The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: The Destruction of TWA Flight 800
🔊 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
List of Bookmarks

Some years ago as I became increasingly aware of the severe dishonesty of our mainstream media on all sorts of controversial topics, I began telling a joke to a few of my friends.

Suppose, I would say, that I happened to be out walking one pleasant afternoon in Palo Alto, and suddenly heard a gigantic explosion in the general direction of Mountain View, soon followed by a huge pillar of smoke rising towards the sky. Being busy with my own work, I might have no time to bother investigating, and merely wondered what surprising story the front pages of my morning newspapers would reveal as the cause behind those dramatic events. But when I eagerly opened those papers the following day, mention of the explosion was nowhere to be found, either on Page One or anywhere else, even in my own local San Jose Mercury News. So unless I somehow persuaded myself that I had simply imagined the whole thing, I would henceforth stop believing anything I read—or failed to read—in my once-trusted news outlets.

I thought my allegorical fable rather amusing, and repeated it on a number of occasions. But quite recently I came across a rough counterpart in real life, a remarkable tale that had almost completely escaped my attention for over twenty years.

When I used to recall the leading events of 1996, what came to mind was Bill Clinton’s triumphant reelection campaign in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and political overreach by Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Republicans. Perhaps there had also been some sort of plane crash on the East Coast, though none of the details were sharp or memorable in my mind. But in fact, the sudden mid-air explosion of TWA Flight 800 on a New York to Paris route was actually voted the top national news story of that year, ranking above the presidential campaign, while the 230 fatalities made it by far New York’s worst disaster of the twentieth century, and the second worst airline tragedy in American history to that date. Indeed, some journalists at the time suggested that the resulting media coverage had eclipsed that of any other transportation calamity since the sinking of the Titanic almost a century earlier.

I had almost forgotten the story of that doomed airliner when I opened my morning edition of the New York Times in mid-July 2013 and read a short review in the Arts Section, favorably discussing a new television documentary presenting the “conspiracy theory” that the plane had been destroyed by a missile rather than by an accidental fuel tank explosion as the government investigation had firmly concluded at the time, a verdict strongly affirmed by both the news and editorial pages of the Times. I had recently published “Our American Pravda” and an eminent mainstream academic who appreciated my piece soon dropped me a note pointing to a website discussion of the details of the plane crash, about which I knew nothing. Being preoccupied with other matters, I could only glance at the material, which shocked me, but now that I’ve gone back and spent some time on the topic, the story turns out to be a truly remarkable one.

The outline of facts is hardly complicated. Soon after taking off from New York’s JFK Airport on July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 suddenly exploded in the air just off Long Island. So enormous a loss of life naturally produced an immediate scrambling of numerous federal agencies to investigate the cause, and with widespread fears of terrorism, the FBI launched the largest, most complex investigation in its entire history, deploying some 500 field agents to the area. The investigators soon gathered a copious quantity of seemingly consistent evidence.

Large numbers of local witnesses were immediately interviewed by the swarm of federal agents, with 278 of them reporting that they saw a streak of light, much like a missile, shoot up into the sky in the direction of the aircraft just before the huge explosion. Employees at the local FAA radar installation immediately reported to the government that they had seen what appeared to be a missile closing with the airliner just before it exploded, and other installations produced similar radar records. When tests were eventually performed on the plane wreckage, traces of explosive chemicals were found, exactly the sort used in the warhead of a missile, as well as some reddish-orange chemical residue that a laboratory later identified as likely missile exhaust propellant. An enormous effort was made to locate every possible piece of the wreckage, and for many of these, the contours of the damage indicated an initial explosion external to the plane. Almost immediately after the disaster, a bidding-war allegedly broke out between the national television networks for an amateur home-video showing a missile striking and destroying TWA 800, with the tape eventually being sold for more than $50,000 and briefly broadcast on the MSNBC cable news channel before reportedly being seized as evidence by FBI agents. In addition, a local resident provided a still photo taken at the time showing what seemed to be a missile rising toward the aircraft.

Based on all this initial evidence, many of the early news stories reported that the plane had probably been destroyed by a missile, with widespread speculation about whether the calamity was due to terrorist action or instead accidental “friendly fire” from one of the U.S. naval warships operating in the vicinity. Given the extreme sensitivity of the topic, government officials urged the media to keep an open mind until the full investigation was completed. However, the public debate sometimes turned rancorous, with some individuals soon alleging that a government cover-up was in the works. Eventually, the CIA was brought into the investigation, given its tremendous expertise in certain matters.

ORDER IT NOW

After more than a year of detailed research, the government investigation finally concluded that no missile could possibly have been involved, with all the eyewitnesses having been misled by what amounted to an optical illusion caused by the explosion of the aircraft. That explosion itself had been entirely spontaneous, probably caused by a random spark igniting one of the gas tanks. Given the controversy in the case, the CIA helpfully produced a computer animation showing the official reconstruction of the events, which was endlessly broadcast by our news media to explain the disaster to the public. The simulation showed the jetliner spontaneously exploding in mid-air, with no external cause, and just to further clarify matters, the CIA animators also inserted an explanatory message in large text: “There Was No Missile.” The New York Times, and nearly all our other mainstream media repeatedly echoed this same simple conclusion in all their stories and headlines.

The vast majority of our sheep-like population absorbed the simple media message “No Missile” and went back to watching their football games and celebrity music videos, being greatly relieved to know that well-maintained 747 jumbo jets flown by leading national airlines can occasionally explode in mid-air without any external cause.

CashillTWA However, various disgruntled “conspiracy theorists” refused to accept these conclusions, and returned to their “crazy missile conspiracy theories,” thereby earning the hearty ridicule of the entire mainstream media, led by the New York Times. These conspiratorial suspicions even extended to the U.S. navy, which had apparently been staging military exercises in the near vicinity of the calamity, exercises that some claimed including the test-firing of anti-aircraft missiles. Indeed, a local resident later provided a home video clearly showing a missile being fired in that exact same area a few days earlier during previous naval exercises.

The entire remarkable history of this incident is persuasively set forth in a excellent twentieth-anniversary book published earlier this year by investigative journalist Jack Cashill, who has been following the case since the late 1990s, having co-authored a previous book in 2003 and also produced an earlier 2001 television documentary Silenced, now available in its entirely on YouTube.

In addition, the 2013 television documentary by a former CBS producer, whose favorable review by the New York Times marked my first introduction to the topic, was discussed at length and substantially excerpted by NPR‘s Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!

Cashill is strongly affiliated with conservative publications, while someone like Goodman clearly leans toward the left, but the question of whether an American jetliner was destroyed by a missile, and the facts then covered up by the government is a non-ideological matter, so their perspectives seem almost identical.

 

For anyone having less than absolute faith in the official pronouncements of our government and our media, the likely reality of what happened is hardly difficult to guess, and for those who currently maintain such naivete, I suspect it will quickly dissipate if they choose to watch the documentaries or read the books. But the loss of TWA Flight 800 is surely of no great importance to our country. Accidents do happen. A large and energetic military, eager to test its latest missile weapons, perhaps carelessly and fatally crossed paths with hundreds of unlucky travelers on their way to Paris. Some 30,000 Americans die each year in fatal car crashes, and risks are inevitable in our modern industrial society.

However, from a broader perspective, I believe that the truly horrifying aspect of the incident is the tremendous ease with which our government and its lapdog media managed to so utterly suppress the reality of what had happened—an American jumbo jet shot down by a missile—and did so although this occurred not in some obscure, faraway foreign land, but within the very sight of Steven Spielberg’s home in the exclusive Hamptons, on a flight that had just departed New York City, and despite such overwhelming physical evidence and hundreds of direct eye-witnesses. The successful cover-up is the important story, and constitutes a central subtext in all of the books and documentaries on the disaster

Given the eyewitness testimony and other factors, it is hardly surprising that many of the initial media stories either directly referred to a missile strike or at least mentioned it as one of the main possibilities, and indeed there is some evidence that top government leaders initially assumed a terrorist attack. But President Bill Clinton was locked in the middle of his reelection campaign, and while the slaughter of Americans by terrorists might unify a nation, disasters brought about by careless military action would surely have had the opposite political impact. So it seems likely that once terrorism was ruled out and the American military believed responsible, a direct order quickly came down from the highest levels to make the missile and all evidence supporting it disappear, with all our supposedly independent federal agencies, especially the FBI, bowing to that primary directive.

