral imperative.
    It doesn’t matter what exactly will change to set the record straight. It must be done simply because this is the right thing to do. As an added bonus, we’ll have a neat historical demonstration of the meteoric rise of empires from and fall back to barbarism, without ever encountering civilization.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  242. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    What makes you put your amateur faith in that crew of architects and engineers who are, even if genuinely qualified people, just a minute fraction of the number of such people in America, who do not show that any significant number are researchers rather than mere cheer squad signatories, and who have not been able to add anyone with any credibility to their number in many years?

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Mike P
  243. @Si1ver1ock

    A very reasonable comment, apart from what you’ve written about the attack on the Pentagon.

    Many pictures exist that were taken immediately afterwards and before the front facade of the building collapsed clearly showing that the entry hole is far smaller than the plane would have made, especially the engines. Even the glass in the nearby windows was still intact. There was little to no aircraft debris visible whereas in every real plane crash there is a massive amount. It would be impossible for a commercial aircraft to penetrate as deeply into the Pentagon as the damage showed it did. Numerous surveillance videos were confiscated immediately afterwards and have never been seen or heard of since.

    • Agree: Miro23
  244. @llloyd

    There was one high profile caller, or at least a reported caller: Barbara Olson, a TV commentator and wife of Ted Olson, US Solicitor General at the time. There have been lots of articles written about Ted’s reports that she called him several times from the plane, AA Flight77, bound for the Pentagon.

    Here’s one:

    http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/

    • Replies: @Anon
  245. Winifred says:
    @ploni almoni

    On paper this may seem convincing, but as I’ve already suggested, you should perhaps read “Hijacking America’s Mind: Counterfeiting Evidence” by Elias Davidsson, in which he analyses the calls in great detail and comes to the conclusion the callers were reading from a script and were definitely not calling from planes in the air.
    In connection with this, have you ever heard the call made by CeeCee Lyles, flight attendant from on Flight 93, who called her husband in DC but because he was in the shower, the message went to the answerphone?
    At the very end of the message (after giving details of the supposed hijacking) a whispered voice is clearly heard saying “It’s a frame”.

    There are several versions of this on Youtube. Some at first thought the whispered voice was saying “You did good” but when the recording is slowed down, you can clearly hear the words “It’s a frame”.
    Does this not suggest something exceedingly suspect was going on?

  246. @Anonymous

    I looked at Erebus’ comment history and found the comments to be well reasoned and generally making useful contributions. You on the other hand lack the creativity to even come up with a simple user name.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  247. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Isapf

    Yes, it’s likely some random person on the internet. Aside from the yearbook one, those Betty Ong photos have all been floating around the internet for years.

  248. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Why? Why not? Why didn’t he? Don’t you get it? This isn’t about the truth of anything. It is about Revusky the con man trying to get $10,000 out of Ron Unz. Obviously that’s not a good idea when he has only half the IQ points though his Dunning-Kruger persona can’t really grasp more than the fact that a gentleman of independent means who wants to keep up appearances needs a little more of the ready stuff than Revusky’s family provided.

    • Replies: @Anon
  249. @Colleen Pater

    Your comment is barely intelligible. Is it possible for you to ask a high school student to re-write it for you so that it can be clearly understood? Can you possibly gain access to a computer with a shift key?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  250. @Mike P

    Good comments Mike. The way I see things is that if some of what we’ve been told is both false and fraudulent, then it is prudent to suspect that all of it is. The official narrative is not just false and fraudulent, it is impossible. The idiots spouting terms such as Conspiracy Theorist, or conspiracy crazies, don’t even begin to understand how they are not only idiots but they are also useful idiots, to those who would harm them, their families and their interests. Sad and pathetic.

    • Agree: Mike P, L.K
  251. @Isapf

    Chinese technicians specialised in making planes invisible for radar were on board.
    The chairman of the organisation of Dutch pilots said this on Dutch tv, Benno Baksteen, media paid no attention whatsoever, Baksteen never was on tv any more.
    He’s not a chairman any more, if this has been caused by his statement, I wonder.

    • Replies: @Anon
  252. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    San Francisco also honored 2 other San Franciscans. They were 2 men who were on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

    Another attendant, Ms Sweeney was on another phone at the same time Betty Ong was.

    Maybe Revulsky and the rest of the Betty Ong never existed lunatics focused on her because her hometown chose to honor her. So she is better known than Ms Sweeney and the other attendants.

    There are hundreds of ways to refute the official story of 9/11. Why claim one flight attendant among the 3,000 people who died or disappeared into a CIA mossad gulag that day never existed?

    What is the point of focusing on her?

  253. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Trying to check AAs payroll records makes a lot more sense than just claiming Betty Ong never existed.

    Another attendant, Ms Sweeney was on the same flight and on the phone to AA as long as Ms Ong was.

    So did Ms Sweeney not exist either?

    Checking AA records would be easy. Just pretend to be a prospective employer asking for a reference.

    Companies don’t give references any more for fear of lawsuits. But they will tell anyone who asks for a reference that the person was employed from date of first employment to the day employment ended.

    Both in the internet and in bookstores and libraries are manuals of investigation, skip tracing, detection and looking for long lost relatives and friends.

    It’s obvious Revulsky didn’t educate himself about the basics of investigation
    before he set out to prove Ms never existed.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  254. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So the CIA Mossad just created 2 parents, 3 siblings, inlaws a fiancé and some friends and relatives to work as crisis actors.

    Why didn’t they do that for the rest of the flight crews that disappeared into the cia mossad gulag that day?

    Are those crisis actors still being paid today? Or are they under threat of torture and death if they ever reveal the truth?

  255. @Anonymous

    The point is that it is a possibility that Betty changed her name.

    Well, this is a tactic that I outlined in my second article on this site. You tell a story that is far-fetched, or at least not terribly likely, but since it is not absolutely impossible, you then argue that there is some onus on me to prove the negative, that the story is false.

    Sure, Betty Ong could have been Betty Ng previously. That’s not impossible, but I have previously scoured the Internet looking for information on this Betty Ong character and I have never come across any indication that she or her family ever spelled their last name anything other than O-N-G. Really, this is some story that various commenters on this page have pulled out of their collective keisters. That’s it.

    The notion that I should now go look in court records for evidence that Betty Ng changed her name to Betty Ong, based on the various trolls here telling this story — that is really beyond absurd! Obviously, if you guys really take this story seriously (which is pretty dubious) then you should go look for proof of this. Good luck.

    It is also possible that the yearbook editors weren’t terribly competent and made a mistake.

    Well, that’s possible too, but as I said, that would mean that they made the exact same mistake in two successive yearbooks and the same mistake appears on the Spring 1974 graduating class list from another source.

    It’s all not very likely, and also, when you look at the photo of Betty Ng, you see that this does not look like the same person! The people claiming that this is obviously the same person are obviously lying shills.

  256. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @DESERT FOX

    The steel mostly disappeared from the twin towers ie was pulverized into dust

    No it didn’t. It was cut into neat little pieces and then shipped off to China for recycling.

    WTC 7 was taken down by conventional explosives when Larry Silverstein told them to PULL IT, very strange

    No. It was the exact same thermite. WTC7 was wired in exactly the same way as the twin towers.

    Israel and the ziocon deep state did 911 and got away with it, just like they did in the attack on the USS LIBERTY.

    Yup.

    So what are these silly ‘directed energy weapons’ about? Where’s the evidence? And why do you think thermite couldn’t do it alone?

    • Replies: @Anon
  257. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Scalpel

    I think Revulsky should post his theories on Miles Mathis right under the story that the CIA killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

  258. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It seems to me that the wager stands undecided until all conditions are met. One of the conditions is that she (name and photo) appear in an original hard copy of the yearbook. All kinds of shenanigans go on on the internet, just as we’ve seen. IOW, you ain’t quite there yet.

    As for all the hoopla about names, I assume that in the US one can have but one legal name at any given time. Having 2 passports, or 2 driver’s licenses under 2 different names, 2 credit cards, etc etc, simultaneously, or getting your kid registered in a school with a name different from that on their birth certificate seems like a recipe for legal chaos. EG: Having two driver licenses under “Ong” and under “Ng” is not possible except through fraud.

    If so, “Ong” & “Ng” may be equivalent in Hakka/Cantonese or whatever, but they’re not legally interchangeable in the US.

    The yearbook would presumably have drawn the names from the school’s official roll, which would contain the legal names as they appeared on the birth certificates and primary school records of their registered students. So, if Betty Ng was registered under that name, she either carried that name until changing it to “Ong” some time later, or she’s a different person. Likewise her siblings.

    Parenthetically, it would be unusual that she would use the name “Ng” if the rest of her family used “Ong”, which is why I asked above whether her siblings were to found in the yearbooks under “Ng”. That her entire family, including parents went by the name “Ong” and were not found under that name in the yearbooks, suggests that they either:
    [a] are to be found under “Ng”, and
    [b] they all legally changed their names to “Ong” sometime after the kids left high school, or
    [c] they’re not to be found under “Ng” or “Ong”, in which case Betty Ng is almost certainly not our gal.

    So, you should be able to shed considerable light on the likelihood of Betty Ng being the famous Betty Ong by looking for her siblings under the “Ng” name in the yearbooks, as you did under the “Ong” name.

    If they’re there, Betty Ng looks to be the future Betty Ong. If they’re not to be found either, she’s almost certainly just a statistical blip.

    Unfortunately, the school seems to have an unusually high percentage of Asians, so I’d expect an overabundance of “Ng”s given its popularity amongst the Fujian and Guangdong diaspora. That may complicate matters to the point where no verdict beyond reasonable doubt can be had.

  259. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Winifred

    But revulsky didn’t do any investigation. He didn’t no detective work at all

    He just looked at some blurry pages scanned into the internet.

    He did not
    1 check her parents marriage certificate and her birth certificate.

    2. High school enrollment lists graduation list transcripts or the hard copies of the yearbook kept in the school.
    3. He didn’t check the airline payroll and employment records.

    4. He didn’t check social security contributions, workmen comp, unemployment, pension, and the Medicare contribution and state or federal income tax records, These are all available public records.

    He didn’t check property records to see if the Ongs owned or rented the store and their home. He didn’t check the business license of the store they allegedly owned.

    5 He didn’t check the county clerks records to see if there had been a legal name change.

    6. Any standard investigator would check the public census records for 1960 and 70 to see if Harry and Yee Gum Ong or Ng had a child named Betty. Of course her father was an immigrant. San Francisco Chinese often don’t fill out census forms till the 4th generation and even then don’t register to vote or fill out census forms.

    But a basic investigation would check the census.

    7. A standard investigation would check records in Andover Mass where she lived in 2001.

    8 Her address Owned or rented? Utility bills rent or mortgage payments traffic tickets vehicle registration voter registration dr license
    The AA flight attendants union

    Betty was 45 when she died. A lot more info could be learned from her Andover home than her childhood home in San Francisco
    But Revulsky ignored her Andover home.

    Revulsky did nothing that can be considered detective work
    OMG!!!!!!! Didn’t pres Bush 2 go to Andover prep school in Andover Mass.

    No investigation was done. Instead of all this convoluted contorted blathering why not just go to Andover and San Francisco?

    • Replies: @Anon
  260. Anon[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I remember a passage in Jung’s work where he says: Yes, it’s absolutely revealing: but to whom? To the exception that observes..

  261. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    It’s actually Phillips Academy in Andover mass but it’s popularly known as Andover

    Sooo The Man who was president in September 2011 went to high school in the very town where the non existent Betty Ong lived in September 2001.

    I can make up a new and crazier conspiracy theory about that.

    By discovering the Betty Ong Pres Bush 2 connection I’ve done more detective work than Revulsky did.

    At least I discovered an actual fact. Ong and Bush once lived in the same town.

    Of course the Betty Ong of Andover may have been a CIA actress pretending to be a flight attendant just waiting for 9/11 to disappear into a new role.

  262. Anon[310] • Disclaimer says:

    But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be.

    To quote 2 great authors I’ll leave un-named:

    1) Doubt … is an illness that comes from knowledge and leads to madness.

    2) Fiction is the best medicinal for people to heal.

    Even on an “alternative” site like this, you see what responses your attitude (more so than the very content of your pieces) begets.
    No-one cares whether those characters presented to us “are real”. Truth is not the point. The point is that the show works.
    Not only that. People will pick the version of every fiction that makes them feel the best, and of course, when you question it, you are doing a psychological attack unto them — which will be countered with psychological defense operations.
    Truth is out of the question.

    Turn on your TV at any time of the day and see what they are airing. It’s what people wants, although we can trick ourselves into thinking there is a conspiracy by TV moguls to “keep people ignorant” and give them superficial entertainment.

    **
    On your article here.
    Unlike the earlier ones, I didn’t like it and quit reading quite soon, jumping to the closing paragraph.
    However, the quantity and quality of comments (genuine or maybe not) points in the direction of it bringing up something true more likely than something untrue.
    Untruths have a virtue, they never upset anyone (nor do they prompt anyone to diagnose “mental illness”).

  263. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DESERT FOX

    Jewish lightening strikes again.

  264. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @NGO NG

    Here is a syllogism

    All people named Jonathan are insane
    Jonathan Revusky is named Jonathan
    Therefore Jonathan Revusky is insane

    Another

    No one named Jonathan can do investigation and detective work
    Jonathan Revusky is named Jonathan
    therefore Jonathan Revusky can’t do detective or investigation work.

  265. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Winifred

    Did the writer who dissected the transcript in detail just read the transcript or did he actually listen to a recording?

    He would have had to listen to a recording to write about emotion and lack of background noise. What about the transcript of the other attendant, ms Sweeney?

  266. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    Now I think the “9/11 Truthers” argue that these phone calls were all faked by the “conspirators.”

    Well, you can stop thinking that. No serious truther I know of would claim that calls made from a plane’s satellite phone were necessarily fake, however convincingly other facts pointed in that direction.
    What are 99.999% necessarily fake are any calls purportedly made from cellphones. As soon as you know how a cell system works, you can see that aircraft calls are impossible. I have tried many times, and while a signal may show as present, no call has ever actually connected until we’re almost on the ground. Even then, I only ever got the other phone’s ring tone and never actually conversed.

    Here’s the highly truncated, and somewhat dated, reasons why:
    [a] cell tower antennas concentrate their radiation pattern in a wide downward cone, wasting as little power as possible firing signal up into the sky where there’s no customers. Power costs, and wasted power is wasted money.
    [b] a series of mainframe computers manage the individual cells. As you drive along, the system has been following you as you went from one antenna’s (cell’s) coverage to the next. Your travels are used by the software to predict which cell you’ll be in next and prepares the handover in advance of your arrival. If all goes well, and you show up in that cell, the handover is seamless. If you turned left in a way the system didn’t predict, the call may get dropped because the cell you entered didn’t expect you. Cells are typically quite small, approx 5km radius, so if you’re on a highway at 100kmh (62mph) you’re being handed over pretty often.
    [c] OTOH, at 900kmh (550mph), at altitude, you’re not only passing through cells at a clip no system can keep up with, you’re in a zone the cell antennas are designed to ignore. When you do see a signal on your little meter, all you’re seeing are the lobing artefacts that result from directional antennas.

    In 2001, calls were almost all analog, switched digitally. As digital transmission between phone and antenna came on line, these problems were exacerbated but eventually overcome.
    Even so, drive at 400kmh, and your calls will drop like flies in sarin gas.

    Anecdotally, I’ve used the Chinese HSR system quite extensively. China’s cell system is the best I’ve encountered anywhere in the world, and I doubt there’s a number two. Even so, 3 years ago you couldn’t make a call reliably at anything above 200kmh. At 300kmh you could get a few garbled seconds, occasionally. The HSR system has been introducing trains that are effectively a mobile cell tower. I do a run between Wuhan and Shenzhen fairly often and can now enjoy wifi and cell coverage all the way. 3 years ago, no way.

    As a further aside, I’ve been told that the reason we’re told to shut down our cell phones on take off & landing has nothing to with the plane’s operations. They routinely take lightening strikes resulting in megawatts of EMI. Rather, it’s to keep nearby cell systems’ computers from going nuts trying to track phones that are going too fast for them to handle, screwing up local phone traffic including the airport itself. I haven’t looked into how true that is, but it makes a lot more sense than a few milliwatt level signals mucking up an airliner’s operations.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Iris
  267. This is the craziest grasping at tiny straws for no apparent reason thing I have ever read on this site. It detracts from the credibility of anything else published here.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  268. @Erebus

    By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either!

    Is there any Harry/Cathie/Gloria Ngs there?

    When you posed the question, I hadn’t looked, but now I have and the answer is again no. One click glance you can do is just looking at the sfgenealogy graduating class lists and you can use Google to do that. So let’s look for Betty Ong, say:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”betty+ong”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    You get exactly one result, which is the Spring 1973 graduating class list, and as we know, you look in the yearbook online and you find “Black Betty”! LOL.

    If you look for Betty Ng:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”betty+ng”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    you get two hits, which is George Washington HS class of Spring 1974 and class of Spring 1978. The earlier one is this Betty Ng that all the idiot trolls here are claiming OBVIOUSLY is the flight attendant from 9/11! Obviously!

    So it’s easy enough to repeat the same search for both Harry Ong and Harry Ng

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”harry+ong”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”harry+ng”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    Nothing, zilch.

    No Harold Ong OR Harold Ng either.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”harold+ong”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”harold+ng”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    Try Henry Ong and Henry Ng then:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”henry+ong”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    https://www.google.com/search?q=”henry+ng”+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

    There is a Henry Ong from a different high school, Galileo High School, class of Fall 1948. Way too early and the wrong school.

    There are two Henry Ng’s both from George Washington High School, class of Fall 1954 and class of 2002 respectively. (After 1974 they didn’t have separate Spring and Fall graduating classes). Anyway, unless you want to believe that Harry Ong was really Henry Ng and he graduated high school at the age of 54 or thereabouts. Or that he was Henry Ong and graduated at about the age of 6, then….

    The above, it’s easy to provide direct clickable links, so I do. The same applies to Gloria Ong OR Gloria Ng. Try it. I leave it as an exercise for anybody.

    So, even if you take seriously the idea that it makes sense to extend the search to NG, then still clearly none of the siblings graduated from that high school. OR, apparently, any other San Francisco high school!

    But there is an overarching point here. All these people talking all this nonsense about the poor research I did, if you gave them 100 years, none of them would do the simple Google searches above on their own steam. No, of course not. They would sit with their fingers up their arses and wait for me to do it!