As part of the standard investigation, all the debris were gathered and stored at a hangar for examination, but FBI agents were discovered spiriting away some of the most tell-tale pieces, or even caught in the wee hours of the morning hammering them into a shape that would suggest an internal rather than an external explosion. The amateur video showing the missile strike was only briefly broadcast by a cable news channel before being seized by government agents. When an investigative journalist acquired debris containing apparent missile residue and passed it along to a producer at CBS News, the evidence was quickly confiscated, with the journalist and his wife even being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for violating an obscure law enacted to prohibit bystanders from removing souvenirs from the scene of a disaster; the veteran CBS producer who accepted the material was vilified as a “conspiracy theorist” and soon forced out of her job, her career destroyed. The written FBI reports of 278 eyewitness statements describing the missile attack were completely ignored, and in a number of cases, later statements were actually fabricated, falsely suggesting that crucial witnesses had revised or recanted their earlier testimony.

These particular examples only scratch the surface of the massive amount of coordinated government fraud and deception that was marshalled to make a missile strike seen by hundreds of witnesses officially disappear from the historical record, and transform the destruction of TWA Flight 800 into a rather mysterious and spontaneous mid-air explosion. The New York Times in particular became the primary mouthpiece of the official “See No Missile” party-line, repeatedly denigrating and ridiculing all those who resisted this total rewriting of the facts and history.

This gatekeeper role of the Times in the cover-up became particularly crucial once the high-profile figure of Pierre Salinger entered the controversy. Salinger ranked as a full-fledged member of the political-media establishment elite, having served as President Kennedy’s press secretary and one of the most visible public figures in Camelot, then briefly as an appointed U.S. Senator from California before becoming a prize-winning journalist and the Paris Bureau Chief for ABC News. Himself half-French by birth, he had many connections to the leadership of that country, which was galvanized by the large number of French victims on the flight. French intelligence became involved, quickly acquiring some of the same voluminous missile-related evidence suppressed by its US counterpart, and passed him the information. Cashill notes that Salinger was a loyal Democrat, and perhaps as a consequence he sat on the story until after Clinton was safely reelected in November, then attempted to break it, publishing a long expose in Paris Match, one of France’s highest-circulation popular magazines.

If Salinger had hoped his prestigious standing and long journalistic record would insulate him from attacks, he was sorely mistaken, and instead the threat his stature and credibility posed to the cover-up unleashed an unprecedented barrage of insult, ridicule, and invective, with the New York Times running 18 consecutive articles attacking him, and America’s leading news magazines, Time and Newsweek adding their own denunciations. Such remarkable vilification may have partly been aimed at dissuading any other prominent figures from similarly breaking ranks and following Salinger’s lead in exposing the true facts, and if so, the effort succeeded and the cover-up held.

Prior to Salinger’s regime disloyalty, he had regularly appeared on leading American television news broadcasts and his opinions were treated with the great deference accorded to a highly-respected elder statesman; afterward he was purged and blacklisted, shunned by our elite media as a “conspiracy nut.” Indeed, upon his death a few years later, the disloyalty he had shown to his establishment colleagues seriously tainted his NYT obituary, which closed by describing the “strange turn” he had taken in advocating theories based upon “discredited” evidence.

I don’t doubt that numerous other prominent figures quietly took the lesson of Salinger’s defenestration to heart, much as high-ranking Soviet leaders noted the dire implications of questioning Stalin’s pronouncements. Indeed, I personally know of at least a couple of individuals prominently situated in our current elite establishment whose private views on various controversial topics would surely rank as “utterly conspiratorial” but who remain extremely reluctant to have those views become generally known.

Or take another example, even closer to me. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, clearly ranked in the upper reaches of the DC national security establishment in the early 2000s, serving as Director of National Security Policies at the Hudson Institute and an adjunct professor at Yale. Yet his strongly discordant views on the Bush response to 9/11 and the preparations for the Iraq War caused him to be totally blacklisted from major media access, reduced to publishing his dissenting opinions on an obscure website or in the pages of small, socialistic quarterlies.

When naive individuals suggest that maintaining a large government conspiracy in America is simply impossible because “somebody would have talked” perhaps they should consider the implications of this incident, which occurred so close to the media capital of the world. And if they ever decide to trust Wikipedia on any remotely controversial topic, they should consult the 10,000 word Wikipedia article on TWA Flight 800, comparing that exhaustive presentation with the simple facts provided in this article, or the wealth of additional information in the numerous books and documentaries upon which my treatment was based.

The old Soviet Union was notoriously reluctant to ever acknowledge serious government errors, but its propaganda machinery was of mediocre quality, routinely ridiculed both in the West and among its own citizens. Surely, their Politburo members and Pravda editors would have been green with envy at how easily our own American Regime and its media minions suppressed the true story of TWA Flight 800, shot down by a missile just twelve minutes after it departed JFK Airport in New York City.

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Media, American Pravda, TWA 800 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 386 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think we can safely lay the blame squarely where it quite obviously belongs : The Anglo-Ziocons !!!!!

    • Replies: @ohmy
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Great piece! As an investigator myself, I always believed TWA 800 was taken down by a missile.

    Remember what the current ODNI James Clapper declared in the early stages of the Iraq war when he was was head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency? That he had proof Iraqi WMDs had been moved to Syria.

    “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
    –George Orwell

    • Replies: @eah
  3. I have leaned from far far left to middle left to finally refusing the left AND right of the political spectrum in my life. This is where I currently stand. I am an Anarchist, for lack of a better term. I know that’s a loaded word and many of you will probably consider it somehow associated with the left, but that’s neither here nor there. Your opinions are your right.

    I’ve stated the above to introduce myself in a way, because I’ve never commented here, though I’ve been a reader for more than a year. I check this site daily, sometimes more than once a day, and this kind of article is exactly why. I applaud you Mr. Unz. You and many of the writers and commenters on this site have shown what I used to think was a rare and fairly unheard of trait. That is the trait of truly opening ones eyes to see beyond the accepted paradigm of left and right. I see a lot of that on this site.

    We are all being sucker punched daily by both left and right….the sheep-like masses buy this false paradigm completely. The devastating truth that neither left or right care about us is too hard a truth to face for them. The “ruling class”, Plato’s philosopher kings (or so they’d like to believe). Laughable! The only difference between left and right of this class is their general approach and tone. But the goal is one and the same. They are in lock-step firmly and fully against the natural rights of the worlds people, weather Americans, Russians, Syrians, Iraqis, Chinese…it doesn’t matter. They view us all as slaves and cattle. The words Democracy, Communist, Monarchy, Theocracy, etc. have absolutely no meaning to these people and are only disguises used to trick the masses into believing they somehow live in a world of law and order. We live in a jungle. And the mighty are all evil, regardless of what philosophy they claim to represent. It is a lie. No “government” represents ANY people, much less it’s own people.

  4. Thank you for revisiting this “conspiracy”, the first which opened my eyes. Here are two videos for those too young or too busy to know about this. The first is about a National Guard pilot flying nearby who had served in Vietnam, and reported in the well read “Aviation Week” that a missile streaked upward and hit the airplane. This report was ignored, although a local news station did this report:

    And then in 2013, the now retired federal investigators went public and said it was hit by a missile, and a documentary was made, which was on Netflix for a few weeks and then disappeared. No one in our Congress cares! Here is one of many good documentaries.

    The lead FBI “investigator” retired and quadrupled his annual salary as a security consultant for Chase Bank.

    I don’t know what happened, but the best evidence is that our Navy accidentally shot it down.

    • Replies: @Jack Thomsen
  5. Before I sign aboard, you have to deal with the issue of motive more comprehensively. Was this a purposeful act,and if so to what end, to advance what agenda? Was it an accident? If so, what military units with big-plane capable anti-aircraft technology were in the area, what was the nature and c-and-c protocols of those technologies and what were the units activities at the time? (Military being mostly enlisted men, it is hard to believe than some Seaman Second didn’t say something to his brother who mentioned it to his pal who mentioned it to his wife who etc etc.) As someone else has said on this very website, plausibility is not evidence. Evidence, please.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Bart
  6. Agree all, Mr. Unz. TWA surely knew, they surely paid. In order to keep the Omerta, , were payments transferred to TWA and insurance companies that held the liability underwriting? Surely hundreds of millions, if not a billion or two were paid out on the “bad wiring”. I’m curious as to whether a Salinger or his conspiratorial fellows might have followed the money, so to speak?