    There are people spinning this tall tale that Betty Ong was previously Betty Ng and then later changed her name and they are seriously proposing that I should go try to verify this by looking at court records for where she changed her name! They make up some story and it is up to me to go try to verify or refute THEIR story!

    This is the thing about all of this sort of situation. They tell a story and somehow their story has some presumption of truth and then they demand that you refute their story. But you see that they are totally ensconced in the Culture of Bullshit and have probably never checked a basic, easily checked fact on their own steam in their entire blessed lives!

    And then when you go check some basic facts and report back, these people have the cheek, the bloody chutzpah, to start sneering at the “shoddy research” you allegedly did. People who read any story somewhere just believe it because it’s there. “Muslim Rape Army invades Germany! Tourism to Germany reaches all-time high!

    Well, anyway, the only thing I set out to establish, due to that wager with Ron, was that the relevant high school yearbooks don’t back up the story we were provided. Obviously, I did enough to win the wager.

    • Replies: @Anon
  269. @Isapf

    Interesting that most of the photos of “Betty” on findagrave.com were added in 2017, 16 years after she died, by someone going by “paradise965.” Clicking over to paradise965’s profile on the site, I see they’ve added 81 (!) memorials on the site:

    Yeah, I saw that earlier. I came across the same thing but it’s not in the article because it’s not directly relevant.

    But all that is extraordinary, isn’t it? All these murky events and there is a set of people adding virtual memorials for all these alleged victims on that site!

    • Replies: @Isapf
  270. @Mike P

    Jonathan – I did not mean to suggest that you are a moron

    Not to worry, Mike. I didn’t think that. In fact, I actually have you mentally catalogued as one of the good guys around here. Of course, I imagine you can sense just how pissed off I’m getting about this whole situation, so my tone in that note to you probably reflects my mood, but I wasn’t reproaching you, no. That certainly was not my intention!

    Anyway, as regards 9/11, in the article above, I say pretty openly that the issue of whether Betty Ong is a real person even, that is not very important in terms of 9/11 specifically.

    What the essay above is getting at, though, is a meta-issue, if you will, which applies to 9/11 and all the rest of these synthetic narratives. The issue is the difference between storytelling and real, established facts.

    The central point is that this Betty Ong is really just a character in a story. And really a sort of cipher as well. This person has essentially no real existence outside of her role in the 9/11 narrative. Even this biography they put up of her here: http://www.bettyong.org/BettyOng.htm — the majority of her life story is just her making that phone call! There is next to no photographic record of her and what there is looks pretty dodgy.

    Yet Ron Unz expressed such confidence that this Betty Ong was real person that he wagered $10,000 that the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the issue!

    That was really a piss-poor bet on Unz’s part. But, aside from just how obvious it is that he lost that wager, he just refuses to understand the core concept.

    There is no reason to think that a character from a narrative like this, like this Betty Ong, is a real person. They might be or might not be. Also, the idea that there is some real investigative journalism out there that would unearth this… well, no, there isn’t! Nobody checks facts seemingly.

    Also, while this website has some good material, it is plagued by this sort of thing. Most of the material here is purely ideological. Nobody checks any facts. These guys like Sailer and Derbyshire, they just take any of these narratives, like the suicide bomber’s passport was found intact again, or whatever, they take that on face value. Can you imagine any of these guys doing what I did in this article or the last one?

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Steve Gittelson
  271. iffen says:
    @Anon

    In the past I have ridiculed the use of the adage, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

    No more.

    I’m thinking that it should be updated to ten-thousand words.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  272. Betty A Ong was born on February 5, 1956 in San Francisco County, California.

    Her father’s last name is Ong, and her mother’s maiden name is Yee.

    If Betty is still alive, she’s now sixty-two years old.

    https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/betty_a_ong_born_1956_5956787

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Twodees Partain
  273. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Betty Ong’s call is said to have been made from a seat back phone for passenger use, not a cellphone. Such a call would have been technically possible, but the claim raises other issues. There have been questions as to whether Ong’s plane was even equipped with seat back phones for passengers.

    Also, Ong would have needed to use her own credit card to make the call. Further, Ong’s call is said to have been directed to the regular reservations department which does not seem to have been the normal routine. It also seems strange that the call was not immediately transferred to an emergency response team.

    By contrast, Ted Olson claimed that his wife Barbara called him several times on her cellphone, and that he recognized his wife’s cellphone number through caller ID. Sustained calls from a high-flying airliner were impossible in 2001 because the communications protocol between signal towers and cellphones is sensitive to delay.

    More generally, commercial aircraft flights generate a great deal of electronic information through civilian and military primary and secondary radar, ADS-B (which is evaluated by websites such as Flightaware), ACARS, etc. all of which would be logged. Most of such data appears to remain under lock and seal. None of the 9/11 flights appear to have activated the emergency code on their radar transponders.

    Most U.S. news consumers (formerly known as “citizens”) are unaware that the National Transportation Safety Board is a highly politicized organization which includes, e.g., formal representation by trade union interests as part of its organizational structure.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  274. @Anon

    Perhaps you are right, but HR records can be easily falsified (since HR departments are at the heart of corporate bureaucracy), and at any rate you are making a VERY different point than you did initially, when you appealed to a faux-probabilistic argument (unlikely that none of “1000s” of employees would fail to speak out) to dismiss Revusky.

    • Replies: @Anon
  275. Miro23 says:
    @Anon

    What makes you put your amateur faith in that crew of architects and engineers who are, even if genuinely qualified people, just a minute fraction of the number of such people in America, who do not show that any significant number are researchers rather than mere cheer squad signatories, and who have not been able to add anyone with any credibility to their number in many years?

    And another question.

    What makes you put your amateur faith in that crew of CONGRESSMEN who are, even if sort of qualified, are just a minute fraction of the number of people in America, who do not show that any significant number are other than mere cheer leaders (29 STANDING OVATIONS FOR NETANYAHU), and who have not been able to add anyone with any credible independence to their number in many years?

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Anon
  276. Mike P says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Re. your introductory remarks: thanks for clearing that up.

    Yes, you are right about the meta-issue – it is abundantly clear that indeed 9/11 was a psy-op, and we therefore can study the fabric of cover stories weaved around it as an example of psy-ops in general. That is a good point. Regarding this particular Betty, she is not on the books for ’74 (as she should) but “possibly” for ’73, but then she looks all wrong … just some “clues” to send you on a wild goose chase and to prevent you from reporting back “not a single trace.” Very sloppy – this does not reflect well on the U.S. “intelligence community.”

  277. So seems to the constant in conspiracy theories. Interesting, but always left without that neatly tied bow. I accept the possibility of conspiracies because our human history is filled with them. 9/11 may have signs of error, incompetence, suspicious coincidences, but as of yet despite come compelling arguments, I remain unconvinced I am as big a dweeb as the advocates claim. There was a time when a photo was fairly good evidence. But as technology has improved, photos as evidence has lost it luster. The ability to create images from digital formulations has made deciphering truth a practice in prudence and more prudence.

    And in this country more and more people are tossing any character they have into a sink hole in order to make a living. And an increasing number of people make that living that by manufacturing or dirtying up people with innuendo, hearsay, rumor. The current politics, has exposed any number of groups willing to make wild accusations to mislead, to exact vengeance . . . the beauty of education is also its sadness – knowledge can be ugly. And since the 1960′s we have seen agendas smash decency and prudence. There has always been ugliness, but since the 1960′s an increasing number of people have been willing to engage in ugliness for a meal ticket or even in the name of a greater good. I am not sure how else you get to a society, that brags about legally murdering children in the womb. I am not sure how millions of march in the streets chanting “Give Peace a chance,” at the two countries who actually wanted peace. The FBI actually had men and women engaged in a program of encouraging another citizen to commit suicide — if that is what the FBI was willing to do. How deep the filth among our local agencies of law enforcement and criminal justice system —

    So many here stand on supposed science, but given the veracity of the scientists historically, unquestioned loyalty to a credential is a dangerous practice. Sooner or later we’ll be accepting that something as hard as human biology no longer matters. Pretty soon we’ll be convinced that we should be throwing our own citizens under the bus because some scientists has stated statistically immigration doesn’t cause any harm, in-spite of the evidence to the contrary. We jump on wagons to establish that we should displace citizens because high IQ sets to higher morality. But on test, the country’s worst moral failings reside among the best and the brightest: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, — long list of very intelligent people engaged in some very unsavory practices. The main streaming of Pornography was not born in some pot laden jazz club. It unreasoned and unprincipled to lead millions of people actually believe the Russians over turned election and left no evidence of how. And the evidence is Russian hotels and women doing all manner of peculiar practices.

    Against the backdrop of history or our human wantonness, it is entirely possible that members of own government would conspire to unite the country by designing or allowing a national tragedy. After all we have spent more than a hundred years telling ourselves that black people are by nature stupid and can’t wait to slit white throats the first chance they get. But neither one of these conclusions is born out by the evidence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @tanabear
  278. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record

    Gloria Ong shows up too:

    Gloria Ann Ong was born on August 24, 1954 in San Francisco County, California.

    Her father’s last name is Ong, and her mother’s maiden name is Yee. If Gloria is still alive, she’s now sixty-three years old.

    https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/gloria_ann_ong_born_1954_5323746

  279. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Why don’t you just ask them where they went to school? If they refuse you’re out, what, the cost of postage?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  280. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    I suppose it is the certainty lof a religious believer that makes you so careless about choosing words that embody logic and clarity. In any event I am left wondering what you do believe about 9/11 so allow me to begin coming to grips with it by asking whether your description “the Arab patsy hijackers” means you reject the mad ideas of Revusky and some others that there were no airliners flown into the WTC towers? I trust so.

    Assuming you are capable of logical thought may I go further and ask whether you agree that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would have regarded it as a great success to get America involved in a war in Afghanistan? (It will have occurred to you that ObL was well aware of what Vietnam did to America and the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan had done to the USSR).

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  281. Mike P says:
    @Anon

    Anon – thanks for giving me a chance to reiterate: I am basing my “amateur faith” on my own assessment of the physical evidence, such as the demonstration of nanothermite in the dust produced by the collapses (but there is lots more). In my above comment, I used the “3000 architects and engineers” just as a rhetorical device, with the sole purpose of getting others to look at the actual evidence for themselves.

    You point out that this number still amounts to only a “minute fraction” of such people in America. I guess that is true, but then, how many of the total number take any interest in this, and how many of those have actually looked at the evidence? And among the latter, how many will sign their names to a petition that is likely to hurt them when it comes to bidding on government contracts? That as many as 3000 have done so is huge.

    You also make the unsubstantiated claim that they have “not managed to add anyone with any credibility to their number in many years.” Trying to contend this point will be hopeless, since you will anoint yourself as the arbiter of “credibility” – even though you have none yourself. So, instead I will just thank you for outing yourself so clearly as the cheap, depraved shill you are.

    • Replies: @Anon
  282. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    [d] You’re sitting inside a gigantic aluminium sausage which acts as a partial faraday cage and attenuates signal. Even sitting stationary outside the terminal, signal is usually pretty weak.

    Yup, cellphone calls from aeroplanes in 2001 is pure fallacy.

    • Replies: @Anon
  283. Anonymous[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    While it is impossible to be unfair to Jonathan Revusky you go close. You should know that the ten thousand figure is not about money and greed but about the prize money he wants to put up for the proposed Jonathan Revusky Speed Typing Award. You see he is confident that he will be the first winner and set a never’to-beaten benchmark because of his proven unique ability to type faster than the speed of thought for hours at a time.

  284. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    So seems to the constant in conspiracy theories. Interesting, but always left without that neatly tied bow.

    What are you waiting for? An admission on live TV? Would you even believe it then?

    9/11 may have signs of error, incompetence, suspicious coincidences, but as of yet despite come compelling arguments, I remain unconvinced I am as big a dweeb as the advocates claim.

    The evidence trail is a mile wide. Not only can we prove the official story is complete bunk, we can also do a reasonable job of deducing what actually happened.

    You spent quite a while thinking and writing a nice post, so why not spend some of that time reviewing the evidence? http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html seems a good place to start.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  285. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    I’m afraid even some of the dimmer bulbs on UR threads might groan like a Trump staffer at POTUS’s latest egregious tweet when they see how pathetic and feeble you are willing to prove yourself.

    You need your old Grade 1 teacher to stop you saying you won’t try answering my observation about the lack of numbers added to the original architects & engineers signatories because I would (you suppose) manipulate the criterion of “credibility”. Oh don’t make your even half sharp allies cringe. Whatever inference can be drawn from the facts I asserted could only be countered by showing that my premise was wrong. By omission indeed you can be taken to have admitted that the a&e worthies have failed to get any more eager beavers to sign up after the initial rush of blood to the head. To be perfectly clear for the simpleminded, you could have answered me with the actual figures of signatories.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @redmudhooch
  286. The strange thing, however, is that neither Betty Ong, nor the Flight Captain John Ogonowski, nor Barbara Olson, wife of Ted the Solicitor General who called him on “Airfones,” (which had been removed from the planes earlier), on cell phones, landlines, to ask Ted “what she should say to the Pilot and flight crew” standing next to her in the back of the plane, as horrid Arabs took over the plane that flew into the Pentagon in a very realistic exercise, nor in fact most of the two thousand official victims of 9/11 appear on the Social Security Death Index. The names are read each year in the temple, on radio and on television, and are written in stone around the fountains, their biographies appeared in the newspapers, their wedding rings were found in the rubble, if not their bones or bodies, but they were never recorded as officially dead. “German Reader” has his work cut out for him.

  287. Mike P says:
    @Miro23

    Good reply. I guess he does not really have faith in those congressmen though – instead, he shares their faith that pecunia non olet (“money does not stink”).

  288. @Twodees Partain

    Questioning the likelihood of a cell phone in 2001 being capable of remaining connected for more than a few seconds at even the minimum altitude and speed

    Cellphones work better on airplanes. 20,000 feet isn’t even 4 miles (typical for a cell-phone connection). Elevation makes cell hand-off a snap.

    Try it some time. Go to a regional airport, spend $100 for a 90-minute fly-around in a Cessan. Try your phone. You’ll find it works better than ever.

  289. @ValmMond

    No. But one can argue that establishing the truth for its own sake is a self-sufficient moral imperative.

    Er, no. Truth has no relevance to morality, “imperative” or otherwise. Facts are facts, morality is a subjective evaluation.

    It doesn’t matter what exactly will change to set the record straight. It must be done simply because this is the right thing to do.

    Who says when the record is straight? Who decides if that makes any difference to the contemporaneous situation? Who takes action because of the “truth” being found (and being all “imperative” and stuff)?

    These folks are just wasting a lot of heated and re-heated air. Seriously, d00d, was Montezuma strangled or stabbed? Both, you say?? Collective gasps all around!! Re-write those histories!

    • Replies: @ValmMond
    , @Anon
  290. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The birth records for Betty Ong and her sister Gloria Ong indicate that their surname AT BIRTH was indeed Ong, not Ng.

    If correct, this disposes of the theory that Betty Ng changed her name to Ong. Also, the flight attendant was said to have the middle name Ann.

    https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/betty_a_ong_born_1956_5956787

    https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/gloria_ann_ong_born_1954_5323746

  291. Mike P says:
    @Anon

    Here is what you said in your first comment:

    … and who have not been able to add anyone with any credibility to their number in many years?

    This is not a question of numbers, but of individual credibility. I your second comment, you assert that

    To be perfectly clear for the simpleminded, you could have answered me with the actual figures of signatories.

    and thus make it about numbers.

    You post anonymously, you have nothing to offer but insults, and you can’t even keep your own story straight for 20 minutes if it gets in the way of winning a shouting match. You clearly have no integrity whatsoever.

    Behold the fearsome champion of the government-sanctioned conspiracy theory – a piss pot for a helmet and a plumber’s helper for a sword.

    • Replies: @Anon
  292. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I think you mean “fantasy” do you not, a “fallacy” being a logical error. However I would be more interested in your comment on this (and other similar products of internet search):

    https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2004-07-16-jet-phones_x.htm

    As you see in mid 2004 calls were being made possible at 25,000 feet. Other sources say it was only up to 10,000 feet before that which would have been enough for Flight 93.

    Having done my bit can I ask that you provide text or links for what was allegedly said on the cell phone calls? If I am wrong in guessing that the calls were possible I agree that they become central to finding the truth of the events of 9/11.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  293. Sean says:
    @Erebus

    If an experiment shows that a particle can travel faster than light, it can be inferred that the experimenters have made an inadvertent mistake. However, deliberately blowing up a building in NYC that predictably has multiple cameras on it would seem to be a poorly thought out way of convincing people against known laws of physics.

  294. Interesting. Great analysis. No commentary has yet refuted it. It’s more food for thought and further investigation.

    The person above who said cell phone calls in 2001 were possible from higher altitudes at significant speed is a liar. That is a lie. Since that time, have you noted that the FBI back-tracked on the number of calls made from cell phones? A clear sign the FBI was lying and by changing the Narrative they are covering their tracks in plain site.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  295. @Anon

    The FBI disagrees with you and USA Today. If you’re with the FBI, you’re contradicting yourself, but that’s not suprising.

    • Replies: @Anon
  296. Sean says:

    Michael Ruppert, Kurt Sonnenfeld and John Patrick Bedell. Need I say more?

  297. @Cold N. Holefield

    The person above who said cell phone calls in 2001 were possible from higher altitudes at significant speed is a liar.

    Meh. Conspiracy theory bullshit. At what altitude were the 9/11 aircraft? At what airspeed? At what location relative to cell assignments?

    1. 9/11 aircraft were below 17,000 feet altitude (FAA data).
    2. Airspeed was below 300 knots to permit maneuvering to line-up target.
    3. Cell assignment capability in geographic area was optimum.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  298. @Jonathan Revusky

    1. 9/11 aircraft were below 17,000 feet altitude (FAA data).
    2. Airspeed was below 300 knots to permit maneuvering to line-up target.
    3. Cell assignment capability in geographic area was optimum.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky

    LOL. Truth’s a real bitch, ain’t it, you insufferable jackass?

  299. On supposed cell phone calls and vicsim, don’t forget the hilarious “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham” gaffe.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  300. @Anonymous

    Ron Unz has quite a number of sophisticated publications to his name and certainly does not need any “class on the difference between real facts and storytelling” from you or anyone else.

    A few years ago, I would have agreed with the above. However, since then, I have come to understand the man’s weak points.

    Ron Unz really seems to believe that if enough people repeat a story, particularly people he deems “prominent”, the story somehow becomes true. Or, at least, it gains this very strong presumption of being true…

    So, enough “prominent” people repeated this Betty Ong story that Ronnie decided that it must be true, to the point of wagering $10,000 that her high school attendance would check out if you got your hands on a yearbook.

    That Unz would make such a wager about this kind of cipher character shows clearly that the man does not fully understand the difference between storytelling and real facts. Of course, that also applies to the majority of the contributors and participants on this website.

  301. @Jonathan Revusky

    Shills for who, the Black Betty Pranker? :)

    As for Ong/Ng, firstly, I don’t see what’s so statistically impossible about repeating a mistake three times. Strange but not impossible. Still, what is more likely is that she and others simply spelled that surname in one way for a while and then later she decided to change it to a different spelling. That’s not so unusual. Perhaps her family was simply given the “wrong” surname at the time of immigration the way Hobsbawm was and she only got around to changing it later.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Anon
  302. tanabear says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    EliteComminc: “But neither one of these conclusions is born out by the evidence.”

    NIST admitted in their study and analysis of WTC7 that it fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. Yet Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said that there was resistance provided during the collapse. However, you cannot have free-fall and resistance being provided at the same time. Whether to believe or disbelieve the official is story is very simple.

    Is momentum transfer at free-fall acceleration possible?

    Yes or No.

  303. @NoseytheDuke

    I think she’s hampered by using a cell phone to post. She’s usually much more articulate. I get what she’s saying, though the poor format does kind of mess up the message.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  304. @Anon

    Why don’t you just ask them where they went to school?

    Well, one reason I don’t is because I don’t really care. The $10,000 wager with Ron Unz regarding Betty Ong was solely whether she was in the appropriate yearbook to back up her (rather thin) life history. That’s it.

    That was the focus of the activity that led to this article.

    If they refuse you’re out, what, the cost of postage?

    Well, if you’re interested in the answer (or lack thereof) to this question, why don’t you write these people a letter? What’s with this assumption that the ONLY person here who can do anything is me?

    It reminds me of Terry Jones, the Koran burning pastor. People sent him hundreds of Korans to burn because presumably this is the one guy who can really burn a Koran!

    • Replies: @Anon
  305. @Isapf

    Good catch. A young couple who are distantly related by marriage to one of my cousins has done a huge job by cataloging graves in my family tree and adding photos, etc. This is of course much different from the findagrave member you mentioned, because the two doing all the work on the site regarding my family are at least related, even though distantly.

    The member you described is apparently filling in blanks for a number of people who only have in common the fact that their names appear in events that are regarded by some people as fake mass killings.

  306. @Miro23

    You’re welcome. The post I responded to jogged my memory and led me to do a quick search for a key phrase. Root did seem to have uncovered some interesting facts about Obama. He expresses his thoughts well, anyway.

  307. @Qualtrough

    Oh, bullshit. You make your first comment here an attempt to hint to the site owner that this article makes everything else published here suspect. That isn’t even a good try. Why should anybody give a tin shit whether or not you think articles published here are credible or not?

    I doubt you’ve ever read an article on this site, including this one. Shill.

  308. @for-the-record

    Take it a step further and find her death certificate, or her obituary, or her social security index. You’ll need that to tie your Betty Ong to the one in the 911 narrative. Half of the evidence isn’t enough.

    • Replies: @Anon
  309. @tanabear

    NIST admitted in their study and analysis of WTC7 that it fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories.

    Let me give you just a trifling bit of assistance with your wild-eyed horror at the thought of NIST making a statement without absolute qualification on all physical phenomena related …. : NOTHING falls in atmosphere as pure “free fall”. NOTHING. Got that?

    Yes, I know … that just means NIST was part of the conspiracy.

    Oh, lord, why am I talking to loons?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  310. @Erebus

    It seems to me that the wager stands undecided until all conditions are met. One of the conditions is that she (name and photo) appear in an original hard copy of the yearbook.

    I’ve been thinking about this over the last day, and I really cannot concur. First of all, it is quite dubious to me that there was any clear stipulation that the wager could only be resolved by an “original hard copy” of the yearbook. In fact, I don’t think there was.

    This stands to reason really…

    You see, if the wager were the other way round, and I had promised to give Ron ten grand if Betty was in the yearbook, then it would make perfect sense to demand an original hard copy, because my position is the conspiracist position that it is quite likely that any digitized version or reprint (subsequent to 9/11/2001 anyway!) would have been tampered with.

    However, Ron’s position is the anti-conspiracist position. He’s basically saying: “Of course, Betty Ong is a real person who attended this high school. There is nothing sinister going on here.” If that is your position, then there is simply no reason to think that the digitized version of the yearbook on classmates.com is going to be any different from the original hard copy. Certainly not in any devious, underhanded kind of manner…

    In any case, if Ron really believed there was much chance that finding an original hard copy would salvage the wager for him, then it ought to be up to him to make that case, no? However, Ron is not making any such case. In fact, he has gone silent. Well, that, of course, is the basic Ronnie Unz modus operandi. I have never seen Ron concede a debating point. He just walks away and says he’s too busy. Basically, Ron fired his shot and then walked away.

    As best I can figure, the only extra information in this case that we would get from an original 1973 yearbook is that it would tell us who the black girl was. Probably it was V. Ole, but, as regards the wager, that doesn’t matter! If it was Ole or Osborne, say, it doesn’t affect the wager. Ron loses either way. Even if, by some miracle there was a black girl whose name really was Betty Ong, it does not help Ron a bit, because the wager was obviously about the Chinese flight attendant, who is not black. I don’t see any scenario where Ron wins the wager!

    In short, to continue with this charade, one would have to have some idea of what you could discover in the original yearbook that could salvage the wager for Ron. I can’t think of anything, honestly. And presumably, Ron can’t think of anything either, because then he’d be saying it, no?

    If so, “Ong” & “Ng” may be equivalent in Hakka/Cantonese or whatever, but they’re not legally interchangeable in the US.

    Well, look, obviously, these people trying to say that Betty Ng is OBVIOUSLY the same person as Betty Ong the flight attendant are just shills anyway. There is ZERO indication that anybody in the Ong family ever spelled their surname any other way than O-N-G. This is simply not something serious.

    So, you should be able to shed considerable light on the likelihood of Betty Ng being the famous Betty Ong by looking for her siblings under the “Ng” name in the yearbooks, as you did under the “Ong” name.

    Well, I now see that I wrote comment #272 after this one. I already looked at this. Even though I never took the Ng/Ong conflation seriously at all, I still looked.

    There’s nothing there either.

    So it’s not just that Betty Ong is not in any yearbook, but her siblings who allegedly attended the same school are not there either. Consider this article from 2004, in an English-language Hong Kong newspaper:

    http://www.scmp.com/article/466501/angels-last-call

    All the Ong kids attended George Washington High School. As a teenager, Ong grew to be a tall and attractive girl. She was self-conscious about her willowy 175cm height, but it helped her excel in such sports as basketball and volleyball.

    All the Ong kids attended that school? No, they did not.

    As for Betty playing basketball and volleyball, I looked at the various pages of the women’s varsity teams for those sports. No Betty. This is all just storytelling!

    Ron Unz is the kind of guy who would read an article like that and say how convincing it was! He would even scoff at the idea that there is any need to check any of these details. In conclusion:

    Ronnie got schooled big-time!

    There can be no serious controversy over this. He obviously lost and obviously owes the money.

  311. @Daniil Adamov

    Still, what is more likely is that she and others simply spelled that surname in one way for a while and then later she decided to change it to a different spelling. That’s not so unusual.

    It is is unusual.

    But fine, if you’re saying that this is what happened, then you ought to produce some proof. And hey, I’m a sporting fellow, so I wish you the best of luck with that!

  312. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cold N. Holefield

    I can understand you blurting that out if you were still in the bath but now that you are presumably clean, dry and reasy to go, could you please give a useful/helpful reply.

    I would be surprised if I had missed the headline “FBI labels Flight 93 Phone Calls Fakes” but I suppose it’s possible no one thought it odd at the time.

  313. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Touché. I couldn’t be bothered to read all your stufff let alone twice so I give you this point score.

  314. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, without risking drowning in the torrents, I have got to the point where I tentatively proffer the thought that “the yearbook” actually means “the original printed yearbook”. Cf. the law’s best evidence rules.

  315. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Revusky that he won his bet against Mr. Unz fair and square. Betty Ong is not in the yearbooks that she is purported to be in. However, for whatever reason, it doesn’t look like Mr. Unz is willing to give Mr. Revusky $10,000, at least judging from comment #165. This is also fair, I suppose, as it is his own money that is on the line, and $10k is no small sum. Anyway, that is between the two of them. So the real question is: now what?

    Mr. Revusky is quite knowledgeable on 9/11 topics, and he goes about publishing his theories all while using his real name. This is admirable. If he were to show that he is willing to go above and beyond in establishing his credibility (such as contacting relevant people involved in the 9/11 narrative), I’m sure there would be no shortage of people (9/11 truthers and non-truthers alike) willing to donate to his cause. There are indeed many questions surrounding 9/11 that are in need of answers, and too few people are coming up with answers, as opposed to just more questions.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  316. There are likely 100 anomalies & unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 event.

    In his article, I appreciated how Jon Revusky wisely made beneficial application of Conan Doyle’s (fictional) great Sherlock Holmes, instead the “washed” version recently presented in a ZUS television series.

    If Americans really cared a lot more, all would benefit by a careful reading of J.R.’s very important (literary) detective work.

    However, I for one suggest that Revusky’s expose is directed towards a specific readership (audience) which has passion for awareness and truth.

    Regrettably, his solid “Betty Ong” case will be scorned by a majority of “insouciant” and M.I.A.-Zionist intimidated Americans.

    No doubt, I admit having a “chip on my shoulder” with fellow Bread & Circus-entertained / distracted American citizens, and such lament includes elements of the harmful & oft mysterious Truth community.

    Thanks to both Revusky and Ron Unz. Long may you think & speak!

  317. @Steve Gittelson

    Apparently you haven’t investigated the matter thoroughly nor have you read the article to which I linked.

    Explain Amy Sweeney. Cell Assignment was not Optimal for the majority of Flight 93‘s journey and yet many of the cell phone calls allegedly took place when not only was Cell Assignment not optimal, but actually impossible, and certainly impossible statistically for the number of successful cell phone calls reported to have been made on Flight 93.

    Also, please explain the FBI waffling on this. I say waffling, but it’s tantamount to lying as far as I’m concerned. When they had to take an Official Stand for legality purposes in the Moussaoui Trial, they agreed with Professor Dewdney’s Findings and scaled back the number of calls made from cell phones on Flight 93. When backed into a corner, they changed their tune. That implies they’re liars, and if they’re lying about that or have lied about that, then what else have they lied about?

    From the linked article.

    Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

    Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
    , @Anon
  318. @Anonymous

    An evidence trail that is based on a lot of unanswered and decidedly suspicious behavior and contradictions is not evidence making a solid case.

    One need not be a historian to know that a myriad of events have troubling aspects that could filled with sinister explanation — that alone does not make it so. I am not inclined to find a person guilty based on what are suspicious variables and unanswered questions.

    As for TV, a prime tool for misleading the public.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  319. fnn says:

    Public Radio’s This American Life could do a story about the apparent mystery of Betty Ong and get away with it. The puzzle of the missing yearbook pictures is the kind of the hook they typically use to introduce their stories.

  320. @Jonathan Revusky

    If I wanted to see a record of my attendance in my high schools, I would get the records.

    I am not supporting Mr. Unz’s absolute certainty, but the actual records would be helpful. But beyond that, so would the records of other contended fictitious victims.

  321. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    Do you actually know anything about law and practice wrt names in America or any country or are you just waffling?

    Surnames or given names?..And don’t forget the regular surnames of today are quite recent compared with the antiquity of even the Common Law.

    If it isn’t a crime what’s to stop people using multiple names, as they do? Indeed many criminals have been known to use a dozen names. How many have you heard of bring prosecuted for doing that?

    If you end up realising that the law enters into it only if there is a specific statute or regulation or fiddling with names is an ingredient in a crime of fraud you may wonder why you think you have found a problem which affects the probability of Betty Ong and Betty Ng being one and the same person.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Anon
  322. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    I disagree. In fact, “Colleen Pater” has been admonished and threatened with deletion by Mr. Unz, and proffered excuses such as lack of (effective) formal education and disability in verbal expression.

  323. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I’ll never forget it. “But, but, but……….he was under duress and when you’re under duress and in shock you say silly things that make no sense”, they’ll say. But not in enough of a shock to storm the cockpit and crash the plane.

    What’s horrible to imagine is what was ultimately done to these callers. Some of them were REAL. Did they put a gun to their head and tell them to make the call? Was it voice recognition software? Actors who sounded like them? The REAL ones had to have been executed after being forced or coerced or fooled into making the calls if that’s how it transpired. If that’s the case, it’s even more horrible than the Official Version.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  324. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniil Adamov

    You have not only suggested realistic explanations to the pigheaded and longwinded author but I would draw attention to her being an adolescent at the time and that alone suggests many possible explanations for unexpected behaviour.

  325. Willem says:

    I think Revusky won the bet, regardless of the fact that most commenters here seem to disagree. But then many comments were clearly ad hominem to Revusky, i.e. commenters don’t seem to like Revusky and ‘therefore’ do not like his Black Betty narrative.

    In terms of the Betty Ong or Ng pictures that were shared here: I think none compared.

  326. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958.

    Personal records are no longer made available to third parties by public authorities in CA. However, CA births details were published until 1995, and the Social Security Administration continues to publish death records (now with a 3 year delay).

    Land ownership records (e.g. deeds) are publicly available, as are voter registration records.

    • Replies: @Anon
  327. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Have you thought through the problems of
    1. Having the thermite installed at just the right very different levels for where the planes would later strike the twin towers?
    2. The evidence/prima facie inference that the very different weight above the fire weakened steel in the two towers was the reason one collapsed in a much shorter time than the other? [I trust you are not going to pose as an expert on how heat can weaken steel or other technical matters on which you have no basis for personal belief]?
    3. Why any conspirators would want to add to the risks by having WTC7 deliberately demolished at the time of the major event?
    4. Why Occam’s Razor doesn’t push the motive of ObL (to have America bogged down in war in Afghanistan) way ahead of any speculative motives involving a chain of events leading to war in Iraq which is far chancier and more complicated?

    • Replies: @Meimou
  328. ValmMond says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    morality is a subjective evaluation

    So incest, torturing kids and murdering for fun might be moral if someone decides they are? Really?
    In evolutionary terms, understanding one’s environment (~ knowing the truth) is one’s only chance for survival.

    was Montezuma strangled or stabbed?

    It may not matter to you, but no doubt it mattered for the Aztecs 500 years ago. And why should we care what does or doesn’t matter to you?
    If there were a serial killer terrorizing your neighborhood who just slaughtered a family next door, wouldn’t you like to see that individual identified and apprehended? Or would it make no difference to you whether your neighbors were murdered or died from mushroom poisoning? And what if you are next?
    The 9/11 perpetrators are still running loose, shaping the masses’ perception of reality and plotting their next power coup.
    Americans’ spiral into intellectual degenerescence and political submission started with this kind of moral relativism and complete indifference to reality. You are going down, my friend. “Good riddance”, a moral relativist may say.

  329. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Revusky that he won his bet against Mr. Unz fair and square.

    No. Remember this is NOT a bilateral bet, such as “You pay me $20 if the Redsocks win, I pay you $20 if they lose.”

    Instead, Ron Unz made a unilateral offer of a reward payable if Revusky satisfies the terms. One of the conditions was:

    Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates.

    Revusky’s research suggests that Betty Ong may NOT be in the original yearbook, and that her name was instead electronically inserted into the scanned images, perhaps replacing the name of an actual student, V. Ole. If so, then the $500 may be a worthwhile investment.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @anonymous
  330. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Don’t forget the 51 private high schools in San Francisco as well.

  331. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    I would only trust Congressmen to stay bought but no one is going to have told them that 9/11 was a put up job or that they had to cover for Israel or the CIA so they probably did their best with expert witnesses and the evidence they heard about what, physically, happened. A bit like a rather superior quality jury.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Miro23
  332. @Willem

    With supporting evidence, Willem said:
    “I think Revusky won the bet…”

    Hi Willem,

    Above, agreed!

    Nevertheless, I trust that both “high roller” gamblers, Misters Revusky and Unz, recognize that getting at a percentage of forlorn 9/11 truth would supercede either party’s financial profit or loss.

    Thanks, Willem. I “call.”

    • Replies: @Sean
  333. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    But – to be relevant – what do you say about the specific subject of criticism?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  334. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    The phones Ong and the other attendant Sweeney used weren’t cell phones. They were phones installed in the galleries so crew could communicate with operations. The congressional hearing established that

    As well as Ms Olson, the 2 San Francisco men on flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania also used cell phones to speak with family.

  335. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    In the U.S., names in high school yearbooks are usually taken from the school’s official student roll, which in turn is based on names provided by parents at the time of registration.

    There is no scope whatever for a student individually changing her last name for purposes of the yearbook.

    There may be some narrow flexibility in terms of first names shown in the yearbook, e.g. James may appear as Jim, and some students may have more than one given name and choose to be called e.g. by the second name. For example, Stanley Ann Dunham could decide to call herself Ann rather than Stanley.

  336. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Now I get it. Thanks.

  337. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    You have misconceived the argument. Your variation on the “an is can’t entail an ought” truism isn’t an answer to saying that it is part of our (presumed) shared mores that establishing truth is a good in itself. That you might disagree or might wish to qualify that assertion isn’t the point and anyway is not what you said.

  338. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Willem

    Indeed. It’s quite likely Betty Ong the flight attendant and yearbook Betty Ng are probably not the same person. Maybe Revusky is right and Betty Ong never really existed. Maybe she did exist, and did in fact go to the same school as Betty Ng, and graduated in the same year, but for one reason or another, she just never had her picture and name printed in the yearbook. In that case, it’s easy to imagine that the two girls might’ve been good friends in high school. Judging from their photos, it looks like the two girls even shared a liking for circle pendant necklaces.

    • Replies: @Anon
  339. Anonymous[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Probably an underestimate of the number of suggested relevant inquiries that commenters have suggested that Revusky might have made if he was serious about anything but the monry.

  340. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Bravo! A man should stay in character.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  341. Sean says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    The bet is about what is in the actual yearbook. Nobody is paying $10,000 for a few internet searches.

  342. @Cold N. Holefield

    Explain Amy Sweeney. Cell Assignment was not Optimal for the majority of Flight 93‘s journey

    Flight 93 had its own movie and is greatly fictionalized. Also, 93′s flight path took it away from good cell coverage, until it turned around.