    Your old friend Odem was inside, did he detect nothing of a fishy odor? Also, an insider’s look at the U.S. Navy staffing of the various operational elements either at sea or squadrons with say, F/A-18s in the air at the time would be interesting. All of those folks would be eager to cover up their SNAFU. However, if I’m Bill Clinton and the CIA and FBI and Naval Air authorities and SecNav are at my desk looking for a pass on this one little old thing, I’d tell them to immediately fire forthwith, all the little people from 0-7 down that enabled and committed this little fiasco. It would be telling to discover who many early retirements and sudden promotions were taken and given in that period. All these years later? Impossible now, but back then, telling.

    And so, an examination of rosters and billets in the command staffing of several elements from ships at sea to fighter squadrons as far away as Patuxent River NAS and Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia. Pax River and Oceana are not that far, if you look at it, BUT Oceana is a Master Jet Base, the East Coast equivalent to Miramar’s Fighter Town in California of Top Gun fame. Patuxent River is a testing facility, Shake, Rattle and Roll, a lot of that testing with weapons attached. Lots of horsing around goes on in training missions, post maintenance check flights, weapons testing. Also, a lot of weapons testing involves aerodynamic testing of live war shots just because.

    This was a major fuckup, I’m willing to give them credit for an accidental downing of this plane, I am also understanding of the “why” of the coverup (but hardly forgiving). But as you said, it was pretty air tight and they had the complete cooperation of the MSM. Throw in the fact that Americans are light headed and forgetful, they had it made in this coverup. Also, the web wasn’t the web quite yet, either. And so, tradition to this day, release it on Friday, which is made abundantly clear all the way to present-day. FBI releases criminal evidence even on the President and more on Hillary every Friday evening now. Come Monday, it’s snuffed. And even our beloved WWW can’t get at the truth.

    TWA? Back then? Phffft, easy pickins. Nothing to see here, Folks!

  7. edNels says:

    That’s cutting edge stuff Ron. I mean, I don’t see a whole bunch of hand wringing about the obvious Sheepification of the people, they just lap up there usual fare and go on contented.

    However, from a broader perspective, I believe that the truly horrifying aspect of the incident is the tremendous ease with which our government and its lapdog media managed to so utterly suppress the reality

    Now here is my cynical question: In hindsight, (and considering the naysayings around air planes and how they roll, since 911) how do you certify there was any actual passengers on #800? No disrespect to actual victims, this is a hypothetical.

    which is: maybe it was the real point of the naval exercises, presumably stated in this case as missile firings and reconnoitering etc. and what that involves… like target acquisition, protocols, push a button! combined pointly with… strategies for public perception management down stream from events whether real or not to work with and to expand the scope of the tools available for MSM- Pravda purposes. Any tragedies whether real or manufactured events or both can serve that. Events, aren’t the point, it’s the way they are consigned to public consciousness that is the game.

    There is pretty provacative stuff out there about so called ”Crisis action teams” where they hire amputees and so on and use Hollywood stunts and makeup, fake blood etc. In the case of fake airplane crashes, there might be places they could even purchase already dead, no that’s too much…! But follow the $ must be plenty of morturaries that would jump. I mean when there’s pictures of piles of bodies, like cordwood, like… It’s always true: “the bigger the lie, the more will believe it.” It costs millions to make them movies, they can make any movie you want, trouble is, they ain’t got any good writers anymore, they didn’t like ‘em much, too edgy.
    Now they make special effects through out years and what ever type of a car crash or anything,can be plugged into the schlock movie, and some new stars can remake some bad old movie again. Maybe the movies didn’t like playing second fiddle to reality anymore, so they got Rod Serling to fix things.

    To wit: decoupling of public expectations of clear reportage of anything important, which is a step toward deep sixing ”everything that’s fit to print” and everthing inbetween.

    In the nutshell, The news is: ”You don’t need no stinkin’ news… Charlie.”

    • Replies: @sund
    , @Johann
  8. Randal says:

    Such is life in a managed democracy.

    with the journalist and his wife even being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for violating an obscure law enacted to prohibit bystanders from removing souvenirs from the scene of a disaster; the veteran CBS producer who accepted the material was vilified as a “conspiracy theorist” and soon forced out of her job, her career destroyed

    It’s easy to skate over such details in these accounts, but they refer casually to catastrophic life disasters inflicted upon people seeking only to speak truth. These are gross abuses for which government and senior media and establishment figures have been directly responsible.

    As with so much else in the real world, one can only hope that the perpetrators will meet the justice after death which they are able to evade in this life, when their self-serving and hypocritical squeals about “the greater good” and “the national interest” will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

    • Agree: The Scalpel
    • Replies: @Johann
  9. A seminal essay, by a man with nothing to gain and hopefully nothing to lose from an iteration of the truth.

    This incident is in a long line of American cover-ups, too well known and too numerous to mention, going right back to…well, I don’t want to be controversial. The framing of the Constitution, perhaps?

  10. First of all, I’m reluctant to write this note for a couple of reasons. The first is that 9/11 related threads tend to just take over any discussion and they become endless with all the usual trolls showing up and so forth…

    BUT finally….. I look at the photo at the very top of the article, and see that they conscientiously gathered all the pieces of the plane they could get their hands on and tried to reconstruct the “accident”. One would infer that this is the normal thing to do in such cases. However, is there any similar photo of a reconstruction of any of the planes that allegedly crashed on 9/11?

    Another thing that immediately comes to mind is when I see this:

    … 278 of them reporting that they saw a streak of light, much like a missile, shoot up into the sky in the direction of the aircraft just before the huge explosion.

    So, 278 eyewitnesses reported that they saw this streak of light. It does not really seem like there is anything like this number of people who claim that they saw planes hit buildings on 9/11. Certainly not the Pentagon, but not in Manhattan either. An Englishman by the name of Andrew Johnson tried to get to the bottom of this and the results are summarized here:

    http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134&Itemid=60

    [MORE]

    Certainly, the number of people who say that they saw a plane, heard a plane, and that it was definitely a Boeing jetliner, this is a very small number of people. (One,…. zero???) There is also the issue of people’s suggestibility. The video clip of the plane hitting the building was shown so many times endlessly on the TV subsequently that it could well be that some people who were there finally convinced themselves that this is what they saw with their own two eyes, when in fact, they only saw it on TV like all the rest of us.

    Regardless, there is clearly nothing like 200+ eyewitnesses who definitely saw a passenger plane hit a building. Note also, that this is something that allegedly occurred twice, not once, as in this TWA flight. Actually, three times if you count the Pentagon…

    Now, in some prior conversation, people have conveyed the view that somebody expressing doubts about these plane crashes on 9/11 is a sign of self-evident nuttiness. I really beg to differ. Just comparing this to the incident that Ron is describing here, the TWA flight, we have no reconstruction of the plane from the parts. We have no similar number of eyewitnesses, it seems, despite the incredible population density the immediate area of Manhattan.

    The other reason that I was loath to bring this up is that, aside from 9/11 related threads becoming nasty and interminable, the new fashion seems to be JR-related threads, focusing on what a crazy nutcase Yours Truly, JR, is, and what a deplorable personality he has….

    It’s really very flattering, you know, because we have incidents in which hundreds, thousands, of innocents perished and somehow the important thing to discuss is MY personality! It attributes a level of importance to my person that makes little objective sense. Again, it is very flattering to think that my personality is of such importance, but I must humbly decline the honor.

    No, the important thing here is to ask why, in the TWA case, they can largely reproduce the plane from the parts they eventually recover, yet there is no similar thing with the 9/11 plane crashes. In the TWA case, Ron mentions 278 witnesses. There is nothing like this for the 9/11 plane-related events. There is all of one person who claims that they saw an American Airlines flight hit a building, it seems.

    So, I don’t think it is self-evidently crazy to ask the most basic questions about these alleged flights, i.e. did they even occur… But again, even if I really am crazy, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, it “don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world“.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Si1ver1ock
    , @Bill
  11. It’s not like we haven’t accidentally shot down airliners before … Google Iran Air flight 655.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @capt dave
  12. eah says:
    @Anonymous

    Great piece! As an investigator myself, I always believed TWA 800 was taken down by a missile.

    I’m not an “investigator”, but I also believe this — one key bit for me at the time was the account of the pilot or co-pilot (I do not remember which) of a Pakistani airliner (as I recall), whose plane was in the same airspace, and who said he saw a streak of light roaring upward, and then an explosion — I remember this being dismissed by (other) ‘investigators’ as him confusing up with down — what he actually saw, they said, was the plane falling from the sky after it exploded — WTF?! — as if an airline pilot/co-pilot cannot tell the difference between up and down.