    Mostly, Mr.Holefield, what’s cell calls got to do with anything relevant to purported events?

    Nothing.

  343. @ValmMond

    So incest, torturing kids and murdering for fun might be moral if someone decides they are? Really?

    Yes, really. Subjectivity at the societal level defines morality. Sorry, d00d, but yes it does, your own moral qualms notwithstanding.

    It may not matter to you, but no doubt it mattered for the Aztecs 500 years ago. And why should we care what does or doesn’t matter to you?

    My point exactly. Exact circumstances are of but brief importance.

    Americans’ spiral into intellectual degenerescence and political submission started with this kind of moral relativism and complete indifference to reality. You are going down, my friend. “Good riddance”, a moral relativist may say.

    Oh, bullshit. Sermonize someone who believes your nonsense, padre.

    • Replies: @ValmMond
  344. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Betty used her own telephone card. Remember those? You could buy them everywhere. The 99 cent stores had them for 100 minutes for just $1.00. Other stores $10 to $15.

    They had a long list of about 15 numbers you had to tap in. They were a pain because you had to tap in all those numbers then the phone number.

    They were very widely used at the time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  345. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Reason first, middle names and family names and full names of parents plus mothers maiden name are on birth certificates is because including all those names makes it difficult to get the wrong birth certificate due to similar names.

    The sibling Gloria, same parents, is further evidence Betty Ann Ong born and raised in San Francisco did exist.

    Maybe someone can explain to me why, out of the 3,000 who either died or were moved to a CIA mossad gulag that day there is this claim that Betty Ong did not exist?

    Why her? Because her hometown honored her?????

    • Replies: @German_reader
  346. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cold N. Holefield

    Both Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong used satellite phones, not cell phones.

    I don’t believe the official government story either, but the anti government story people are ridiculous claiming that Sweeney and Ong used cell phones and claiming cell phones couldn’t be used from planes at the time.

  347. Sparkon says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Flight 93 had its own movie and is greatly fictionalized. Also, 93′s flight path took it away from good cell coverage, until it turned around.

    Mostly, Mr.Holefield, what’s cell calls got to do with anything relevant to purported events?

    Nothing.

    Really? Then explain please how Todd Beamer’s Verizon cell phone records show 19 calls made from his number after Flight 93′s alleged crash near Shanksville.

    On September 29, 2001, the FBI received detailed records from Verizon’s wireless subscriber office in Bedminster, NJ, that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made 19 outgoing calls after the alleged 10:03 AM crash time of Flight UA 93. This fact, along with the sixth one¹, indicates either that the man self-identified as Todd Beamer was not on UA 93, or Tod[d] Beamer’s cell phone was not on the flight, or this flight did not crash.

    ¹ According to Jefferson, the phone of the man to whom she was speaking remained connected long after UA 93 crashed.

    http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-1/

    Whatever kind of a roll Todd Beamer was on, apparently he didn’t let a little thing like an airplane crash slow him down, or stop his jaw from flapping.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  348. Mike P says:
    @Anon

    Lee Hamilton, the co-chair of the commission, said that it was set up to fail.

    “Superior quality jury” my foot. You are nothing but a hired shill. What is the weather like in Tel Aviv?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  349. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Third parties can get those records.

    Person who wants those records just types up an affidavit stating his her name and reason for needing a copy of the original certificate

    Take the affidavit to a notary, show the notary your dr license. He or she stamps and signs the affidavit.

    Send or take the affidavit to the records office and you get them.

    I’ve done it several times.

    You can easily get your own birth marriage etc certificate by mail. Just call or go on the internet to find the address and the fee.

    Fill out and print the form on the internet write a check for the fee, send it in a a week or so later the certificate arrives in the mail.

    Anyone could fill and print out the form claiming to be Betty Ann Ong dob and parents name and get Betty Ong’s birth certificate

    But I, a third party have easily obtained birth certificates using the affidavit method.

  350. @Steve Gittelson

    Mostly, Mr.Holefield, what’s cell calls got to do with anything relevant to purported events?

    This is why the cell phone calls or any calls are important. They help to form The Narrative. So they have EVERYTHING to do with the relevant reported events. They’re crucial in “humanizing” 9/11 and creating a story. They create an indelible perception not easily undone, as we see, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    A Washington Post story said: “[Passenger Jeremy] Glick’s cell phone call from Flight 93 and others like it provide the most dramatic accounts so far of events aboard the four hijacked aircraft during the terrifying hours of Tuesday morning, and they offer clues about how the hijackings occurred.”6

  351. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Even simpler, look at the year books in Washington’s library.

  352. @Anon

    Maybe someone can explain to me why, out of the 3,000 who either died or were moved to a CIA mossad gulag that day there is this claim that Betty Ong did not exist?

    Because commenter “Rurik” mentioned her in a discussion with Revusky about 9/11:

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1354938

    Which caused Revusky to come up with his bizarre claim that Betty Ong never existed.
    Presumably he would have done just the same if Rurik had mentioned some other well-known 9/11 victim who was prominent in 9/11 reporting back in 2001 (e.g. Todd Beamer).
    That’s literally all there is to this nonsense.

  353. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, if you’re interested in the answer (or lack thereof) to this question, why don’t you write these people a letter? What’s with this assumption that the ONLY person here who can do anything is me?

    You stand to gain $10K at the risk of $1. I stand to gain $0 at a tremendous waste of time. Do you see the difference in motivation here?

  354. @Jonathan Revusky

    “First of all, it is quite dubious to me that there was any clear stipulation that the wager could only be resolved by an “original hard copy” of the yearbook. ”

    You did paste this into a reply to Ron:
    “This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

    I really think you’re totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you’d like to take a “bet” how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I’d still pay up.”

    His suggestion that you spend $500 for a copy indicates that he meant that you go and buy an actual copy. $500 is about right for a copy of a yearbook issue of that vintage. I would have taken that as a request to see, in an actual copy of the yearbook, the page where her picture belonged.

    I don’t see how he meant “show me a link to this page in a yearbook online”.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  355. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Meimou

    If the official story is true, then the CIA FBI NORAD whatever are totally useless.

  356. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Who is Betty Ng? There are no Elizabeth or Betty Ngs born at the right time (1956 or so) in the California records, though there is a Joyce Elizabeth Ng.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  357. @Cold N. Holefield

    “What’s horrible to imagine is what was ultimately done to these callers. Some of them were REAL. …etc.”

    In the case of Ted Olson’s claims that his wife called him several times, the FBI later concluded that he was lying, because there were no Airphones on AA 757s by that month in 2001, and no cellphone could have made a call. That story was a ridiculous lie that CNN released at 2 am or thereabouts, on 9/12/2001, and it was already being ridiculed at about 8 am that day when I checked in on a few of my favorite sites.

    That means, to me, that these reported calls were all probably inventions that were passed on by the media. That “Let’s Roll” story was so ridiculous that several of us on Free Republic were gang-flamed for ridiculing it, and kept right on calling bullshit, because it was such obvious bullshit..

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  358. Miro23 says:
    @Anon

    I would only trust Congressmen to stay bought but no one is going to have told them that 9/11 was a put up job or that they had to cover for Israel or the CIA so they probably did their best with expert witnesses and the evidence they heard about what, physically, happened. A bit like a rather superior quality jury.

    In any political environment (and most organizations are political to some extent) there’s an awareness of OK subjects and Not-OK subjects of conversation – often related to the organizational power structure. Go around badmouthing the managing director and you might get fired.

    Congress is a hyper-political environment, and Congressmen understand perfectly the Congressional power structure – and they know better than to question the official account of 9/11. They probably even try to cleanse it from their thoughts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  359. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Betty used her own telephone card. Remember those? You could buy them everywhere. The 99 cent stores had them for 100 minutes for just $1.00. Other stores $10 to $15.

    Nope. To use a seat back “airphone,” you had to use a credit card.

    As in “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” there is a MISSING PIECE in all the accounts of telephone calls from airliners: nobody has produced telephone bills that would show exactly when calls were made, to what number, how long the call was connected, etc.

    Even back in 2001, it would have been trivially easy for the FBI and other agencies to “pull” all billing records from cellphone, airphone and landline companies. Cellphone invoices in the U.S. also show INCOMING calls.

    Such records are routinely subpoenaed, e.g. in traffic accident cases where a driver may have been texting or talking at the time of the incident. No phone billing records appear to have been referred to in any of the MSM reporting, official reports and the FBI evidence presented for the Moussaoui trial.

    It is at least surprising that 17 years on, we are still discussing whether and how Ted Olson could have spoken with Barbara Olson. The question was raised at the time, and could easily have been laid to rest by checking phone company billing records. The very fact that we are poring over bits and pieces of news accounts, hearsay statements etc. shows an iron determination by powerful players NOT to look at primary evidence.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  360. @Anon

    Read the article. Originally, it was claimed by The Media, without correction from the FBI, that many calls from all flights were made with cell phones. Five years later after The 9/11 Truth Movement called into question the possibility of cell phone calls at excessive speed and altitude, the FBI changed its tune and now claimed only two calls total across all flights were made by cell phones.

    It’s a lie. More than two calls were made by cell phones and we know this as follows. The FBI went out of its way to smother Deena Burnett’s account while amplifying Lorne Lyles’ account. Why would the FBI be inconsistent? Because the FBI‘s lying, that’s why, and they’re lying because the calls are not real in the sense the majority of people think they’re real.

    In spite of what has been said above, some people may be able to accept the idea that everyone who reported receiving cell phone calls from the 9/11 airliners – except perhaps for those who reported the 9:58 calls from Felt and Lyles – had misunderstood what they had been told. But even if so, they face a still more difficult problem: If all the calls (except the two at 9:58) were made from onboard phones, as the FBI’s report for the Moussaoui trial says, why did some of the calls produce the supposed caller’s cell phone number on the recipient’s Caller ID?

    Tom Burnett: The best-known case of this type involves the reported calls from Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett to his wife, Deena Burnett. As we saw earlier, she told the FBI agent that she had received three to five calls from her husband that morning. The FBI report then added:

    “Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, 925 980-3360. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.”65

    According to the report presented to the Moussaoui trial, however, Tom Burnett completed three calls, all of which were made using a passenger-seat phone (the rows from which he allegedly made the calls are indicated).66

    It is instructive to compare the FBI’s treatment of Deena Burnett’s testimony with its treatment of the testimony of Lorne Lyles, the husband of CeeCee Lyles. The FBI’s summary of its interview with him says: “At 9:58 AM, Lorne Lyles received a call at home from her celular [sic] telephone. Lyles was in a deep sleep at the time. . . . Lyles commented that CeCe [sic] Lyles’ telephone number 941-823-2355 was the number on the caller ID.”67 When the FBI turned in its telephone report for the Moussaoui trial, it reflected Lorne Lyles’s testimony that his spouse had used a cell phone. But even though Deena Burnett provided the same evidence – that her spouse’s cell phone number had appeared on her phone’s Caller ID – the FBI’s report for the Moussaoui trial did not reflect her testimony, but instead said that her husband had used a seat-back phone. This contrast provides further evidence that the FBI’s report was tailored to avoid affirming any high-altitude cell phone calls.

    In any case, how can anyone say that the FBI’s treatment of the reported calls from Tom Burnett does not provide insuperable evidence against the truth of the official story? If he had actually called from an onboard phone, as the FBI now says, how could his home phone’s Caller ID have possibly indicated that the calls came from his cell phone? Some people reject as “unwarranted speculation” the suggestion that this shows that the calls were faked. But until someone comes up with an alternative explanation, this is the only hypothesis that accounts for the facts.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  361. @Willem

    I agree that Jon made his case, Willem, but I can see where Unz has some wiggle room over the conditions he set in the email where he made the bet.

    Those who claim that photos of the two girls are “obviously the same” have probably been in trouble with their wives for trying to screw their sisters-in-law and claiming mistaken identity as an excuse.

    The various assholes who attacked and insulted the OP have outed themselves as assholes and haven’t actually laid a glove on JR in this thread.

  362. Meimou says:
    @Rdm

    Rdm

    Do you think they both are the same person? Who are they?

    http://tinypic.com/r/732otw/9

    Yes, Ellen Degenerates, but I might not have known if I only saw the first pictures.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  363. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    If so, “Ong” & “Ng” may be equivalent in Hakka/Cantonese or whatever, but they’re not legally interchangeable in the US.

    True (with certain caveats), but then a high school yearbook is not a legal document.

  364. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Both Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong used satellite phones, not cell phones.

    This is at lest technically possible. BUT:

    Where are the satellite phone provider’s billing records? Call logs? Why were these primary materials not included in the “official” report?

    Also, why of all people was JAMIE GORELICK invited to participate in drafting the 9/11 report on behalf of the Democrats if objectivity and credibility were (supposedly) of chief importance?

  365. @Cold N. Holefield

    Another thing that cell phone calls have to do with “anything relevant to purported events” is that this Betty Ong had her tale told in the first place based on a 25 minute cell phone conversation that couldn’t have taken place if she had been on a plane in flight.

    If the story of her “recorded call” was a lie, which it appears to be, then the rest of the details about her should be open to investigation. Steve thinks he can shut you up by saying that you’ve wandered off topic, when cell phone capabilities are at the root of the Betty Ong discussion.

  366. @utu

    ‘prerequisite for somebody who tries to parse the surrounding reality’

    Sure, it’s such a hard reality most people live–supplied by television and ACTUAL Yahoo!, not your trolling attempt at belittling thoughtful people by calling them ‘yahoos’, a la the CIA term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’.
    No one with a brain would give you a second thought.

    • Replies: @Anon
  367. @DESERT FOX

    Beware David Icke, is all I can say. The man gives me the heebes. And do you know what this man charges to get into one of his 8-hour-long ego massaging sessions? Fifty pounds a head, the cheapest seat I saw when he spoke in London last year. A seriously shifty Brit.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  368. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    So the towers are still there? No one was killed? They are all alive and living in NY metro? Or in the CIA MOSSAD gulag to which they were whisked?

    An entire high school saw the first plane crash into the building while waiting in the yard for school to begin

    But no, you just think you can learn everything on the internet instead of going to original sources such as people who lived and worked on lower Manhattan on that day or people in Brooklyn who had the Manhattan skyline in plain view and saw the entire thing

    If I posted that I didn’t shave today some of you internet experts would demand a photo of my whiskers.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  369. @Twodees Partain

    Agreed. The Let’s Roll Story is a crude imitation of Chariots of Fire.

    Cue the Music.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  370. Meimou says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Are you familiar with the work of Rebekah Roth? She mentions Ong during her interviews.

    Roth makes several references to Ongs phone calls. She thinks that Ong signaled that she made her call under duress. Perhaps this thing was a trail to lead you down a rabbit hole.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  371. Ron, would you be amenable to offering a $10,000 reward to anyone who can produce the phone records validating the source of all the calls reputed to have been made from the four planes that day? That would clear up the controversy surrounding the calls, I believe. I would make the offer, but I don’t have an extra $10,000 available and I don’t think I will any time soon unless I rob a bank and robbing banks is so yesterday anyway.

  372. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    No, you could use a phone card on a satellite phone in a plane. There were numerous reports that she used her phone card.

  373. @Amilcaro Dolmech-Etxaurren

    ‘I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.’

    Your problem, like most Americans’, is that you’ve been brought up on tv from the cradle. Yet, like so many AMERICANS (and western Europeans, though the percentages drop drastically in other parts of the world who KNOW what the perennial phoney regime actually DOES), you think of yourself as having a very firm grip on reality. Each and every person I know of who has gone over to the other side, has had some sort of epiphany. This initial shock, which turns what they thought they knew of reality completely on its head, is followed by years of unlearning all the bullshit the system–tv, movies, school, bestsellers–has inculcated in them, till finally they believe nothing whatsoever they read or see. And this is right and proper, to use an old term. Look to Ron Unz himself, who has written on this. Perhaps one day you’ll get that douse of cold water in your face (or choose your metaphor). Good luck.

    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
  374. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Correction on this point:

    No phone billing records appear to have been referred to in any of the MSM reporting, official reports and the FBI evidence presented for the Moussaoui trial.

    At least some phone company records were in fact referred to in some of the official reports, although the records themselves do not seem to have been published.

    Interestingly, one conclusion is that Todd Beamer spoke ONLY with a phone company employee, not with his wife.

    http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-1/

  375. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You are absolutely right that the phone records should have been supeonaed if only to add versimilltude to the tale.

  376. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @daniel le mouche

    Most people would try to make a serious case before writing a 4100-word essay, and most people would respond intelligently and appreciatively to suggestions as to further avenues of research. Revusky is not most people, though.

  377. @Meimou

    Are you familiar with the work of Rebekah Roth?

    Not very. I looked into her but she gave off a funny smell to me finally. I think she may be a fake or a disinfo agent of some sort.

  378. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I never wrote anything about 1,000s of employees.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  379. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I’d trust a trade union of guys who clean and wash the planes or load luggage or do other unskilled menial tasks more than I’d trust some Ivy League attorney appointed to the NTSB so he she could put more Israeli companies (spies and technology thieves) into airport and airline operations.

  380. @Anon

    Who is Betty Ng? There are no Elizabeth or Betty Ngs born at the right time (1956 or so) in the California records,

    Hmm, let me get this straight… do you believe that everybody living in California was born in California?

    • Replies: @Anon
  381. Rdm says:
    @Meimou

    This is what happens when a person aged from a high schooler (teens) to a college graduate (twenties). Even with those photos without spectacles, one would find it hard to figure out who was in the first photo unless you looked at the 2nd photo.

    For Betty Ng (with spectacle) and Betty Ong (with an adult photo), we’re just left with a speculation if they were the same person.

    I’m not interested in the wager. I’m only curious if Betty Ng or Betty Ong actually existed. As a matter of fact, I do think Betty Ong (a flight attendant) actually existed. However, after Mr. Revusky yearbook revelation, I became suspicious that she graduated from George Washington High School. She might as well attended GWHS but might have transferred to other high schools. Who knows?

    With regards to the wager, this is what I would say objectively,

    If Mr. Revusky would like to take on the wager back in July 2, 2016, it must be clear in the beginning so that both parties involved agreed to the statement and knew exactly what was at stake.

    Jon must confirm with Ron as in

    Jon: “Ok. fine. I’ll prove it to you. So you agree to pay me $10,000 if you lose.”
    Ron:“Well, let’s say if you couldn’t prove it Betty Ong didn’t exist, what about your wager?”
    Jon:“Ok, I’ll pay you $xxxxx.”
    Jon and Ron: “OK, let’s make a deal. It must be within a timeline of xx years.”

    Both Ron and Jon must have agreed on the wager back in 2016.

    But we don’t know if Mr. Revusky and Mr. Unz actually agreed to the wager back in 2016. It was only Ron’s $10,000 email that got Jon so worked up on Betty Ng existence further more. You can’t be like one person sticking out the wager for god’s know how long back in 2016 and coming back in 2018 and asking for it.

    It’s like I’m telling a phone scammer back in 2016,

    “I’m gonna kill you if you call me one more time !!!”

    Go and kill the scammer in 2018.

    The entire wager thing was like a line in the sand. It could either be legit or tongue-in-cheek retort.

    That’s my opinion on this ordeal.

    I do, however, respect Mr. Revusky endeavor on 9/11 thingy.

  382. Sparkon says:
    @ploni almoni

    As you can see this is the 25 minute long conversation with Betty Ong and it was recorded. It is so real.

    Real or not, your transcript is incomplete and seems to be at variance with the original FBI transcript of Ong’s call which includes statements by Ong left out of your edited version posted here.

    The initial FBI transcript of Ong’s recorded statements was made over the phone, and starts off like this:

    Ong: This is Ong. We can’t breathe. (?) He’s got mace or something.

    Op: Can you describe the person you said went into the flight deck or (?).

    Ong: I’m sitting in the back coming from business. Can you hold on for one second? He’s coming back.

    Ong: On, on number one¹, he stood upstairs² (?) Ah, nobody knows what he’s going to do. (?) Ah, I’m (?) is his (?) right now (?) Ah, we can’t get to the cockpit. The door won’t open. Hello?

    Op: Can you ah (?) information relative to you know ah force, force that. Uhm, at this point? What operation, what flight are we talking about? Flight 12?

    Ong: Right now? Okay. We’re on Flight 11 right now.

    https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-interviews-2001-09-sep-04-of-08

    ¹ In the context of Ong’s call, “number one” would seem to be one of the hijackers, but in other instances, she refers to herself as “number three,” so it’s not entirely crystal clear to whom “number one” applies in this case.

    ² There is no “upstairs” on a 767. Only the 747 had an “upstairs” in 2001.

    • Replies: @Anon
  383. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    You’re correct, of course. Nevertheless, my personal hunch is that a vintage yearbook would show the same exact thing. The notion of someone altering the scans sounds quite frankly ridiculous to me. However, if Revusky or someone else somehow managed to get their hands on an authentic yearbook, I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Either way, if Betty Ong isn’t in there, then it sounds like Revusky wins the bet.

  384. @Anon

    You didn’t write this (in the original post I responded to)?

    “BTW why do you think there have been none of American Airlines 1000s of employees to say there was no Betty Ong?”

    Maybe it was a different anon/anonymous, there is an over-proliferation of them here (some of them very serious assholes), clearly the gatekeepers/hasbara monitor this topic and go into overdrive.

    @Mods: is there any way to compel consistent use of monikers? I’ve seen this called out before, why is it being tolerated here?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  385. @Sparkon

    Oh, my gosh! I can but gasp — GASP! I say!! — in mute astonishment.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  386. @Cold N. Holefield

    Mostly, Mr.Holefield, what’s cell calls got to do with anything relevant to purported events?

    Again. Absolutely nothing. Flight 93 was shot down by an F-15 out of Oceana. A Sidewinder missile took out the starboard engine; the aircraft rolled right and dove to the ground at terminal velocity. Small pieces of the shredded engine and wing, produced by the explosion of the engine, floated to ground in a confetti-like shower a few miles away.

    Any and all phone calls are absolutely irrelevant — just part of fictionalizing an entertaining, albeit tragic, real-life event.

  387. @Twodees Partain

    His suggestion that you spend $500 for a copy indicates that he meant that you go and buy an actual copy.

    This is a rather tenuous interpretation of what happened. Really, Ron was just making an off-the-cuff suggestion as to how I could get my hands on a copy, that’s all. He was not requiring that I score a copy that way. It was just an idea.

    But look, the core issue here, with the original hard copy versus the digital version could be something like this:

    The image of the pipe is not itself a pipe. So, okay, similarly, the digital version of the yearbook is not really the yearbook, ergo I need a hard copy.

    Well,… I dunno. It’s a tenuous analogy because I can smoke a real physical pipe but I can’t smoke the image of the pipe. However, I can check whether Betty Ong is in the digital yearbook or in the physical yearbook, so….

    Finally, I look at it this way. If we have a wager about what text occurs in some book and I have the Kindle version of whatever book from Amazon and you tell me “cela n’est pas un livre”, that’s not the real book, well, unless you can make some credible argument for why the dead tree book is going to cause the result of the wager to be different than using the digital version, then this is really just frivolous, isn’t it?

    Now you can argue that you need the original hard copy because the digital version might have been altered, but the problem is, in this instance, that Ron is taking the anti-conspiracist position, so he is saying that there is nothing sinister going on. And that would imply that there is no meaningful difference between the digital version and the original! Otherwise, he is burning the candle on both ends. You see my point?

    This was basically the point I was making to erebus in #314. As I said there, I don’t see any serious prospect that getting an original hard-copy yearbook is going to cause the result of the wager to be any different. But okay, maybe I’m missing something. My sense of things is that, unless Ron comes up with some argument whereby there is any significant chance that the hard copy salvages the wager for him, then this is just gratuitous goalpost shifting.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Anon
  388. @Beefcake the Mighty

    is there any way to compel consistent use of monikers?

    LOL. I also find the whole thing absolutely exasperating! Before, there was the ability just to be “Anonymous” or “Anon” and then Ron figured that was a disaster and a cock-up, which it obviously is, but now you’ve got Anon #234 and Anon # 432 and the implication is that you’re supposed to keep track of these people in your head… Well,… maybe Ron Unz has a privileged kind of mind that can do that, but…

    But the whole thing is just such a total disaster! Even if people use their nicks consistently, it can be bad enough but this is just….

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Erebus
  389. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    An entire high school saw the first plane crash into the building while waiting in the yard for school to begin.

    I used the variations of the search argument “An entire high school saw the first WTC plane crash on 9/11″ but Google did not return any relevant hits, and so I wonder if you’d care to burnish your credibility any further, and provide a source for this story about the entire high school, and what they saw on 9/11?

    • Replies: @Anon
  390. @daniel le mouche

    Well, I have 5 of his books and as far as I can tell he has been right on most of the subjects and I have been aware of him since the 1990s.

  391. Sparkon says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Long on theatrics, short on substance, this mute [sic] astonishment of yours, but what else do you have?

    Else work harder on the mute and, gasp on dude.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  392. @Jonathan Revusky

    I find it almost hard to believe that Ron Unz is so unopen to this idea being true. He seems to be totally on board with 911–why can’t he leap any further? I’ll say I’m still finding old lies that I cling to–for our whole phoney society is 100% based on lies. Perhaps something like the whole Martin Luther King narrative could be an example: what that I was brought up thinking about him is true, what false? You have to imagine ‘what if’s’ painstakingly at every twist and turn of each and every intertwining narrative. Was King CIA? Another one is Hitler. It hit me recently that perhaps he was a good guy. I don’t want to get carried away with that one, but I can now see that it is indeed possible, or as possible as that can be with people on the ‘world stage’ level of life. Sincerity surely simply cannot exist on that exalted plane. But all our narratives, going back to George Washington and beyond, what’s true (if anything), what’s false? Who started the Civil War and why? What the hell was Lincoln all about? We’ve got all kinds of blind alleys–it seems to me, in my paranoia–held up as sorts of beacons… Bertrand Russell, many others to be found in Penguin Classics.
    Does anyone get my point? We need to dig much, much deeper, through all the steaming mountains of shit we thought we knew…

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Old Smokey
  393. Erebus says:
    @Anonymous

    Do you actually know anything about law and practice wrt names in America…

    No, which in regards to school yearbooks is indicated by my use of the word “presumably” in saying that the names contained in it would presumably be based on the school’s official rolls.
    @ Comment 339, Anonymous[249] states:

    In the U.S., names in high school yearbooks are usually taken from the school’s official student roll

    It was exactly that way in my “Common Law” home country, as well.
    If the student rolls contain the legal names of the students, and the yearbooks accurately reflect the student rolls, the names contained therein (at least in the original) must be considered definitive for the purposes of the wager and Revusky’s point stands. No “Betty Ong” in the yearbook, no “Betty Ong” in the school, and any number of “Betty Ng”s don’t change that in the absence of supporting documentation.
    Presumably, that’s why Ron Unz wagered $10k on her name being there.

  394. Ximenes says:

    The general view in the 9/11 Truth community is that all the phone calls allegedly made from hijacked airplanes on that day, including Betty’s, are plainly fake.

    There is no ‘Truth community,’ or more likely most of that community is led by disinformation agents like David Ray Griffin of “Loose Change” producer Dylan Avery.

    Betty Ong is real, and the phone call she made was real. It was made on a seatback airphone, which did exist and were used by many of the 9/11 callers, such as Tom Burnett, who reported hijackers carrying guns to his wife in California from UAL93.

    Ong also reported a shooting on AAL11. That’s why her call to her co-worker is so shrouded in mystery. Her call, like most of the others, only validates the official story in that it portrays hijackings being carried out by “Middle Eastern looking” men. Who those men were is still up for grabs. What made Ong’s call unique is that she also reported the seat number of one of the hijackers carrying guns and shooting people, and it happened to belong, not to one of the well-known Arabs we were told about, but to an Israeli gentleman named Daniel Lewin, who had once been a member of the elite commando unit Seyeret Metkal.

    Now do you see why so many want us to believe the calls are fake, and that Betty Ong didn’t even exist?

  395. @Steve Gittelson

    ‘And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.’

    Another very bitter failed writer of the Great American Novel?
    The all-wise Buddha of, I don’t know, Seattle, Brooklyn, Philadelphia?
    You’re big and mysterious, ‘coming in different guises’ to UR over so many years and seasons, watching the great cretinous tides ebb and flow, far above it all…

  396. @Sean

    So impressed with your political acumen, why you even know the term ‘nation-state’ (should be a hyphen there for future reference).
    Has it occurred to you that nations, even blocks of nations, can be and are run by very tiny, diabolical cabals, closely interlinked families?
    I realize you have read things I too once read and which just seem hackneyed expressions now, your nation states are exactly like people and want only their survival. Yes, that’s true–if and only if you know, FOR SURE, what these so-called nation-states are. If they are plutocrats, and they simply must be, then it is true that they care only for their own survival, very much at the expense of literally everyone else on the planet. Adam Smith’s ‘vile maxim’: All for us, and nothing for anyone else. But I’m taking from Chomsky, and feel therefore I am on shaky ground…

    • Replies: @Sean
  397. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    This was basically the point I was making to erebus in #314. As I said there, I don’t see any serious prospect that getting an original hard-copy yearbook is going to cause the result of the wager to be any different.

    I don’t disagree. In fact, I suspect it will bolster your case;

    Be that as it may Jonathan, any reasonable reading of the black letter wager would conclude that only an original yearbook suffices as arbiter of who won the bet, “serious prospects” or otherwise. That isn’t frivolous. The logic of the wager requires that you risk $500 against Ron’s risk of $10k. The evidence you’ve presented is of unknown provenance, and has likely been compromised. That the compromises seem to inure the point to your benefit doesn’t impact the wager’s black letter requirement, or its logic.

    If I were you (and had time on my hands), I’d go and at least look at the school’s copy (usually held in the library) and at all other relevant years. I’d examine it carefully for it’s having been compromised while I was at it. In fact, I’d have done it before publishing this article.

    Otherwise, I repeat my first comment @#6, the Imbecile[120] at #132 notwithstanding.

  398. @Sparkon

    Else work harder on the mute and, gasp on dude.

    Let’s put it this way: 17 years of conspiracy theory, and what have you — pardon the expression — loons got left?

    Nothing.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  399. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    I suppose it is the certainty of a somnolent prole that makes you so clueless and fact free with respect to the real world of physics and ballistics, among other considerations.

    Simply put, the equivalent of a ductile, largely hollow think skinned aluminum and fiberglass tube travelling at over 500 mph (impossible for a commercial Boeing 767 at or near sea level) colliding with a massive steel and concrete structure is the equivalent of the massive steel and concrete structure flying into the ductile, mostly hollow aluminum tube at the same air speed. There is no way in hell that what is shown to the sheeple in the Hezarkhani video- that same mostly hollow ductile aluminum tube with its fragile wings penetrating WTC 2 and maintaining constant velocity or being swallowed up by the Tower- could be real. It does not and cannot happen in the real world, unless YOU believe in miracles or preternatural prodigies fully outside the realm of ordinary cause and effect physical possibility.

    Ballistics demonstrates this. In order to pierce one half inch of structural steel (considering the perimeter box columns were a quarter inch think at the point of impact and the airliner would have had to have penetrated or severed at least two sides of them to penetrate the building) an armor piercing round is necessary- a sharpened, hardened alloy tip, a hard alloy jacket and a solid steel core; not to mention the bullets velocity fired from a rifle is far greater than 550 mph. In order for you to be correct, simple ballistics must be turned on its head and the makers of armor piercing ammunition have been wasting steel and alloy.

    I suggest you try to replicate your contention via an experiment. Fly the scale model of a Boeing 767 commercial airliner at a scale model of WTC 2 at or near 500 mph and see which will be the winner and which the loser.

    From the clear panoramic footage of WTC 1 and 2 taken from Chopper 4, it appears that some kind of flying object did strike or approach the tires at the time of the explosion in WTC 2, but it was NOT a commercial airliner.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  400. @Anon

    I do agree that, if not Revusky, someone who lives in the area should make the effort to contact as many classmates of hers as possible, meet them (and have them bring their original yearbook), document everything with photos and video. See if she existed. Enough of internet research, I agree. That said, it seems fairly convincing to me that she’s just another bogus piece of a giant bogus puzzle.
    It’s a political science maxim that ‘to tell a big lie often and with a straight face will make it true in the eyes of the public.’ I don’t know who said that and can’t be bothered right now to look it up. But it’s absolutely true, as (to my satisfaction) can be seen all around us every day in all our information sources, the newspapers and magazines, the networks and movie biz, and there is no better case study than 911.

  401. Meimou says:
    @Ron Unz

    So why would the “conspirators” fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong’s supposed family members and friends in the “conspiracy,”

    Here is my theory: This thing is misdirection. Because of the excellent work of Rebecca Roth, more people are finding out that the phone calls were made from the ground. There is reason to believe Betty Ong gave us clues to let us know she was under duress while making those calls.

    To get ahead ahead of this, TPTB planted this Ongdidntdie nonsense that will go down just as well as noonediedatsandyhook. They want people to associate rubbish with a counter narrative and dismiss it wholesale.

    Don’t be surprised when the midstream media pick up on this doubleplus heartless story and present ironclad evidence that Betty existed.

    “See how evil and wicked theses truthers are? Everyone who goes against the official narrative is just as dastardly as this truther asshole.”

    Reccbeca Roth on SGT.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  402. @daniel le mouche

    Another very bitter failed writer of the Great American Novel?

    Novel? Perish the thought. BS Philosophy, MS Computer Science. No interest in novels at all — haven’t read fiction since a rather dreadful trip to St. Croix in 2007.

    However, in support of, and response to your gratuitous personal attack, based in conspiracy theory hurt feewings … bite me, loser.

    • Replies: @Meimou
    , @daniel le mouche
  403. @ValmMond

    Well said, and may ‘Steve Gittelson’ crawl back into his hole.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  404. @DESERT FOX

    Yep, anyone who still believes the “official” story is the real “nutjob conspiracy theorist”, though there are few left that do, and most Americans know that Bush admin. was in on it.
    Just look at some of the evidence available on the web, its pretty obvious.
    I disagree with the energy weapons theory, and I think the planes or no planes argument is just a distraction. WTC was brought down with explosives, the videos show the explosions happening, even someone with no knowledge of controlled demolitions can see the buildings did not just collapse on their own. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it collapsed. Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint without the use of professionally rigged explosives to take out the supporting columns, not physically possible. No debate.

    Our “government” lies about everything, so why wouldn’t they lie about this? MIC, Israel, Saudis, Bankers, traitors within our govt all played a role. Everyone we’ve went to war with had no role in it. Only allies, dual citizens and traitors killed Americans that day, no different than Lavon Affair or USS Liberty, no theories needed there, they’ve been admitted to.

    Appreciate Unz putting up 9/11 articles, 9/11 truth would end all this madness, murder, theft and deceit.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  405. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    Original source, someone who stood in that school yard and saw the first plane crash into the tower and saw the second plane from his classroom windows.

    It’s a high school in the Bay ridge neighborhood

    Brooklyn is right across the river from manhattan and the towers could be seen from most of Brooklyn. So can much of manhattans skyline be seen from Brooklyn

    Sooo If something is not on the internet it never happened, never existed?

    Have none of you people ever heard of original sources?

  406. @daniel le mouche

    Agreed, the Git’s ass-hattery is so extreme, he is the first poster here I’ve put on “ignore” (clearly the right decision, based on subsequent quotes in replies).

  407. Meimou says:
    @The Scalpel

    I’m trying to understand why Ron Unz accepted any more of your articles. My best guess is that you are a sort of a lightning rod. I think your stuff would be better suited to a site like Infowars.

    Those of us that actually read infowars would disagree.

  408. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    Number one is another attendant.

  409. @Mulegino1

    Great comment as always, but a nitpick related to one I made earlier re. 1984 analogies. The proles, despite their coarseness and ignorance, are the only subjects in Oceania that retain some basic form of humanity. They do not think, of course, but they never did (that’s why they’re proles). They are what they are, and to some extent we all have our baser concerns.

    In contrast, it is the Outer Party members who have willingly surrendered critical thought and in most cases gleefully embrace their servitude. Winston Smith is an exception, but his malignantly stupid neighbor Parsons (who welcomes his eventual arrest due to his informant daughter) is the exemplar. We see Parsons in real life here, in the form of gatekeepers, concern trolls, and other assorted cucks warning us away from drawing conclusions (logical and empirical).

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Mulegino1
  410. @Anon

    Your word is not good enough.

    • Replies: @Anon
  411. @Cold N. Holefield

    “If he had actually called from an onboard phone, as the FBI now says, how could his home phone’s Caller ID have possibly indicated that the calls came from his cell phone? Some people reject as “unwarranted speculation” the suggestion that this shows that the calls were faked. But until someone comes up with an alternative explanation, this is the only hypothesis that accounts for the facts.”

    It doesn’t have to be one or the other, either that the call came from a Airphone or that it was faked. The call could very well have come from the spouse’s cell phone, but the call must have been made from a location with cell service, which in 2001, didn’t include an airplane 5,000+ feet above ground. FBI statements at trial just don’t allow for the possibility that the call was made from the ground somewhere.