    I also believe WTC-7 collapsed as a result of a controlled implosion — any claim to the contrary is an insult to my intelligence — just look at a video of it, the near perfection of its collapse directly into its own building footprint.

  13. Mister M says:

    Bill Cooper was talking about this in the 1990′s. He was instantly labeled a “conspiracy theorist” and called ‘the most dangerous radio show host in America’ by B Clinton. You can guess what happened to him.

    • Replies: @Bill
  14. MQ says:

    Wikipedia segregates all the issues Unz talks about here into a separate entry for Flight 800, entitled, helpfully, “Flight 800 Conspiracy Theories”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Che Guava
  15. TheJester says:

    The TWA 800 case has always bothered me. I recall the FAA investigator telling the press that the eye witness accounts of a missile being fired at TWA 800 are irrelevant to the investigation because “eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.” I wonder if our judicial system knows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

    I also recall the head of the EPA, Christine Todd Whitman, announcing on TV that the air was “safe to breath” and the workers cleaning up the 9/11 mess in New York faced no health problems in the cleanup. A Mount Sinai study in 2006 found 70 percent of of the estimated 10,000 Ground Zero workers developed respiratory problems. It took six years for Congress to hold her to account. Whitman’s defense was that her comments were based on the “best science” at the EPA so she did not mislead anyone.

    Down the “memory hole” ….

    I appreciate your comment that a conspiracy on the part of the Federal Government can involve thousands of people. Without question, yes it can as everyone takes a good look at their “rice bowls” and assesses the impact of pushing back on their livelihoods.

  16. Rehmat says:

    As researchers have claimed that 96% of world’s mainstream media is controlled by Zionist families – you receive the news as they want the world to believe.

    In July 2016, Netanyahu visited Uganda to commemorate the 40th anniversary of murder of his elder brother Yonatan Netanyahu at Uganda’s Entebbe International Airport by Idi Amin Dada’s soldiers by mistake. Yonatan, an officer of Israel’s elite commando unit Sayeret Matkal lead the operation to rescue Israeli passengers “hijacked” by the members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, infiltrated by Israel’s Shin Beit agents on July 4, 1976.

    [MORE]

    Ugandan military dictator Gen. Idi Amin Dada received much of his military training in Israel; first as a paratrooper with the Israeli Occupation Force, then with Mossad and Israeli Secret Police Shin Beit.

    In May 2007, BBC reported that Israel’s Shin Beit security service collaborated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to hijack the June 1976 flight from Israel that was diverted to Entebbe, Uganda.

    “The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what they see as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans,” the BBC report said British diplomat D.H. Colvin wrote in the document, citing his source.

    Israeli journalist, Richard Silverstein, wrote on July 31, 2013: “Africa has for decades been a playground for Israel: both in the literal sense as a spot for Israelis to play in the sun (Kenya, Zanzibar, Sharm el-Sheikh—not technically in Africa, but Egypt is); and in the figurative sense regarding Israeli diplomats and spies who’ve woven their webs of intrigue there. In the days of Ben Gurion, he saw Africa as a weight to counter the hostile influence of the Arab world. That’s why Israeli development and aid projects were so intensively pursued in the 1950s and 60s.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/09/ugandan-president-calls-israel-palestine/

  17. CK says:

    Accidental explosion by fuel tank spark.
    Accidental destruction by US Navy fired missile.
    Intentional destruction to erase one or more of the passengers.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twa800/list01.htm

    not surprisingly the links to the profiles and the report are as dead as the passengers.
    230 listed minus 18 employees of TWA and at least 30 people listed as students or under 21.
    I wonder if there was a vetting of the passengers after the fact to determine if one or more of them might have been a very valuable target.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  18. CK says:

    Anyone who believes that a large group of people cannot maintain a conspiracy over a long period of time should examine the Ultra program from WWII and after. That secret was maintained for over 35 years.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Chico
  19. A very troubling aspect of this is the amount of control required to suppress this sort of information. How does this work internally? Who authorizes this? Who pays for it? How does the government coordinate this kind of coverup? Memos? Emails? What do they tell each other? Where is the conspiracy to defraud the public centered or located?

    It almost certainly came out of the Pentagon under the rubric National Security Top Secret. They are the only people who can do this.

    It’s all very disturbing.

    • Replies: @Bill
    , @Carroll Price
  20. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “First of all, I’m reluctant to write this note for a couple of reasons. The first is that 9/11 related threads tend to just take over any discussion and they become endless with all the usual trolls showing up and so forth.”

    As far as I’m concerned, you are one of the usual trolls.

    So now you claim there weren’t any actual planes that hit WTC 1 and 2. Why don’t you just go whole hog, and claim that there were no actual buildings either. Perhaps New York City itself is actually nothing more than a false-flag theme-park populated entirely by “crisis actors”.

    “No, the important thing here is to ask why, in the TWA case, they can largely reproduce the plane from the parts they eventually recover, yet there is no similar thing with the 9/11 plane crashes.”

    Gee, I wonder why? What could be different between the cases of plane fragments falling into water at terminal velocity vs. a plane crashing into a building in powered flight at 500 mph?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  21. @Jonathan Revusky

    For me, 911 is a historical fact more than a contemporary issue. I consider it proven that elements of the US government knew about it, lied about it and probably did it. The actual facts disappear into the abyss of America’s Deep State.

    It’s time to move on and decide what it means. What will it mean when the rest of the world understands that the United States committed this evil hoax upon the world and that the American media has been perpetuating it ever since?

    We need someone to write a book. Call it Aftermath A Guide to Post Modern, Post Imperialist America. What will it mean when virtually every institution in the United States is completely discredited?

    Let’s list a few:

    The Federal Reserve
    Free Trade (NAFTA, TPP, etc.)
    The Big Banks (now regarded s crooks)
    Wall Street ( worse crooks)
    The Corporate Media and Main Stream Media ( American Pravda )
    The political system (Corrupt and Rigged see DNC)
    The FBI ( corrupted )
    The Department of Justice (corrupted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac)
    NIST and other US scientific organizations (who apparently can’t add or subtract)
    The CIA (gun running, drugs, over throwing governments)
    The NSA ( worse than the Stasi)
    The Pentagon ( they are probably at the center of this mess, )
    The United Nations ( a rubber stamp for Washington )

    We are entering into the Post Post Modern World. What does it mean?

  22. Che Guava says:

    Very well said, Mr. Unz.

    I recall wondering at the time if it may have been a stray from among the Stingers so liberally distributed in Afghanistan or a US military fuckup at home.

    Always favoured the latter idea. The former would have been a certain type of poetic justice.

    God rest the souls of the dead on that flight.

  23. nsa says:

    We here in Ft. Meade and Langley have achieved full spectrum dominance and total informational awareness…….there is no corner of human existence that we cannot shape, manipulate, and control. Flight 800 was a very minor difficulty compared to papering over the heinous 6 hour zio attack on the Liberty, clearly flying old glory in broad daylight far out in international waters……now that was a real challenge as our capabilities and media assets at the time were somewhat limited.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  24. @The Alarmist

    Listen to DoD Secretary Frank Carlucci and Adm Wm Crowe, Chair, JCoS, explain the Fogarty report and how they “investigated thoroughly and objectively” and concluded that the shoot-down of Iranian Airbus 655 w/ 290 civilians on board, including children, “was Iran’s responsibility;” and that the judgment with which the president concurred that the captain of the Vincennes was not culpable, was correct:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?4065-1/report-downing-iranian-air-flight-655

    THEN read this Newsweek write-up four years later:

    http://www.newsweek.com/sea-lies-200118

    Crowe: “It is unconscionable that the Airbus ignored 7 warnings from the Vincennes.”

    Newsweek: “Capt. Rogers of the Vincennes was eager to engage a battle, that’s how you earn stripes . . .”

    Carlucci/Crowe: “The captain of the Vincennes had a lot of things going on in a very short window of time.

    Newsweek: “The navy’s most expensive surface warship, designed to track and shoot down as many as 200 incoming missiles at once . . .

    Crowe: “Capt. Rogers had heard metallic pings on his ship, he was in the middle of a surface battle that the Iranians had started”

    Newsweek: “the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down–in clear violation of international law. . . .
    “The enemy was not a disciplined naval force but ragtag irregulars in lightly armed speedboats. Fighting them with an Aegis cruiser was like shooting at rabbits with a radar-guided missile.”