    Given the state of cell phone technology in 2001, both of phones themselves and of the network in existence then, it seems much more reasonable to state that the number of cell phone calls received from the planes in flight was 0. Cell phone calls which were said to have been made from planes in flight simply couldn’t have been.

    Airphone calls or maybe satellite phone calls could have been made, but the reports of cell phone calls made from planes in flight on that day have to be false because calls of that nature just weren’t possible. Statements from the FBI on the subject that turn out to be inconsistent with other FBI statements on the subject just serve to illustrate that the FBI employs quite a few liars who are very inventive in preparing statements for trials.

  412. @redmudhooch

    John Lear , son of William Lear of the Lear jet has videos on youtube where he explains that holograms of planes were used and how no plane parts were found and a lot of other reasons no planes were used.

    The twin towers had explosives but also had directed energy beams used that destroyed the majority of the steel and molten metal continued to be hot in the basements of the twin towers for months after the fact, Dr. Judy Wood goes into this in her book Where Did The Towers GO.

    There were 7 WTC buildings destroyed, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the twin towers , and most people are unaware of these other buildings.

    One thing is for sure , Israel and the ziocon controlled deep state did 911 and got away with it. The pentagon was a prewired explosion and a worker there April Gallup walked out through the hole in the wall and no plane parts no missile, and she was working in that area of the pentagon.

  413. @Jonathan Revusky

    Yes, it’s a cockup indeed. I got in the habit of putting “anonymous” in my ignore list on sites which allow an ignore list, for that very reason. Here, it has been working well and blocking most of the anonyholes so long as their handle has ‘anon” as the first four characters.

    I seldom respond to an anonyhole comment, but will see one sometimes when hovering over the replies to a post.

  414. Erebus says:
    @daniel le mouche

    I find it almost hard to believe that Ron Unz is so unopen to this idea being true. He seems to be totally on board with 911–why can’t he leap any further?

    I don’t find it odd at all.

    In a nutshell, humans live, not in the Newtonian world, but in a narrative. They need the meaning(s) that only a narrative can lend to the cold interactions of forces and masses. The narratives get more and more complex as one goes up the food chain. At the socio-political level they can get complex indeed, and the people who have seen success within the prevailing socio-political narrative have the most invested in it. Typically, they’re are also the ones best equipped to defend it.

    What plebes like us believe doesn’t matter. “The Ruling classes” have ever depended on the total capitulation of the intelligentsia, political, and upper economic classes to the narrative for their power. That is the great insight of Orwell’s 2+2=5. Belief in an absurdity signifies total capitulation, even when it’s feigned.

    I’ve (literally) watched competent, successful engineers do the maths on the collapse of the towers, stare at the results, and reject them. Some broke contact with me.

    In this Betty Ong yearbook case, we see the process in action. Presented with increasingly persuasive evidence, Ron’s went from “85-90%” certainty of her existence to “90-95%”. If a real original copy equally or more compelling were to be put in front of him, it wouldn’t surprise me much if he simply walked away from the wager. The narrative will defend itself any way it can.

  415. ValmMond says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    dood (…) subjectivity at the societal level defines morality

    Let me guess: you are a recent college graduate, a dysphoric and overmedicated Brooklyn barista, probably grossly out of shape. Not to mention a libtard. The hope of the land!

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  416. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan, if you really want to pursue this I have a few thoughts.

    They don’t come from the internet they come from an original source, me.

    Like non existent Betty Ong and her crisis actor siblings I’m born, raised and lived most of my life in San Francisco.

    So I don’t need google maps or any other internet source.

    Like most people on this site, I picked up somewhere that Betty Ong went to George Washington High on 32nd Avenue a couple blocks from Geary in the outer Richmond district of San Francisco. I lived less than a mile north of that school.

    I assumed that because she went to Washington she and her family lived in the outer Richmond.

    I just read the Wikipedia entry. It says she grew up in Chinatown. Now, Chinatown is about 5 miles from Washington High. And whether by car or bus it’s a ghastly trip. By car it takes a good hour during week day traffic.

    To get there by bus it would involve 2 buses and a cable car. It would take an hour or more twice a day. After the cable car she would have to wait at the Geary st bus stop.

    It’s horrible, especially when it rains. Picture 50 people trying to crowd unto the Geary st bus. Then the horrible crowded awful bus that goes about 5 miles an hour till it gets west of Van Ness.

    Now, why would she or her parents want her to waste 2 to 3 hours a day to go to a perfectly ordinary average public high school when there is an ordinary public school, Galileo right in Chinatown?

    If her parents sent her to Mercy SF or St Rose or Lick-Wilmerding or another private school in western SF the horrible commute would be worth it.

    But to go to Washington? Unless it was a forced bussing thing.
    Someone found a Gloria Ong graduated 1972 from Galileo the Chinatown high school. That’s the right name and age of the sister.

    Revulsky found an inter net Washington yearbook and the only Betty Ong was black.

    There are about 75 private and public high schools in SF. St Rose closed after the 1989 earthquake. Many of the private schools opened after Betty Ong was high school age. Does anyone want to search all those schools? Not me

    Go ahead Sparkon, use your wonderful google skills and tell me how I am wrong about how to to get from Chinatown to the outer Richmond.

    Your pontificating about cities you’ve never been to is ridiculous. You should be embarrassed

  417. @Ximenes

    “Betty Ong is real, and the phone call she made was real. It was made on a seatback airphone, ”

    That’s plausible, but when her call is said to have been made on a cell phone, then it isn’t plausible. An Airfone isn’t the same thing as a cell phone. This isn’t a matter of people “wanting to believe” this or that, it’s simply a matter of insisting on accuracy in reporting.

    The problem with some of the reports of cell phone calls from planes on 9/11 is that they have been used to insert part of a phony storyline, such as the calls that Ted Olson claimed to have gotten from his wife, Barbara Olson, who was said to have been on the plane that was said to have hit the Pentagon..

    Her supposed report to him on the hijackers is where the “Arabs with boxcutters” bullshit came from. She couldn’t have called him with her cell phone, because he said that she called the main switchboard of his building collect, which isn’t a call feature on either cell phones or Airfones, and American Airlines had discontinued Airfones on their 757s before September of 2001.

    CNN, her employer, ran the “Arabs with boxcutters cell phone call” story in the early morning hours of 9/12/2001. I don’t “want to believe” this, it’s just that the evidence is clear.

  418. @ValmMond

    Let me guess: you are a recent college graduate, a dysphoric and overmedicated Brooklyn barista, probably grossly out of shape.

    LOL. No, Val, I am an old, over-educated, widely-experienced, former corporate VP of Technology, and one mean and rascally son of a bitch. I undergradded in Philosophy, so I know the difference between morality at the individual level, and morality at the societal level. Worse yet, I know ethics and ethical systems.

    You do not, and it is quite obvious.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  419. @daniel le mouche

    “The all-wise Buddha of, I don’t know, Seattle, Brooklyn, Philadelphia?”

    More likely Lebanon, KS or Fargo, ND. He has to have this outlet since he has probably gotten his ass whipped from trying his snark out in public on people who could reach him.

    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson
  420. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ximenes

    OMG. Thank you so much for the information. That’s the first real proof that Israel was involved I’ve heard.

    I always wondered why, of all the people who died that day the only person claimed not to exist is Betty Ong

    I’m going to add it my list a paper and print list so it doesn’t disappear.

    Thank you so much.

  421. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Ah, another one of the intellectually shortwinded brigade blusters away. Thanks for reminding me of that Lee Hamilton quote and causing me to find and read the whole interview. You should do it if you are honest. And do it again if you have a memory lapse.

    He actually confirms the validity of the comment you purport to reply to.

    He complains about the time pressure and the limitation on their resources ($3 million compared with $40 million for investigating Clinton’s sexual peccadiloes). He points out how many people and organisations had reason to fear the Commission’s work BUT he says he thinks they got it mostly right.

    You’ve shot yourself in your own foot.

    • Troll: Mike P
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  422. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    That’s all very general. Try reading the interview with Lee Hamilton who made the misrepresented statement about being set up to fail.

  423. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Another asshole who has never been to NYC in his life claiming expertise about the views of Manhattan from Brooklyn

    Who cares what you assholes think

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  424. @Erebus

    What plebes like us believe doesn’t matter. “The Ruling classes” have ever depended on the total capitulation of the intelligentsia, political, and upper economic classes to the narrative for their power.

    It must matter or they wouldn’t go through all of this nonsense. They would just do it.
    The amount of sock puppets/bots/trolls sent to articles like this tell me that it does matter. I get the feeling they’re pretty worried lately.
    They wouldn’t be silencing fre speech, alternative views if it didn’t matter either. The level of censorship lately also tells me that they are concerned.
    I think they may be a day late and a shekel short though, even my 80 something year old neighbor is asking me where on the web to go for real news, he’s a real Fox News kind of guy too, would’ve never expected him to ask me the kind of questions he was asking recently… uhh ohhh!

    • Agree: Meimou
  425. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ximenes

    Betty Ong is real, and the phone call she made was real. It was made on a seatback airphone,

    Cabin staff (of course) have their own radio communications facilities separate from the optional “airphone” system to talk to ground crew. Equally, and of course, they have well-rehearsed emergency procedures that are presumably not reliant on airphones that may not be available at all.

    It is at least puzzling that established communications procedures for emergencies were not followed.

    Similarly, the third-hand way in which the Betty Ong call was supposedly reduced to writing does not pass the smell test. Why was the call not transferred directly to a senior airline official in charge of security/hijacking issues?

    • Replies: @Anon
  426. @Anon

    Watch the videos, use your brain. It doesn’t take a real genius to see.

    Does that look like an explosion or a collapse?

    Its really not that hard.

    Why is it hard to believe that not a lot of people would jump at the chance to put their career/life on the line? To speak out against the people that did this, to challenge the narrative, just look what the media can do to people who do.

    It takes a very brave person to do what those 3000 A&E have done, I get the sense you probably wouldn’t.

    And again, if they would do evil on the level of USS Liberty and Lavon Affair, why wouldn’t they do this?

    If Liberty would have been sunk, the sailors killed, anyone who questioned that would be labeled a conspiracy theorist too.

    • Replies: @Anon
  427. @Anon

    At least ten or fifteen people saw airplanes hit the buildings. There are even videos of planes hitting the buildings. And it was on live TV. Why do you make a big deal of some one in Brooklyn in a schoolyard see a plane hit the building? Yes you can see Manhattan from Brooklyn. So What? What does that prove? It was on television. Is that not enough for you?

    • Replies: @Anon
  428. Meimou says:
    @Anon

    Have you thought through the problems of
    1. Having the thermite installed at just the right very different levels for where the planes would later strike the twin towers?

    Why would the thermite need to be installed at just the right levels? explosives were all over the towers.

    2. The evidence/prima facie inference that the very different weight above the fire weakened steel in the two towers was the reason one collapsed in a much shorter time than the other?

    1. Did any of you Parsons ever provide evidence that the fire was hot enough to weaken steel?

    2. Even if it was hot enough to weaken steel why would the tower collapse globally and simultaneously?

    3.The twin towers did not simply collapse, the top of the towers exploded, debris clearly was ejected from the towers. The fact that theses ejections were accompanied by sounds that resemble explosions don’t help your case

    3. Why any conspirators would want to add to the risks by having WTC7 deliberately demolished at the time of the major event?

    Why would OBL think he could pull off 911? How did he know one would call the FBI when a bunch of Arabs wanted to learn how to fly a plane but not take off.?

    How did he know NORAAD wouldn’t shoot down the plane?

    [I trust you are not going to pose as an expert on how heat can weaken steel or other technical matters on which you have no basis for personal belief]

    It doesn’t take specialized knowledge to know the official story is nonsense, not that you care about the opinion of experts that contradict the official narrative.

  429. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ximenes

    So Betty Ong was the only person who identified an Israeli commando as one of the hijackers who shot people.

    No wonder the Israelis planted stories all over the internet that she didn’t exist.

    And most of the naive credulous internet “ researchers” on this site read those Israeli stories and believe she didn’t exist.

    That’s why I usually comment only about things I have personally done or seen or spoken with a person, such as my friend’s nephew who saw the planes crash into the towers from his Bay Ridge Brooklyn school.

    Betty Ong didn’t ever exist story was obviously planted all over the internet by the Israelis and the internet researcher fools fools believed it because they read it on the internet.

    • Replies: @Meimou
  430. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Indeed. This thread has attracted an astonishing number of Anonymises(sp?), and an astonishing number of Anonymous posts. A quick assessment says almost half the posts originate from an “Anonymous” poster. The vast majority spout views contra your thesis. Hmmm…

    I can’t remember that happening on any other thread. Judging by most of the quality (not all), the Claxon call for “All hands on deck! Stations!” went all the way down to the 3rd & 4th-tiers on this topic.

    In the original discussion, I suggested that Ron’s stand on the truths of 9/11 could be distilled down to the presence of a plausible Betty Ong in the yearbook. He basically Frankly, it would have surprised me if a vaguely plausible Betty Ong wasn’t there, given that fake identities are normally built on genuine originals whose current history and whereabouts are unknown (died, disappeared, emigrated, etc).

    That no plausible Betty Ong appears indicates somebody screwed up, badly. In the original creation of the identity, and more recently in its coverup (?) in the on-line yearbook. It looks for all the world like an tsunami of Anonymises has been tasked to mask that.

  431. @tanabear

    I am going to think about this “free fall” issue you have introduced. It is entirely out of context with the discussion at hand.

    • Replies: @tanabear
  432. @Anon

    So, basically you have nothing?

    • Replies: @Anon
  433. @Twodees Partain

    More likely Lebanon, KS or Fargo, ND. He has to have this outlet since he has probably gotten his ass whipped from trying his snark out in public on people who could reach him.

    ROFLMAO. I love you guys — you conspiracy whack-jobs. Fucking nuts from the git-go. Seventeen years go by, the world has moved on long, long ago, yet you focused, dedicated, self-sacrificing seekers after Truth exchange crib notes about phone calls (for the luv of god, tabulating phone calls from 17 years ago, jeezuss!!).

    It is interesting that conspiracy theory loonies each have their own selected homefield — your preferred conspiracy that consumes your, um, “hobby” time. Some of you fruitcakes are probably still hard at work on theories of who really killed Lizzie Borden’s Ma and Pa.

    Go back to your playground. I will leave you all alone now. But, gracious me! what frenetic stupidity! Obsession knows no limits — long proven, and proven again every day.

    • Replies: @redmudhooch
  434. Meimou says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Divorce sucks doesn’t it?

    Tell us how the twin towers exploded.

  435. Meimou says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    Paging Parsons…

    One physiologically bound to the official narrative irrespective of its validity. Parson will enthusiastically regurgitate the ON as gospel and ignore anything that contradics it.

    As far as a Parsons is concerned the official narrative is reality. Anyone not in line with the ON is on the outside of reality, those outside this reality are often derided as conspiracy theorist.

    To a Parsons, the only reason why one would disagree with the ON is stupidity, ignorance, gullibility or dishonesty.

    Parsons who put time into debunking alternatives to the ON call themselves skeptics or debunkers. Instead of simply dismissing those who counter the ON claims as conspiracy theorist, crackpots and loons skeptics/debukers will research counter ON claims and give reasons why such claims are wrong.

  436. @Anonymous

    Indeed, it is worth reading, for Hamilton’s statements make clear he is nothing but a shill. Perhaps you are right that he cannot be portrayed as a 9-11 skeptic, but he is surely no asset for believers in the official storyline. At any rate, there is little doubt that the resources allocated to his investigation were meager in light of the event they were intended to cover.

    BTW, which of the anonymous assholes are you? I’ve lost track.

    • Replies: @Anon
  437. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:
    @redmudhooch

    It looks like the result of a very heavy weight – many storeys of the buildings – falling on to a temporarily resisting structure which includes a modest but substantial amount of concrete. Not surprising because that’s whst happened.

    As to the LIberty isn’t it one of the strongest arguments against the extreme conspiracy version that having to kill everyone made it too risky?

    • Replies: @redmudhooch
  438. Hunsdon says:
    @Frankie P

    If our good host Run Unz is satisfied, you should be as well.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  439. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Losing track of you would be like losing track of an elderly rhinoceros stumbling blindly through the swamp.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  440. @Anonymous

    You said that Erebus had a third class mind. I responded that I disagreed and stated that his comment history proved otherwise and was there for anyone to see while yours is not. Your crude insult reveals that it is you who has the third class mind. You also seem to be assailing the concept of Betty Ong being a fictional character, whereas I would assert that much, if not most of the entire narrative surrounding 9/11 is indeed a fiction and the lack of the usual substance surrounding the life of Betty Ong is indeed suspicious.

    • Agree: Rurik
  441. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I picked up somewhere that Betty Ong went to George Washington High on 32nd Avenue

    Perhaps someone decided after the fact to connect Betty Ong with the WRONG high school as a diversionary psyop, and created “supporting” material to keep this diversion afloat as long as possible.

    Since a considerable number of people actually died on 9/11, it is not clear why someone would have to invent a FICTITIOUS individual to hang the phone dialogues on.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  442. @Anon

    Apparently it’s break time and the interns have been brought in.

  443. Everyone on board the Liberty would have been killed if the crew hadn’t managed to improvise an antenna and send a wide enough distress signal. The Liberty event shows that these things sometimes do go wrong but with enough friends in high places, suppression can still succeed.

  444. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    In most American states, and many European and S American countries it is not a crime to use a false name.

    It’s only a crime to use a false name for fraud or to assist in committing any kind of crime.

  445. Chuck says:
    @German_reader

    Somehow I knew (((German_reader))) would make an appearance on this thread.

    • Replies: @utu
  446. utu says:

    If Ron Und has $10,000 burning his pocket instead of paying the lazy bum Revusky he could hire a PI to do the research on Betty Ong by getting vital records of Betty Ong and interview some real people and do what Revusky, the great believer in crisis actors and non-existent people never intended to do.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  447. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    Because Sparkon denies the towers fell despite various people present in Manhattan or across the river in Brooklyn seeing the planes crash into the buildings.

    It’s not just this thread. Many times over the years someone posts that he or she was in Manhattan that day and saw the planes and the towers fall.

    Sparkon always jumps in and claims the poster didn’t see anything and nothing happened in Manhattan that day.

    He or she only believes what he or she reads in the internet. That’s why I mentioned the man who saw the event happening across the river from his Brooklyn school.

  448. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    I have more than you have, a man who lived in NYC and saw it happen.