    Crowe: “The Vincennes crew made a number of errors but none of them was critical to the decision to fire on IranAir 655″

    Newsweek: “Anderson turned to the petty officer next to him in Air Alley, John Leach, and wondered aloud if the blip could be an Iranian warplane–an F-4 or F-14 perhaps? Their boss in Air Alley, Lt. Clay Zocher, overheard the two enlisted men talking. Zocher was already nervous. He had stood this watch only twice before during General Quarters, and he had never mastered the computer routines for his console. . . .

    Newsweek: “An F-14 could do little damage to the Vincennes. The version that Washington sold its ally the Shah of Iran in the early 1970s was purely a fighter plane, not configured to strike surface targets.”

    Newsweek: The carrier USS Forrestal was monitoring the Vincennes and its situation; the Forrestal’s captain had put US F-14s in the air, ready to counter any possible attack on the Vincennes, but the Forrestal captain & crew believed the Iranian ship was commercial not military.

    Crowe: “The Airbus originally sent out the signal for a civilian aircraft but later sent out the signal of a military aircraft.”

    Newsweek: “. . .investigators figure out that Anderson had forgotten to reset the range on his IFF device. The Mode 2 did not come from the Airbus, climbing peacefully above the gulf, but from an Iranian plane, probably a military transport, still on the runway back in Bandar Abbas.”

    That’s a sample; there’s more.

    By the time the US Congress finished with the event, it was claimed that Iranians deliberately sent a commercial airliner, with civilians, or maybe corpses, on board, with the intent of creating an atrocity and winning a propaganda victory over USA.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  25. @CK

    Three words: Extortion 17 shootdown.

  26. capt dave says:
    @The Alarmist

    I had always assumed it was a good possibility TWA 800 was revenge for The Iranian flight that we shot down 8 years earlier. The pattern was the same–right after take-off, over the ocean, almost the same number of passengers, etc. It might have taken 8 years to smuggle a missile and launcher onto a boat in Long Island Sound. Iran would have not taken public credit for it, the US government would have figured it out. Maybe that was the reason the CIA was involved from the start.

    • Replies: @Avery
  27. Bill says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    You don’t need all that much coordination. You need, first, information to be compartmentalized so that few people have it conveniently assembled before them, and, second, an institutional commitment to the official story. FBI agents are FBI agents. That’s their team. That’s their tribe. If the FBI says it was an accident and leaders of the FBI call people who disagree names, then you can expect the overwhelming majority of team members to fall into line and to spontaneously help suppress the discordant stories. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is how people behave. They choose sides and then it’s “my team right or wrong.”

  28. Currahee says:

    okay, suppose it was a missile from and American gunboat….nobody talked???

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  29. John Spiers says: • Website

    The Navy was on maneuvers below. When pressed, the Navy stated “We launched no missile.” Remember about that time, the Kursk, the Russian submarine, “sank itself”? If we did not launch the Navy missile, who did? The super secret may be a 3rd actor telling the superpowers to play nice, your command and control systems have been hacked. That would have to be kept secret from us, or we might go all pacifist. Also, it helps explain why now we only attack the undefended, “who cares?” targets

  30. Che Guava says:
    @MQ

    Never trust the Wikipaedia on anything but pure science (botany, physics etc.), tech (engineering, programming) or maths, even on the iatter, mathematicians far more talented at it than thee or me say that it is a garbage source.

    Having enjoyed wikipedia fights in days when it was more free, also setting off fights, some lasted for two days or longer, that was fun!

    I clicked on the links to both Japanese and English wiki today, looking for info. related to work.

    Both have huge text blocks ‘Give money please’.

    My only thought is ‘fuck you, Jimbo and Elevation Partners can run it off their spare change until the 22nd century, or the Great EMP Event, or, if Hillary is elected, WW III.’

  31. Bill says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    First of all, I’m reluctant to write this note

    Not reluctant enough. The similarities between 9/11 conspiracy theories and TWA 800 conspiracy theories are small to non-existent. With TWA 800, hundreds of eyewitnesses, including many very credible ones saw a missile strike. The other evidence appears to be consistent with a missile strike. The alternative explanations offered are weak.

    None of this is true with 9/11 stuff. Lots of people (and cameras) saw the planes (especially the second one) striking the towers. There are not hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the towers being wired with explosives (or whatever the current conspiracy theory is).

    If you want to argue that conspiracies are real, and that the government-media complex are disturbingly capable of covering them up, then what you want to be talking about are the strong conspiracy theories like TWA 800. You don’t want to be talking about weak conspiracy theories like 9/11 or having public bouts of apparent mental illness like the Sandy Hook conspiracists.

    On the other hand, if you are trying to spread FUD upon all conspiracy theories, bringing up the weak and crazy ones all the time is the way to go.

  32. Bill says:
    @Mister M

    Bill Cooper was obviously mentally ill. Just watch his stuff on youtube. I mean unless you believe him that he was let in on the conspiracy between the flying saucer aliens and the US government to do something or another at the behest of Satanist Illuminati members like Pat Buchanan. And then that these ultra-powerful conspiracists (with ray guns and everthing) turned him loose to tell everyone their secrets.

  33. Pat Casey says:

    The truth shall set you free. I always enjoy reading. Another great article Mr. Unz, throwing cold water on our scandalous authorities. By the way, you should really be thinking about your memoirs, never too early to start early ya know. You could title it A Cold Education.

    When naive individuals suggest that maintaining a large government conspiracy in America is simply impossible because “somebody would have talked” perhaps they should consider the implications of this incident, which occurred so close to the media capital of the world.

    I wonder, can we say every citizen with a security clearance is a member of a conspiracy? Or does the category not pertain to them because the simple fact of having a security clearance need not be kept secret? (as far as I know). Anyways, about those “naive” individuals— that does indeed get at the root of the matter; like Michael Corleone said, “Who is being naive, Kay?”

    I was thinking, better than “conspiracies,” what Ron’s American Pravda series is generally concerned with is rather cover-ups. In that there is this advantage for public relations: everyone believes in cover-ups—a bon mot might go what’s good enough for government work is a lesson in sealing them—and their motivations are dependably less shadowy than conspiracies and that way easier to account for. But so there’s a conspiracy, and assuming the conspirators operate under an exquisitely strict Need To Know regime, the ones who really know can probably be estimated to make up a slim crew. Then there’s the cover-up, and that is vast and varied and diffuse; the nature of cover-ups is probably more like the mind of a hive. And like a hive as well in the way a couple/few wayward worker bees cannot unmake the hive themselves; I mean, individuals buck a cover-up now and then, true, but the point is, they’re bucking a cover-up, not a conspiracy. For example, one of the grandees on the 9/11 commission, I forget who, stated on some record at some point, that they all agreed at the start not to tell the truth.

    But then again, sometimes the conspirators do let their lips loose, like E. Howard Hunt regarding the JFK assassination. And I once saw an interview on YouTube with a guy who claims he was at the military base on 9/11 where the conspirators toasted champagne for pulling off the coup, and, shockingly, he said Warren Buffett was indeed there among them. Maybe, maybe not–though who would think to make up that detail. In these things, the bigger the lie, the better it sells I suppose.

    All of this makes me think we should be reading Luttwak’s Coup d’etat, and think about how we can install Ron Unz as an American Cesar.

  34. Wade says:

    The vast majority of our sheep-like population absorbed the simple media message “No Missile” and went back to watching their football games and celebrity music videos, being greatly relieved to know that well-maintained 747 jumbo jets flown by leading national airlines can occasionally explode in mid-air without any external cause.

    This was a really great line. I’m very thankful that Ron is writing is American Pravda series. I came here for Sailer but I’m staying for Unz!

    Please keep up the great work and godspeed!

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Former Darfur
  35. That this, obviously, goes on constantly has long caused me to suspect there exists an entire division of the FBI that is dedicated to “cover-up” technology.

    September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday. That Friday, the family member who worked as a CIA analyst was up from DC to meet with relatives. Discussion turning to events of 9/11, someone remarked that the target of Flight 93 had been, apparently, the White House. The CIA analyst, attention not entirely focused (he was grilling), remarked, “Well, yeah, that’s why they had to shoot it down.” With eyebrow slightly raised, I asked, “Who?”. With a somewhat quizzical look, he said “F-15 out of Pax River — Sidewinder.” I grinned and said, “The official story is that the passengers took the cockpit and the terrorists dived it into the ground to avoid capture.”

    Why that cover-up has been so important to the gubmint, I do not know. Hell, they had to shoot it down, no kidding. Why lie about it? Why not say, “That’s war.”?

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @dahoit
  36. @SolontoCroesus

    That may have been the report of the OJCS … Ah, you fill in the rest.

  37. Avery says:
    @capt dave

    {I had always assumed it was a good possibility TWA 800 was revenge for The Iranian flight that we shot down 8 years earlier}

    1988 Jul 3, Iran Air Flight 655.
    1988 December 21, Pan Am Flight 103.
    1996 TWA 800.

    Despite Libya being officially fingered for the Pan Am bombing, and a couple Libyan patsies being arrested and convicted, many believe Pan Am was the revenge for Iran Air destruction. Since US denied any responsibility, and furthermore, blamed Iranians themselves, Iran would have a rational motive for revenge.


    { It might have taken 8 years to smuggle a missile and launcher onto a boat in Long Island Sound.}

    Highly unlikely. The explosion took place at ~15,000 feet. That’s near the max range for manpads. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
    If it was brought down by a missile, it had to be a large one: pretty hard to hide.

  38. Che Guava says:
    @MQ

    I’m sure they do.

    Not that I am going to read it.

  39. utu says:

    I would connect the following events

    WTC bombing 1993
    TWA 800 (1996)
    Swissair Flight 111 (1998)
    EgyptAir Flight 990 (1999) is most interesting

    together and look at them in context what was going on with the US policy in Middle East. All these events possibly were false flags but the crucial elements of the US security apparatus were not completely compromised/infiltrated yet so the events with exception of WTC 1993 were not allowed to unfold as terrorist attacks. Not until 2001 when the US security apparatus was totally compromised the 9/11 super event, that had elements of all the events from previous years, could unfold.

    But as far as individual airplane crashes are concerned the list of passengers is crucial in investigation. Who was on EgyptAir 990 or TWB 800 or Swissair 111 ?

  40. Che Guava says:
    @disturbed_robot

    Your opinions are your right.

    Not too bad a starting point.

  41. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    A useful review of the evidence and the cover-up of the evidence relating to the destruction of TWA Flight 800. But as with the implosion of WTC7 on 9/11 and many other politically important lies, the political class, the public service, and the media continue the cover-up. Why? Because it pays: too many of the voting public being too dim, lazy or distracted to question what they see in the news headlines.

    What to do?

    Reform the franchise. Giving everyone the vote means all a crooked elite need do to retain power is con the stupids, which is what happens now, and what is bad for the great majority of the population, stupid or otherwise, since it gives power to a mendacious elite easily bought by the Money Power.

    How to reform the franchise?

    First, raise the minimum voting age, from sixteen or whatever our corrupt leaders have lowered it to now, to at least 31. This would eliminate a substantial proportion, though by no means a majority, of the childish voters.

    Second, deny the vote to all those on the public payroll, from welfare recipients to the heads of the public service. This would eliminate those voting to pick their neighbors pockets.

    Other refinements might include extra votes for those with higher educational qualifications, although whether that is justifiable, seems open to question. In that connection, research to determine how gullibility about stories such as Flt. 800 relates to age, education, IQ, etc. would be of great value.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
    , @neologism
  42. Rurik says:
    @Wade

    The vast majority of our sheep-like population absorbed the simple media message “No Missile” and went back to watching their football games and celebrity music videos, being greatly relieved to know that well-maintained 747 jumbo jets flown by leading national airlines can occasionally explode in mid-air without any external cause.

    how many people in a modern highrise building worry, if there’s an office fire- that the entire edifice is going to go *poof* and collapse into its basement as if the floors and steel supports simply disappeared? Just as with the jet they’re flying in spontaneously exploding for no reason, it never would occur to them. (And for good reason). But when it comes to the official narratives, no matter how preposterous, (jets spontaneously combusting, steel building turning to power) they always fall in line. I mean what difference at this point, does it make anyways, eh?

    People rely upon a kind of child/parent sort of relationship between themselves and their rulers/governments, so that they can forgo the necessity of thinking for themselves. And our rulers depend on that mentality. Indeed, there is a carefully orchestrated and obvious agenda to teach them not to think, starting in the government schools.

    Freud used to say this was behind the belief in a God. Sort of as a ‘father” who would take over for our real one when we became adults- to protect us from all the dark evils of ‘The Demon-Haunted World’.

    the terrible irony is that there doesn’t seem to be any kind of benevolent and loving patriarchal/politician father types or God(s) protecting us, but rather people are putting the trust they would normally entrust to a father or a God, into something else entirely

    I suppose in 0ne way or anther, it has always been like this

  43. Rurik says:

    steel building turning to power”

    powder

    I need an edit button! ;)

  44. @Rurik

    A tad weak as evidence, imo. A slight confusion of speech, no more. Not that it makes any difference to me — I KNOW it was shot down.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Rurik
    , @The Scalpel
  45. highrpm says:
    @disturbed_robot

    i prefer to use the term “anti-collectivist.” (recalling arthur koestler’s excellent description of such in his book, “ghost in the machine.”) i’m not a belonger. and hillary so incites the herd instinct in her incessant use of the lame linguistic trick in attempting to speak for all of us, “we americans do…” “we americans don’t….” “we americans aren’t …” who says? speak for yourself, hillary!”

  46. Rehmat says:

    Hudson Institute like the Brookings Institute is an Israeli advocacy group.

    In 1984, Admiral Thomas Moorer (died 2004), former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had stated: “I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to Israel or Jewish Lobby. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wouldn’t write anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.”

    The Jew York Times is America’s top Israeli propagandist. Last week, it declared war on China by claiming that Beijing has DECLARED WAR on China’s 1,000 Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/09/26/nyt-china-declares-war-on-jews/

  47. Another aspect of this story that has disappeared down the memory hole is that it provided an excuse for the FAA to at long last grant the airlines their fondest wish – passengers would no longer be allowed to fly without showing identification. This finally put an end to the then-widespread practice of reselling unwanted airline tickets on the secondary market, and led to the now-ubiquitous practice of overbooking flights and “bumping” the excess load.

  48. edNels says:
    @utu

    How do you know if the ”real live, actual people that were victims,” were real? There’s millions and millions… (like Sagan used to say… ) or enough of a mass population mostly of modern folks in the megamagopoluses of today, and they don’t talk to their neighbors much, prefering the ubiquitous social atomization of thier smart tech devices. Fakes can easily be plopped down in any place to build the authenicity angle.

    ”Was you dere Charlie?” Did you see it? The community or small towns, or bedroom neighborhoods is replaced with hordes rootless strangers from somewhere else, and boy, they like to enjoy their rights of privacy about where they come from, and so on, but gone are the days, when there was direct knowlege about who lives here or there, which makes it easy to fake all that particularity and place of residence and all that, that stuff is all in the hackable cloud too, if need be.

  49. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    A tad weak as evidence, imo…. … — I KNOW it was shot down.

    nevertheless, he is someone who would know, I should think

    and unlike the chimp, Rummy does actually have a peanut or two, even if a touch of dementia is taking its hold

    but if it was shot down, then even if scattered around for miles, surely there would have been bodies or human remains found, like at the site of the downed MH17, where there were bodies all over the place. From what I understand, there were exactly zero body parts found anywhere in Pennsylvania

    curious no?

    Unless (all) the jet(s) was/were diverted, the passengers (if any) were disembarked (and liquidated?) and replacement jets sent up for the respective tasks. That would explain the wildly improbably fight patterns

    it would also make sense if the passenger jets were being replaced with specially outfitted jets with remote control capabilities.

    a pet theory of mine, and others.. conjecture, nevertheless

    all we know is that the official version is a pack of lies, just like with flight 800 or MH17 or all the rest of the things they lie about and get away with effortlessly

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  50. Fred Reed says:

    The Navy doesn’t test missiles off major centers of air traffic for obvious reasons. It is done on controlled test ranges with the requisite telemetry and precautions to keep the missiles from hurting anyone. Nor does it fire Standard missiles accidentally. I once spent a day at sea out of Norfolk aboard the Vincennes, a Tico-class antiaircraft cruiser, much of my time in the CIC. While such ships routinely tracked everything in the air, they did not arm missiles, which is not something you can do by bumping the wrong switch.

    A Standard would produce the explosion observed. However, if a naval vessel shot down an airliner, it was intentional, and the entire crew would know about it, and have to keep quiet about it for decades. This in not behavior common among Gis. Whether a captain would shoot down a civilian airliner even if ordered is unlikely.