  449. Chuck says:
    @Truth

    All the hasbarats come swarming to these conspiracy articles.

  450. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record

    I’m sure it was a fake announcement. When people showed up for the visitation and funeral there were the crisis actors milling around pretend to be family and friends.

    The grand children are also crisis actors. The deception will be carried out unto the 4th generation when the crisis actor grandchildren reach an age to have their own children

    The corpse of course was a plastic mannequin.

  451. Meimou says:
    @Anon

    Bingo. Expect the MSM to put a spotlight on this, or at least snopes or trash sites like The Daily Beast.

    I wonder if the Ong family will sue Alex Jones too.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  452. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    For which part do you find the evidence insufficient:

    A) proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the official story is complete bunk;
    B) proving beyond all reasonable doubt that one of the alternative theories is correct?

    I can’t tell if you accept A but are not convinced about B, or if your doubts about B are causing you to also doubt A (which they definitely should NOT – the two questions are completely separate!)

  453. @Mulegino1

    Magic armour-piercing rounds do not typically weigh 130 tons or whatever the weight of airliners on 9-11 was. Airliners flying into high towers is a sufficiently rare phenomenon that it may be difficult to be polemical about what would or would not happen, but I don’t think the building would remain pristine.

  454. utu says:

    Congressional representatives call for probe into claims scammers are trying to steal personal information from 9/11 heroes

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5644729/NY-reps-ask-FTC-probe-reports-9-11-compensation-scam.html#ixzz5DTJ4nNqL

  455. @daniel le mouche

    Kind of interesting, this. A staple of Unz comments and some articles is of how low-IQ everyone is outside North America and Western Europe (and even there there are blacks etc.) but suddenly they are more perceptive and see through what is phony, in say, the Central African Republic compared to the States, simply because they watch less TV.

    • Replies: @daniel le mouche
  456. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Maybe there was not a senior official in charge of hijackings

    I wouldn’t be surprised.

  457. @Wally

    There was a gigantic, organised slaughter of European Jews in the 1940s. I did research in two apparently unrelated areas to it and curiously enough, Jewish victims of the Nazis are present.
    1. The Good Soldier Svejk by the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek. A character in the novel is a Cadet Biegler. Many characters were based on real-life characters known to the author. One of them was Hans Bigler.

    http://honsi.org/literature/svejk/?page=11&lang=en#Bigler

    Bigler’s father Eduard was killed in Bergen-Belsen in 1944, on account of being Jewish. It is not clear whether Hans Bigler was fully Jewish or part-Jewish although the latter is more likely – half-Jews generally speaking survived the Nazi era although they were despised as Mischlinge. Hans Bigler seems to have attributed his own survival to an Allied air raid on Dresden, where he then lived, destroying Gestapo records.
    2. A Nazi-era (1937) German film called Unternehmen Michael set during the German offensives of 1918. A supporting role in the film was played by the actor Paul Otto. Otto was in fact Jewish but this was not discovered until 1943. When it was discovered, Otto committed suicide with his wife shortly before being deported to the “East”.
    If the Holocaust was a hoax, why was Eduard Bigler killed? And why did a respected German actor like Paul Otto opt for suicide when he was discovered to be of Jewish origin and about to be deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka or some such destination?

    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0653288/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

  458. @Erebus

    Well said, and I completely agree. Another incredible phenomenon is this utterly bizarre existence.

  459. @Anon

    So why don’t you be the one to go to the school, get the yearbook, contact classmates, interview them on any recollections or lack of them? Clear things up! Concrete evidence is needed, no more off the internet.

    • Replies: @Anon
  460. @Steve Gittelson

    I get it, you’re the Git’s Spittle. Corporate assfuck and proud of it, eh? Science man, eh? Read your Popular Science article, no doubt, which convinced you beyond any doubt, because THE AUTHORITIES SAID SO. Mommy issues? No doubt. Take yourself a nice bubble bath.

  461. @Uebersetzer

    I don’t think the building would remain pristine.

    Well, I don’t recall anybody saying that the building would be “pristine”. However a hundred ton jet hitting a 500,000 ton building, of which 100,000 tons is structural steel, that’s not going to cause the entire building to disintegrate in short order.

    And the much vaunted 90,000 litres of jet fuel is less than one liter of fuel for every ton of steel.

    And then even if you can explain all this away, what about WTC 7?

  462. @Uebersetzer

    And the buildings weighted 500K tons. No “rare event” speciousness is necessary to understand what should (think bug and windshield).

  463. @Uebersetzer

    Credit is due: I’ve seen some pretty absurd “arguments” from Holo-believers, but this is a whole new level of stupid.

  464. @Anon

    I have more than you have, a man who lived in NYC and saw it happen.

    A friend of my mom’s who lives in Arlington, VA, called right after the news from the WTC was breaking, and smoke was coming from what the news thought was from the Capitol, and she was crying and told my mom that see just saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. I was there when my mom took the call.

  465. @Uebersetzer

    Of course the building would not remain pristine. In fact, I would imagine had the buildings not collapsed, they would have been condemned, and much to Silverstein’s Chagrin, the Insurance Payout would have been much less and an inadequate Return on Investment. Instead, he made out like a Bandit.

    Understand the Buildings’ Design. The strength of the buildings emanated from their Cores, or at least the strength of The Twin Towers. The Jets never affected the Cores. They were shredded into a million pieces before penetrating that far. The most that should have happened is the collpase of several floors around those incredibly strong and secure Cores, but the Cores would have remained intact. The fact that the Cores fell concomintantly with the not-so-strong Perimeter Space is anomalous and unexpected and has not been explained adequately.

    Here’s the base of one of the Beams comprising the Core. It’s sheered and there is cooled Molten Metal showing. Since the building fell pretty much straight down in its footprint, this Column Beam would not have been sheered like this and there is no reason for the Molten Metal. Unless.

    Look Mom, No Hands!!

  466. Mulegino1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Good insight as usual. The proles, who do not think much, at least exercise objective faculties of memory and common sense at a very day to day, moment to moment level. Since they do not think much, there was no need to indoctrinate them. The old guy that Winston ran into in the pub is a good example. Not much of an historian but he still could remember when a pint was a pint.

  467. @Meimou

    I wonder if the Ong family will sue Alex Jones too.

    That might be easier than getting the Saudi’s to cough up. How come The Trumpster hasn’t pushed for Justice for The 9/11 Victims’ Families? Obama didn’t either. Funny, that. Except it’s not.

    The Saudi Elephant In The Room

    There’s a reason The American Establishment is doing everything it can to prevent a Civil Lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. If such a suit went forward, it would Spill The Beans, and we can’t have that, can we? Civil Lawsuits are much more lenient when it comes to evidence you can submit and the possibility exists that some of what we’re discussing here will become a part of the Official Record. Perhaps the Saudis, rather than taking it on the Chin for The Gipper and paying, in their defense they expose The Truth about 9/11, or at least the component of The Truth that makes them look rather innocent compared to the Predominate Perpetrators/Predators.

  468. @Seamus Day

    A friend of my mom’s who lives in Arlington, VA, called

    Really? Wow. Out of curiosity, did this friend have a name?

    • Replies: @Seamus Day
  469. @Steve Gittelson

    I know ethics and ethical systems

    As a former Corporate VP, I’m sure you do. You know Ethics & Ethical Systems are for Suckers. Right? Riiiiight.

    I also served my time in the Corporate C-Suites, and Ethics are tantamount to Curtains and/or Shades. Espousing Ethics is enough to conceal the Looting & Backstabbing that takes place behind The Words that serve as Curtains.

    • Agree: ValmMond
  470. utu says:
    @Uebersetzer

    Cadet Bigler: People Bergen Belsen usually died from diseases caused by overwork and malnutrition rather than being murdered.

    Paul Otto: indeed people kill themselves out of fear of death which always strikes me as strange.

  471. utu says:
    @Chuck

    No he is just a good German on the cuck side . He probably is not ((()))).

  472. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Here is Jackie Kennedy after her husband’s death. First video is Nov. 28, 1963, less than a week after Kennedy’s assassination. Second is 1964, I’m not sure but I think it is January.

    Notice that despite maintaining a dignified composure and showing grief she is sometimes smiling and is not violently agitated. Does this mean Kennedy didn’t die?

  473. Mulegino1 says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    The official 9/11 account MUST be true. The HUGENESS and the AWFULNESS of it are unparalleled by anything, except for the NAZI HOLOCAUST of 6 MILLION JEWS. BIG BROTHER and MINITRUE are ALWAYS RIGHT!

    THOUGHT CRIMINALS who question the narrative are TIN FOIL HAT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. Everyone knows that BIG EVENTS shown on TV are always true. Every RIGHT THINKING citizen knows that a BIG PLANE weighing hundreds of tons hitting a BIG BUILDING weighing hundreds of thousands of tons will cause the building to disintegrate and collapse- mostly due to the fires which were simply too intense! The only CONSPIRACY that is true is the one about the 19 Arabs with box cutters who CONSPIRED with OSAMA BIN GOLDSTEIN, who knew beforehand that the IRON supports of the building would be melted by the office fires. We have it on tape, Winston! BIG BROTHER, MINITRUE and NIST are ALWAYS RIGHT! How could a HUGE THING like this be a lie?

    “…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

    It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

    • Agree: Mike P
  474. utu says:
    @Anon

    Does this mean Kennedy didn’t die?

    That what Revusky and the Youtube Yahoos would conclude if there was Youtube in 1963: Jackie Kennedy is a crisis actor and not that good one. She should have shown more grief.

    • Replies: @Anon
  475. utu says:
    @Anon

    Sisters who competed to snare the world’s richest men: Schooled by their mother to seek out power, a new book reveals the jealousy between Jackie O and sister Lee and how they both bedded JFK

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5401615/The-sisters-competed-snare-worlds-richest-men.html#ixzz5DVVlponT

  476. @Anon

    Really? Grab some cinder blocks stack them up, take a few more cinder blocks and drop them on the stacked cinder blocks and report back what happens. Do all the stacked cinder blocks below explode outwards, all the way down to the bottom block? Or do the cinder blocks you drop just fracture and fall to the side of the stacked ones? Come on bud, you can’t be that ignorant. I suspect you are a paid puppet. This doesn’t take a physicist to figure out…
    Watch this video go to 4:20, 5:40, 6:40, how does the top “falling” cause floors below the top to explode outwards before the falling top even gets to that point?
    The news reporters watching it happen live seem to think it is exploding as well.

    The USS Liberty and Lavon affair part of my comment is just to prove that they have done exactly the same kind of things before to sell wars to the American public, and how similar the events are for justifying war based on lies.

    Do better this time.

  477. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    Go ahead Sparkon, use your wonderful google skills and tell me how I am wrong about how to to get from Chinatown to the outer Richmond.

    Your pontificating about cities you’ve never been to is ridiculous. You should be embarrassed

    But anon[257] wasn’t done yet with his BS, although no new gold frame so far, and nobody knows what Chinatown has to do with 9/11.

    Now he lies again that I deny the towers fell. What a lying sack of you-know-what!

    Anon[257] • says
    April 23, 2018 at 4:44 am GMT • 100 Words

    Because Sparkon denies the towers fell despite various people present in Manhattan or across the river in Brooklyn seeing the planes crash into the buildings.

    That’s rather devious and small of you anon[257], taunting me from within a comment addressed to Jonathan Revusky, and then following up with a bald face lie. You’re supposed to be the guy with the gold border around his BS, not the mouse who squeaked, or a craven lying cur.

    You disparage the Internet, yet here you are, running your mouth, and spreading hearsay, gossip, and big fat lies, trying to forge new internet myths and urban legends for morons, I suppose, and I must say, you’re just the jackass for the job.

    I’m so sorry that you are perplexed by maps. Many people use them — except women — but you seem to be suffering from the girlie delusion that I should be ashamed because I know how to read and use maps. Map envy yet. Who knew?

    But wait, there’s more. Incredibly enough, I have GPS for my car that allows me to enter any two addresses, and the doggone thing draws the route on a little map, and a slightly robotic female voice gives me driving directions. If this is the future, I think we’re almost there, but I am happy to learn that you can find your way across town without help, like a big boy. You don’t need no stinking maps.

    Now this next part may cause you to chew on your foot, even swallow it whole so you can blow it out your ass later, but during my time in the Air Force, it was my wont — actually my duty — to pontificate quite a bit, in writing no less, about places I’d never been and things I’d never seen, except as photographs, drawings, models, and maps.

    ‘Nice work, as they say, if you can get it.

    In fact, during my service, I had an assignment where I worked in a large room with dozens of airmen, and all of us churning out reports about places we’d never been.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @NoseytheDuke
  478. @Steve Gittelson

    you conspiracy whack-jobs. Fucking nuts from the git-go. conspiracy theory loonies frenetic stupidity

    Once again, when you cannot win the debate with facts resort to name calling. Weak!

  479. Rurik says:
    @Hunsdon

    If our good host Run Unz is satisfied, you should be as well.

    I’ve finally had an opportunity to catch up a bit with my favorite website.

    Have not yet read all the comments, but figured I’d chime in here just to say that the issue between JR and I was resolved long ago, (at least on my end), but I’m sure Mr. Unz wanted to make the point that threatening to dox the participants to his phenomenal webzine is unacceptable.

    I think we’re all indebted to Ron Unz for providing this oasis of free though and expression, (in an otherwise mundane and mendacious world), so I’m just repeating my gratitude to Mr. Unz, and for creating and maintaining and making his remarkable site available to us all. And I’m glad to see the distraction laid to rest.

    As to the article, there were some gems..

    “.. a very nice person, with exceptionally good body hygiene”

    “..don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.”

    and a general kudos to the author for his tenacity.

    9/11 was an inside job. Conceived by Straussian, neocon psychopaths and perpetrated by the Mossad with elements within the CIA, FBI, (others) with a craven and complicit media and congress and ‘intelligence’ agencies- for the purpose of making the 21 century just as murderous and bloody as the 20th, and for the exact same motivation; Zionism. (Roth$child, et al unilateral hegemony over the planet)

    Any attempts to flesh out these Satanic forces, that threaten the all life on this Earth with their psychotic imperative to rule absolutely, is a noble endeavor as far as I can see.

    If it could be proven that Betty Ong’s narrative (like Osama’s, or Kuwait baby incubators and so many others) was a farce and a fraud, and that by demonstrating this, it might animate a more widespread demand for more investigative efforts, until we finally create a tsunami of outrage and righteous anger that will come crushing down upon the heads of those fiends and criminals who’re responsible, then to this end, more power to you.

    • Replies: @Sean
  480. Oops, forgot the video, Watch this video at 4:20, 5:40, 6:40
    Those are explosions, below the falling top, even the reporters agree!

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @NoseytheDuke
  481. Sean says:
    @daniel le mouche

    I don’t know anything “FOR SURE” and neither do you. No one in this world does because no one may have absolute verification of data, no matter how loudly and persistently they call for it. It is not empirically verifiable that a Brotherhood of the Bell type organisation (Skull and Bones according to Anthony P. Sutton ) does not deliberately create enemies such as Hitler and Stalin all the better to forment war and control America. Nor is it “for sure” that anyone died in 9/11, which may have been staged by the cia chief two presidents and a senator Bonesmen Bush clan, maybe the victims were not 100% veritably real people because 9/11 never actually happened.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulf_War_Did_Not_Take_Place

    The essays in Libération and The Guardian were published before, during and after the Gulf War and they were titled accordingly: during the American military and rhetorical buildup as “The Gulf War Will not take Place”; during military action as “The Gulf War is not Taking Place”, and after action was over, “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality#Simulacrum
    In his work Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard argues the “imaginary world” of Disneyland magnetizes people inside and has been presented as “imaginary” to make people believe that all its surroundings are “real”. But he believes that the Los Angeles area is not real; thus it is hyperreal. Disneyland is a set of apparatuses which tries to bring imagination and fiction to what is called “real”. This concerns the American values and way of life in a sense and “concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.”[19]

    “The Disneyland imaginary is neither true or false: it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real. Whence the debility, the infantile degeneration of this imaginary. It’s meant to be an infantile world, in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the “real” world, and to conceal the fact that real childishness is everywhere, particularly among those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusions of their real childishness.”

    Its possible at the centre of the huddle of south pole Emperor penguins is always the same bunch of free riders, and a secret organisation running the USA stays in power whatever happens.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @daniel le mouche
  482. Rurik says:
    @Truth

    to one of these NeoConscripts

    blow me blubber lips

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Truth
  483. Sean says:
    @Rurik

    Well, the US army planners of the first Gulf War are the ones ultimately responsible. According to Bruce Gudmundsson Saddam was not overthrown because the gas guzzling tanks rate of consumption meant they had to stop before nvading Iraq or run out of fuel, others say it was a policy decision at presidential level. I think the US army made sure they would not be sent into Iraq by not taking enough fuel. Or maybe it was April Glaspie to blame:she failed to warm Saddam of the the reaction to him invading Iraq, and he never would have tried it if he had been properly told what would happen. One Bonesman Bush pres to set up Saddam and another to topple him. Could have been a long term plan.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
  484. Sean says:
    @Anon

    I blame those twenty German air stewardesses he ruptured himself shagging (on meth as usual) at a pool party just before Dallas. He heard the first shot but the full-torso brace he was wearing made him unable to duck.

  485. utu says:
    @Sean

    I don’t know anything “FOR SURE” and neither do you. No one in this world does because no one may have absolute verification of data, no matter how loudly and persistently they call for it.

    This is true. Nevertheless some narratives are considered more true, more known, more factual than others. Truth in this context is merely a rhetorical device. Who poses the truth wins. But in fact it is the other way around: who wins poses the truth.

    • Replies: @Sean
  486. Mulegino1 says:
    @redmudhooch

    How anyone in his right mind can characterize this as a “collapse” is beyond me. It simply beggars the imagination that people could be THAT stupid.

    “Thus compromised, the trusses give way.” Since when does “giving way” involve explosions and the disintegration of steel and concrete?

    Total, unadulterated bullshit of the most egregious kind.

  487. @Anon

    Now, Chinatown is about 5 miles from Washington High. And whether by car or bus it’s a ghastly trip. By car it takes a good hour during week day traffic.

    Well, I just checked Google Maps out of curiosity and I had it generate a route, using public transportation, from the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory, just off Jackson Street, in the heart of Chinatown, to George Washington High School, which it estimates to take 46 minutes.

    In general, I find Google Maps to give a safe estimate so it probably takes a few minutes less than that in practice. For one thing, Google Maps typically assumes a pretty decrepit walking pace. I am sure the 9 minutes walking component of the route would be covered by healthy teenagers in a few minutes less than that. The 37 minute bus ride part, of course, probably is (and was) a 37 minute bus ride….