    A MANPAD, Sam-7 for example, would be physically possible, being small enough to be smuggled, but it would go for an engine, leading to a forced landing or at least distress calls. A secret CIA vessel specially fitted out with a missile and the necessary radar etc. Could do it, I suppose.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Passenger List: TWA Flight 800 here.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    looks like there was a middle school class from Montoursville PA doing a trip to France. Sad. They probably worked for months to prepare.

  53. Old fogey says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Good ideas, except for the “extra votes for those with higher educational qualifications.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  54. Rurik says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I meant to say someone else who would know.. ;)

  55. Ron Unz says:
    @Fred Reed

    The Navy doesn’t test missiles off major centers of air traffic for obvious reasons. It is done on controlled test ranges with the requisite telemetry and precautions to keep the missiles from hurting anyone.

    Actually, there does seem overwhelming evidence that the US Navy was staging exercises in the near vicinity, and widespread rumors that they were test-firing missiles. Among the hard evidence, there’s that home video showing a missile being fired a few days earlier during previous naval exercises in the same location. Also, as I mentioned, a home video showing the missile hitting TWA 800 was allegedly auctioned off for over $50,000 to the networks and then broadcast before being confiscated by the FBI. You also might really want to review that second documentary I posted.

    I believe the story unearthed by French Intelligence was that the unexpected presence of another plane caused the TWA pilots to fly at a much lower altitude than expected, making the flight vulnerable to a Navy missile.

    Initially, a terrorist missile was suspected, but the flight was much too high for that, which is why it was almost certainly a mishap with a US Navy missile.

    • Replies: @Avery
  56. @utu

    I was in Beirut in 1983 on “business” … subsequent to that,
    I was booked on TWA 847 in June 1985, but missed the flight, which was hijacked.
    I got hit by an unmarked truck, essentially ending my military service.
    I worked in the WTC in 1993.
    I was booked on that specific Swiss Air 111 flight to go paragliding in the Alps, but had to miss it to work on a deal.
    I was in London on 911 when a big chunk of the WTC fell through what was my NYC office.

    and a few other things that in retrospect are making me think someone is out to get me ;)

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  57. @Rurik

    Rumsfeld’s “slip” might be deliberate. The key thing they want you to think is that this flight actually did take place and actually was hijacked.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  58. @Rurik

    From what I understand, there were exactly zero body parts found anywhere in Pennsylvania

    The Altoona Mirror has reports on burials of unidentified bodies from Flight 93, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports as follows:

    The coroner’s assessment came yesterday as he confirmed that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory has used DNA samples to match recovered remains with the last of 40 crew members and passengers aboard the hijacked jetliner 14 weeks ago when it slammed into a recovered strip mine at around 500 mph.

    Miller has kept control of the crash site, under watch by security guards hired by United Airlines, expecting a possible final search for remains in the spring.

    Remains of passengers and crew identified so far should be released in February to families or for burial, entombment or cremation in the Somerset County area, depending on families’ preferences, Miller said. Unidentified remains, yielding no DNA information, will be “treated properly,” probably interred or entombed in the county, according to the coroner.

  59. Avery says:
    @Ron Unz

    In 2001 Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 was accidentally shot down by Ukrainian Air defense S-200 missile during exercises. Initially Ukraine denied it was them, but admitted the mistake after Russia presented radar and other evidence. The kin of dead were compensated.

    So it is entirely plausible that US Navy exercise went horribly wrong, particularly if TWA 800 flew at an unplanned lower altitude.

    The official explanation makes no sense for sure.
    And the CIA animation, to me, is proof that US Gov is trying to cover-up something. And as Ron wrote, too many witnesses contradict the official narrative.

    But what I don’t understand is how can US Navy compel all those sailors who would have been there quiet all these years. Why hasn’t anyone leaked anything?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  60. Mulegino1 says:
    @Bill

    It’s odd that what the “cameras” caught on 9/11, which was supposedly UA 175 going into WTC 2 while maintaining uniform velocity – is an absolute impossibility in the real world. It defies the Third Law of Motion. There is no difference between a hundred or so ton airliner hitting the Tower or the more than 100,000 ton steel and concrete skyscraper hitting the airliner.

    To believe that what is for the most part a thin skinned aluminum and fiberglass cylinder (fuselage and cockpit) and mostly hollow wings would penetrate effortlessly the massive steel perimeter columns, concrete floor pans – not to mention the extremely strong steel spandrels – requires a leap of faith far greater than the theory of CGI simulation.

    What would really have happened, had a commercial airliner struck the Tower at over 500 mph? The cockpit, fuselage would have been shredded into confetti like steel bits. The titanium engines would have been smashed, but remain intact. The wings would also have been shredded. The seats, and luggage would most likely have bounced off the Tower’s perimeter and fallen to the street below the point of impact. The only parts of the airliner that could possibly have penetrated the building would have been the titanium engines and the landing gear.

    The raw footage from a local news helicopter (Chopper 4) which had perhaps the best vantage point of all shows an explosion in WTC 2 and no commercial airliner anywhere in sight.

  61. @Avery

    But what I don’t understand is how can US Navy compel all those sailors who would have been there quiet all these years. Why hasn’t anyone leaked anything?

    Uhh, if the media won’t report on it, who are they supposed to leak it to?

    • Replies: @Avery
  62. @Bill

    Lots of people (and cameras) saw the planes (especially the second one) striking the towers.

    Well, this isn’t actually that clear when you examine it. The number of people who really claim they saw planes fly into buildings is surprisingly low. And most of them did not think that they were big Boeing airliners.

    And there are strong reasons to think that the video footage is faked. There are a lot of technical explanations in this video that I cannot vouch for, but I have never seen any serious rebuttal. I just link it and let people judge for themselves.

    There are not hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the towers being wired with explosives

    Well, obviously not, but the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is caught on film from various angles, so it was wired with explosives.

    Regardless, there is no real reason for the buildings WTC1 and WTC2 to have simply integrally disintegrated from being hit by the planes. The planes are puny 100 ton aluminum tubes striking massive 500,000 ton buildings, of which 100,000 tons is the structural steel core of the building.

    But, in any case, WTC 7 was not struck by a plane and came down in a way that can only be controlled demolition.

    Overall the “conspiracy” case on 9/11 is probably at least as strong as the TWA flight that this article is talking about.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Bill
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  63. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Old fogey

    Good ideas, except for the “extra votes for those with higher educational qualifications.”

    Yeah, well, I did hesitate on that.

    But since higher education now comes with such a heavy dose of state-mandated PC propaganda, I acknowledge my error, and withdraw the proposal without reserve.

  64. Avery says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    {…who are they supposed to leak it to?}

    MSM lost its monopoly on dissemination of information, disinformation, and misinformation a while back. There are alternatives aplenty.

    Fear of “accidental” death would be a well founded fear for any potential sailor-witness.
    But a credible source could make his/her case on RT, for example.
    Also a plethora of web sites. E.g. russia-insider.com

    There seems to be nobody.
    And don’t you think if one of those sailors anonymously contacted unz.com, the story would not be verified and them published @unz.com?
    unz.com would protect the privacy of the individual, but would disseminate the facts.

    I mean a US Navy ship capable of launching a large missile has to have at least several dozen crew members. So, again why hasn’t anyone leaked something, anything.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Bill
  65. @Mr. Anon

    So now you claim there weren’t any actual planes that hit WTC 1 and 2.

    Well, actually, I never specifically claimed that. It is possible that some aircraft did hit the buildings, but it is very very unlikely, based on the evidence I see, that the buildings were struck by Boeing passenger jets. A well known aviation expert, John Lear, gave an affidavit in which he explained in detail why, in his expert opinion, the buildings were not struck by big Boeing jets.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html

    However, even if John Lear, along with many other very experienced pilots who are part of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, is wrong about that, there is also no reason for the collision of any airplanes with the buildings to have caused the total disintegration of the buildings. Each plane would be about 100 tons and the steel frame of each building is 100,000 tons of structural steel.

    Perhaps New York City itself is actually nothing more than a false-flag theme-park populated entirely by “crisis actors”.

    No, actually not.Surely over 99.999% of New Yorkers are not crisis actors, which would be why there are so few people who say they saw a passenger jetliner hit a building.

    Gee, I wonder why? What could be different between the cases of plane fragments falling into water at terminal velocity vs. a plane crashing into a building in powered flight at 500 mph?