    It’s horrible, especially when it rains. Picture 50 people trying to crowd unto the Geary st bus. Then the horrible crowded awful bus that goes about 5 miles an hour till it gets west of Van Ness.

    Holy Cow! That reminds me of the trains that transported people to Auschwitz! Holy shit! Did they have gas chambers there too? Poor Betty!

    Well, if Betty had claustrophobia, I guess she could ride a bicycle. Google Maps gives that as a 43 minute bike ride. And again, it’s probably a bit less than 43 minutes for a healthy teenager.

    But hold on a second, what is all this about anyway? The wager with Ron Unz that lies at the origin of this article was based on fact-checking a story that appeared in the media, and that story said Betty went to this high school. George Washington High. Are you saying she didn’t go there because it is not feasible to commute for 40-odd minutes? WTF?

    Not only that, this Betty Ong, famous for the phone call on 9/11 (and absolutely nothing else) has now passed into the lore of George Washington High School as their most distinguished alumnus. For example, I noticed that they had a 75th anniversary celebration in 2011 and that had its own website. Here:

    http://www.gwhs75thanniversary.com/

    Look at the face at the very top of the page! And note that some other famous people went to this school apparently but they take second billing to Betty! The black poet Maya Angelou (who recited her work at at least one presidential inauguration) apparently was there in the 40′s. Her picture is there but way below Betty Ong’s. The singer Johnny Mathis went to George Washington High. (He’s not black, like Maya Angelou, but is pretty seriously gay apparently….) These people come AFTER Betty!

    So the most distinguished alumnus of George Washington High according to the institution itself is deemed to be Betty Ong!

    Ain’t that something?

    Someone found a Gloria Ong graduated 1972 from Galileo the Chinatown high school. That’s the right name and age of the sister.

    Someone found that, huh? Did that person provide a link?

    Anyway, if the Ong family all went to Galileo, why is that school not raising a stink about it? They’re not claiming Betty Ong (famous for the phone call) or Gloria Ong (famous for being the sister of the Betty of the phone call) went there. Why don’t the various students and teachers who presumably knew Betty and her siblings at Galileo High raise some stink about this mistake?

    Anyway, I am not the one who claims that Betty Ong went to this school. (I kinda doubt it frankly.) I’m just checking a fact that appeared in a lot of different places in the MSM. And Ron’s wager, of course, was based on the idea that Ronnie can’t conceive of such a widely reported “fact” not being so! So he never thought his $10,000 was at any real risk! (Think again, Ronnie…)

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Cold N. Holefield
  488. @Uebersetzer

    Bigler’s father Eduard was killed in Bergen-Belsen in 1944, on account of being Jewish.

    Uebersetzer, even according to the official Holocaustian narrative, Bergen-Belsen was never an extermination camp. The people who were transported there (the most famous case being Anne Frank) died of typhus and other opportunistic diseases.

    Moreover, the terrible conditions at Belsen and Buchenwald (which, again, are not deemed by even the official history to have been extermination camps) arose because of the terrible conditions prevalent in Germany at the time.

    But really, it would be better to know what you’re talking about. You can’t pull out Bergen-Belsen as an example to support the core narrative of extermination in gas chambers when even the official court historians are saying that Belsen wasn’t that.

    • Replies: @Wally
  489. Rurik says:
    @Sean

    April Glaspie to blame:she failed to warm Saddam of the the reaction to him invading Iraq

    Glaspie was used as a chump to rope-a-dope Saddam into bungling into Kuwait, so that the ZUS could act ‘shocked, shocked’, and then disabuse him of the chemical and other weapons the ZUS had given him to use specifically on Persians/Iran.

    she called the characterization that it was her idea to lie to Saddam a “deliberate deception on a major scale”.

    Ross Perot:

    “…we told him (Saddam) he could take the northern part of Kuwait; and when he took the whole thing we went nuts. And if we didn’t tell him that, why won’t we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie?”

    Could have been a long term plan.

    since it’s all part and parcel of Zionism, then of course it’s all part of a long term scheme to create a global Orwellian dystopia. Duh.

  490. utu says:
    @Sean

    One Bonesman Bush pres to set up Saddam and another to topple him. Could have been a long term plan.

    I am pretty sure that if Bush Sr. went all the way the planners would be happy. For some reason he did not go and so he paid the price for it by not getting the second term. The planners or the TPTB were not too happy with Bush Sr., who riding on the highest approval ratings (90%) after the war decided to confront and challenge Yitzhak Shamir but then lost his nerve and instead of turning to American people backed off. Bush Sr. seemed to be very reluctant to go to war and it was only after his meeting with Margaret Thatcher in Aspen, Colorado that the decision to go to war was announced.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  491. @utu

    the lazy bum Revusky

    Utu, you pathetic dumbass… by your logic, if you took your car to a mechanic specifically for an oil change, and he did just that, changed the oil, he would be a “lazy bum” because he did not take the opportunity to rebuild your car’s engine!

    The wager with Unz was specifically about whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. To say that I’m lazy because I resolved that question and didn’t go further makes no sense really.

    Now, granted, as the scriptures say, out of the mouths of dumbasses can come words of wisdom, so you do make a valid point about hiring a private investigator. Assuming one really did want to resolve the Betty Ong question thoroughly, I guess that is what one would do — as opposed to insisting that I, somebody who is not any sort of professional investigator, do it.

    So, yes, I would be perfectly happy if Ron hired a PI to do just that. However, he really ought to pay off on this wager to me first.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Anon
    , @NoseytheDuke
  492. Anon[648] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    Did you know that there are entire towns and HOAs that aren’t even on google maps? They are mostly very wealthy neighborhoods that don’t want burglars and kidnappers using google maps to target the residents for burglary and kidnapping.

    Over the years I have noticed that every time someone posts that he or she was there that day and saw the crash and the towers come down you claim the event never happened and that you have figured out it was all a gigantic fraud using the internet and google maps.

    Use google maps to check out lower manhattan the east river and Brooklyn. Manhattan and the WTC can easily be seen from much of Brooklyn.

    Thousands of people in New Jersey looked across the Hudson and saw the whole thing that day.

    If you check google maps you will see that thousands could see the whole thing

    You don’t seem to realize that maps and google maps are horizontal and flat.

    But in reality buildings are vertical. The WTC was the tallest building in New York.

    All people had to do was just look up instead of straight ahead and they could see the WTC. Didn’t they teach you that in the Air Force? I believe it’s called elevation

    Ever been to Chicago? The Sears Tower was once the tallest building in the world. It can be seen from all over downtown just by looking up at the sky and there it is.

    If I look straight ahead or down I can’t see the high rises in the Century City business district a few miles away.

    But all I have to do is look up to the sky and there they are.

    I can’t see the mountains about 15 miles to the north when I am looking straight ahead or down.

    But all I have to do is lift my head and look up and there they are.

    You were in the Air Force? Jeez how low can the standards go.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  493. Anon[648] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Well, Sparkon claims 9/11 didn’t happen and the WTC is still there because he couldn’t see it on google maps.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
  494. Anon[648] • Disclaimer says:
    @daniel le mouche

    Couple days ago I posted that I’m going to San Francisco for the summer and I might go to Washington and try to get the yearbook.

    But now I doubt she went to Washington. 76 high schools in San Francisco Maybe Sparkon can use google maps to find the yearbook.

    • Replies: @Cold N. Holefield
  495. Anon[648] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    That 37 minutes estimate is only valid from 1 to 5 am.

    And you don’t know her address in Chinatown. It involves a lot more than just the Geary bus

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  496. @Jonathan Revusky

    Anyway, I am not the one who claims that Betty Ong went to this school. (I kinda doubt it frankly.) I’m just checking a fact that appeared in a lot of different places in the MSM. And Ron’s wager, of course, was based on the idea that Ronnie can’t conceive of such a widely reported “fact” not being so! So he never thought his $10,000 was at any real risk! (Think again, Ronnie…)

    But bizarrely George Washington High School, per your 75th Anniversary Link, contends she did attend their school even though she’s not listed in the Yearbook. Perhaps George Washington High School can provide copies of her Original Transcripts since she isn’t shown in the Yearbook.

    What is it with the Chinese and these Terrorist Spectacle Events? Dun Meng’s claim he was carjacked by the alleged Boston Bombers is also a bizarre story. And then we have the steel from the World Trade Center site being quickly disposed of to a Chinese Company, Baosteel. At least they were smart enough not to sell it to an Israeli Company. That would have been a bit too audacious, I suppose.

    Mangled WTC Steel Bought By China

    On a lighter note, nobody names their daughters Betty anymore. Or Barbara. Thank goodness.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  497. @Anon

    You doubt JR AND you doubt George Washington High School? I don’t understand your stance or argument if you have one.

    JR has provided a link where George Washington High School heralds Betty Ong as their most Distinguished Alumnus. Are they lying? If they are, why would they lie about something like this? Are they mistaken? If they’re mistaken, how the hell could they be about something like this? I would think they’d verify it before heralding it, don’t you?

    Unless that link JR provided is bogus. I don’t know how to verify its authenticity though. Does anyone?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Anon
  498. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    However, he really ought to pay off on this wager to me first.

    No he should not. You must get a hard copies of yearbooks. The digital copy can be altered by people like you. It is possible you did tin order to swindle Ron Unz. I am not saying you did it but it is possible. He clearly stated (presuming that what you cite indeed came from his email) that you should spend $500 or so and get the hard copy. You did not because you are a lazy bum. You kept talking about Betty Ong for years and did nothing to verify it until you got somewhat motivated by the prospect of the $10k. Still not motivated enough to do something really substantial. You are a lazy bum who never really cared for what you professed. Your talk is cheap like almost everybody on internet on both sides of the 9/11 debate.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  499. Heres the North Tower, watch the corner of the building exploding outward, a good 5 stories below the collapsing top.
    You can also see the ejections occurring much lower from random windows, easily 10 stories below the top.
    How does a floor explode, before the top even reaches it?

    Controlled Demolition is the only way these building could have been brought down. No way fires could take out all of the supporting columns at the EXACT same time to bring Building 7 down into its own footprint. Watch carefully, you can see the windows shattering as the charges go off, right before it falls the charges go off in a perfectly straight line, that is how the columns are taken out in a demolition, fires do not do this.

  500. @utu

    For some reason he did not go and so he paid the price for it by not getting the second term.

    George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Sr., was at the center of The Deep State for a very long time. As such, The Deep State then wasn’t as Psychotically Insane as it is now. Psychopathic, for sure, but not yet Psychopathically Insane.

    Listen to Cheney in ’94 about the reasons for not going all the way to Baghdad. It’s the one time I have ever agreed with Cheney. This one time. He was right. And then 10 years later he went off his Meds and went against his own sound advice and threw America head-first into The Middle East Quagmire.

    • Replies: @Sean
  501. Tyrion 2 says:

    If there’s a girl who looks the same, graduated at the same time, cannot be identified as a different person, has the same English first name and has the same Chinese surname then she surely is the same whatever small and understandable typo may have been made in a student produced yearbook.

    Until Revusky discounts this perfectly sensible set of inferences he cannot be said to have won the bet. A one letter transliteration mistake is hum drum. All of the conspiracy freaks keep ignoring this…I assume because they have no answer to it.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @anonymous
  502. @Anon

    That 37 minutes estimate is only valid from 1 to 5 am.

    Wow, you just lie pretty smoothly and automatically, eh? Well, you’re not a very good liar though. Maybe you should take some time to think about your lies first. I said specifically that the route was using public transportation. The last #1 bus runs at 1:15 a.m. and resumes at 4:40 a.m. So your 1 to 5 a.m. window is almost exactly when that route does NOT work, because the buses aren’t running then. See:

    https://www.sfmta.com/routes/1-california

    In fact, the the 37 minute estimate from Google Maps on the bus ride was for about 8 a.m. I also note from this page I link above that the frequency of the buses at that time is every 6 minutes. So the commute looks quite feasible. Granted, I don’t know whether the bus schedule was the same back in Betty’s day, but I don’t see much reason to think it was very different.

    But you see, again, you guys just assume that I’m a bullshitter like you. But I’m not. If I check something like this, I check it.

    And you don’t know her address in Chinatown.

    Well, no, I don’t know her exact address in Chinatown. I don’t think you do either. Well, frankly, I have serious doubts whether there is an exact address, since I have great doubts about the whole story of these people!

    I doubt the exact starting address makes that much difference because the Chinatown area is pretty compact really. I took the Golden Gate Fortune Cookie Factory as a starting point because it’s a major tourist landmark in that area. If the bus ride is 37 minutes, the commute is completely feasible. That it takes a few minutes more or less to walk to the bus stop and back would not matter very much.

    But none of this matters anyway. I am saying the above as somebody who doesn’t even believe that any of these people really attended that school. But that would not be because it is infeasible to commute from the Chinatown area to that school! It obviously is feasible.

    Well, assuming one exists, it’s feasible. If you don’t exist, then that is kind of a first order problem…

    Well, on third thought, if Betty didn’t exist, then the commute is probably even more feasible because then she could probably get away with not paying the bus fare!

    • Replies: @Anon
  503. Sparkon says:
    @Anon

    You don’t seem to realize that maps and google maps are horizontal [sic] and flat.

    It’s amazing the BS you can read on the Internet peddled by morons posing as experts.

    Doofus anon[257] doesn’t know diddley about maps or Google either one, including the fact that there is a 3D layer in Google Earth, and also street view in Google Maps.

    Google Earth now uses an auto 3D scanning technology to produce 3D representations of buildings and other large features, trying even for trees with raggy results, but when the 3D layer was first introduced in 2009, all the buildings were modeled by hand primarily using the SketchUp 3D modeling application. I know because I did this kid of work at the time, and several of my building models were on Google Earth until the auto-scanning technology was introduced in 2012, and all the hand-built models were retired to the 3D warehouse.

    The new 3D technology has the advantage that everything is modeled, where with the old system, if an artist didn’t model the building and upload it to the 3D warehouse, and get it approved by Google Earth, it didn’t appear on the 3D layer. All the 3D stuff had to be done by hand, where now it can be done automatically with 3D scanning, although not every area has it yet.

    In short, you’re completely wrong. Again.

    You were in the Air Force? Jeez how low can the standards go.

    You just talk trash, and shoot yourself in the foot when you try to denigrate my service. In fact, the USAF has high enlistment requirements, and I was in an elite Air Force command. Crème de la crème was the way they put it, and we had nothing but top-notch people of the highest caliber, which is why it gets so dreary talking with a ignoramus like you.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  504. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The wager with Unz was specifically about whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. To say that I’m lazy because I resolved that question and didn’t go further makes no sense really.

    You didn’t resolve the question. Do you see why not?

    I guess that is what one would do — as opposed to insisting that I, somebody who is not any sort of professional investigator, do it.

    You wrote a 4100 word article about something. It seems you are interested in, again, something. But what? If you wanted to cover your “wager” (is it a wager– heads I win, tails we forget the whole thing?) you could do it in one sentence: “I looked at an online copy of the GWHS San Fran. yearbook and there is no Betty Ong though there is a Betty Ng whom I believe to be someone else”. What was purpose of other 4069 words? To convince someone of something?

    But okay, you’re not going to do it. That’s okay. But why get so het up about it? This I don’t understand. Just “Thanks but I’m not interested in pursuing the matter further” would do.

    Then you could get on to more important things, possibly including your next article which would further the goal of the other 4000-word part of this article.

  505. @utu

    No he should not. You must get a hard copies of yearbooks

    Utu, did Ron Unz appoint you as his advocate? If Ron Unz wants to argue that the only way to settle the question is with a hard copy, let him show up and make the argument. But there is no point in arguing with you!

    The digital copy can be altered by people like you.

    No, it can’t. The digital copy is up there on the classmates.com site. I have no way of altering it. (Maybe somebody else has the means to alter that, but NOT ME!)

    You’re just talking shit and obviously doing so out of personal hostility towards me. Be hostile towards me, fine, but find some legitimate arguments if you can. Don’t just start picking up random shit and flinging it at me like a monkey. (Though, okay, I suppose you can’t help it, it’s in your nature…)

    It is possible you did tin order to swindle Ron Unz.

    Well, it’s not possible because I cannot alter the version on the classmates.com website. Anybody can sign up for an account there and peruse the yearbooks. The graphics in the article are just screenshots I took when doing so. Anybody can do that. When I sent Unz the email outlining what I had found out, I gave him the URL’s to do so but pointed out that you need to sign in with a (free) account to do that. That’s all. But it’s easy to do so. Actually, here is the URL for the page with “Black Betty” on it.

    http://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/4182821566?page=157&searchTerm=betty&yearbookViewerEnabled=true&swipeEnabled=true

    But if you don’t have an account, it redirects you to a login page and you need to sign up for an account. You do that and log in and try that URL and you’ll see. But you would know that if you weren’t such a pathetic bullshitter, because you would have gone through those steps.

    And the whole idea that I have some project of swindling Unz is preposterous! What is this? The classic swindle where you induce somebody to wager $10,000 that somebody is in a yearbook??!!

    Sure, that’s a classic confidence trick, up there with selling people swamp land in Florida!

    He clearly stated (presuming that what you cite indeed came from his email) that you should spend $500 or so and get the hard copy.

    That is basically nonsense. Ron was just thinking out loud about how I could get my hands on a yearbook, that’s all. There was no requirement that I spend $500 to get one! Like, suppose I was in Frisco and happened on the yearbook in a box of old junk at a garage sale and somebody sold it to me for $1. Are you saying that this would be no good because there was a requirement for me to spend $500 on the yearbook?

    This is just all such nonsense. And even if it were not such nonsense, it would be a waste of time to argue with you or anybody else here who is NOT Ron Unz! Unz did not appoint you as his advocate! If he wants to show up and argue that he did not lose the wager because of blah blah blah, then let him show up and argue the case. And if he declines to do that, then he has OBVIOUSLY conceded the wager. The wager was about whether this person, the Betty Ong who made the phone call on 9/11, the Chinese flight attendant, is in the yearbook. She clearly is NOT!

    • Replies: @utu
  506. @Cold N. Holefield

    JR has provided a link where George Washington High School heralds Betty Ong as their most Distinguished Alumnus.

    Well, they don’t say that explicitly. The main page of that site, specifically for the celebration of the school’s 75th anniversary, has Betty up top. She is in a higher position than the actor Danny Glover, or Maya Angelou, or the singer Johnny Mathis, whose photos appear lower down on the page. Th