    Well, I don’t know offhand. I’m not an expert in these questions. I simply noted, based on the photo at the top of this article that they collected all the pieces of the aircraft available and even tried to piece together the pieces, in order to reconstruct what had happened.

    With 9/11, there was no similar effort, either wrt the alleged plane crashes in Manhattan or the other ones. From what I understand, they were just in this incredible hurry to ship off all the forensic evidence to China as scrap metal for recycling.

    It’s not about me. I’m not the first person to ask why.

    • Replies: @Mithera
    , @Mr. Anon
  66. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    just a thought ..

    at the risk of every thread even remotely related to conspiracies or government cover ups being skewed into 911 debates, perhaps there could just be a running thread on 911, where all the people interested in that stuff could hammer out the ‘no planes’ theories and other such chafe, because all the minutia regarding that particular theory is just that- minutia. And can all too easily be a distraction, and also distract from the point of the threads, like this one on flight 800.

    Personally I’m convinced that there were no passenger jets that hit the Pentagon or Shankville, but something else entirely. And I’m also reasonably certain that large jets, (only not passenger jets full of commercial passengers) did in fact hit the two towers. But endlessly debating all these issues, (that I’m sure the PTB are creating massive amounts of technical and disinfo noise to distract us all from what really happened) tend to leave us all debating details in circles endlessly.

    I personally don’t mind debating all that stuff, but I do fear that when they take over all the other threads, then they/we become a nuisance and an irritant (like I am now ; ) to the people wanting to debate the specific things in the respective threads, no?

    Also when we combine 911 truth with the moon and aliens, then I fear we do it a disservice. IMHO. And create in the mind of lurkers the notion that 911 truthers are cranks and kooks.

    (I wouldn’t normally presume to make suggestions to the esteemed Mr. Unz and his team, but it seems to me a separate 911 (perhaps Holocaust too) running thread might be a positive thing to help clean up the other threads?).

    I suppose the problem is that people would want it to have some prominence on the page, and for various reasons, perhaps that would not be well advised.

    Just ruminating here ..

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @CanSpeccy
  67. If indeed the plane was taken down by the Navy, and by extension the Clinton Administration, can we then add this to the Clinton Body Count?

    Maybe that passenger manifest needs a second look. How many passengers had passed through Arkansas, perhaps done some business with the Rose law firm? Anyone preparing to go public with allegations of groping or assault by the rapist in chief?

  68. “you have to ask, what’s more important to CBS”

    No you don’t, that answer is obvious and it’s the shareholders…..nothing and i mean nothing matters more to a corporation…….this is even more important than the product or service they provide…….than the stock price.

    everything else is secondary.

  69. Yet another conspiracy involving the US gov. How many US gov related conspiracies are there now? 20, 30, 40? Who really knows? This one slipped right past me…as did ‘Sandy Hook’, and virtually all of the “terrorist” attacks in the US and Europe. I don’t have the time to keep up with them all!

    I’ve been very fortunate in that I’ve been able to move past my conspiracy investigations and on into taking real-life actions to thwart the evil-doers of the NWO. I believe that constantly discussing these kinds of things, whether online, or with friends in R/L, actually has a deleterious effect on ones ability to move forward into right-action. Every time you post a comment on these kinds of issues it has a cathartic effect on you…it releases the valuable pressures that ‘outrageous conspiracies’ naturally evoke. Thus one is forever trapped in a seemingly endless conspiracy-outrage-discussion loop…helplessly propelled from one manifestation to the next.

    But, most of you trick yourselves into believing that your online discussions are having a huge impact on the issue when, in reality, they’re not. Take the TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theory, for example. People have already put forth a large amount of time and effort into their investigations of the matter. They have taken their findings and have transformed them into books and documentaries…have you read those books, or seen the documentaries? If not, why don’t you take the right action, gather the relevant materials, and view them…instead of discussing things you have no actual knowledge of? If you have read the books and seen the documentaries, what more do you think you’ll be adding to the actual body of knowledge…other than voicing your opinion? My point is this: if someone has already put forth a lot of effort to investigate, write books, and make documentaries on the subject, why are you wasting your time on further non-productive discussions?

    With most of you it boils down to one simple thing: Interweb addiction! Plus, you like that feeling of catharsis that you get from typing out your opinions…it makes you feel good to release those uncomfortable pressures; don’t want them to build up to the point where you’ll be compelled to take action in the real-world!

    TPTB don’t give a hoot if y’all talk about the NWO conspiracy, and all things related…hell, they talk openly about it now! You can talk til the cows come home…it will be for naught, and they know that. Now, the very moment that you start making efforts to get yourselves organized to take direct action against them, that’s when they’ll reach out and smack you down (or at least try to infiltrate the group to control it from within). That said, the actions of a single individual are extremely hard to detect and guard against…the only thing they can do there is to keep doors locked, put the alarm system on, and maybe post a guard or two, all of which can be defeated by a single MOTIVATED*, self-trained individual (*discussing things destroys motivation).

    No, not everyone is capable of taking independent right action against the evil-doers, I get that. I’m not talking to the weaklings…I’m talking to those of you who do have the wherewithal to take action, but don’t. By not taking up your civic responsibilities you’re selfishly transferring your rightful share of the burden off on to people who are already overburdened…and that is unforgivable!

  70. Ron Unz says:
    @Avery

    I mean a US Navy ship capable of launching a large missile has to have at least several dozen crew members. So, again why hasn’t anyone leaked something, anything.

    Well, in 1996 the MSM was still overwhelmingly dominant, with the Internet just getting started. And quite a lot of the rumors circulating at the time may have come from those sorts of military leaks.

    With 230 dead Americans and Frenchmen in one of the worst disasters in U.S. history, there probably would have been huge public pressure to court-martial any naval personnel responsible for carelessly shooting down the plane and send them to prison for 10 or 20 years. The dead were dead, it was an accident, and publicizing the truth wouldn’t change anything, so why not keep quiet and avoid sending all your friends and shipmates to prison?

    And it’s now been twenty years, almost everyone has forgotten the incident, so coming forward and admitting you assisted a cover-up for all those years would hardly look very good.

  71. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Wow, you kooks are unreal. There are dozen and a half videos showing a plane hitting the tower and you claim that there was no plane.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  72. Ron Unz says:
    @Rurik

    I personally don’t mind debating all that stuff, but I do fear that when they take over all the other threads, then they/we become a nuisance and an irritant (like I am now ; ) to the people wanting to debate the specific things in the respective threads, no?…(I wouldn’t normally presume to make suggestions to the esteemed Mr. Unz and his team, but it seems to me a separate 911 (perhaps Holocaust too) running thread might be a positive thing to help clean up the other threads?).

    That’s a pretty reasonable suggestion. I’ll admit I’m not thrilled when I write a lengthy column on something and maybe half the discussion is cluttered up with totally irrelevant comments about 9/11 or whatever.

    I’ve been preoccupied with other things, but I’m now taking a little time to make a few small improvements to the system, and maybe having those sorts of perennial open-threads would be a good thing to consider as a mean of uncluttering the threads.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  73. Bill says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    No, it isn’t remotely as strong. As I said, no eyewitnesses to the conspiracists proposed mechanism. The main 9/11 case relies on indirect arguments, mostly that Boeings crashing into skyscrapers don’t cause the kind of collapse we saw. But how do we know that? How many times have Boeings crashed into skyscrapers? Twice. And all two times they collapsed the way we saw them collapse.

    Above there is one of the clownish physics arguments you get constantly from 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The tail of the plane did not slow down enough during the collision. Crash a hundred Boeings into buildings, measure the acceleration on the tail, demonstrate (again with controlled experiments) that whatever goof method of accelerometry the conspiracy theorists applied to the crash video actually has the sensitivity to detect the alleged differences in tail acceleration. Then it might be worth paying attention to this point.

    Notice how different the missile theory is. We’ve seen missiles take down planes a bazillion times, and the eyewitnesses said that TWA 800 looked like that. We’ve seen kerosene/jet fuel not explode a bazillion times.

    I don’t see anything wrong with thinking that 9/11 was a weird event and that we aren’t likely ever to know for sure exactly what happened. But the claim that we are pretty sure that the towers were taken down by demolition is unwarranted.

    You’re doing a great job diverting attention from a good conspiracy theory to a bad one, though.

  74. geokat62 says:

    Well, I don’t know offhand. I’m not an expert in these questions. I simply noted, based on the photo at the top of this article that they collected all the pieces of the aircraft available and even tried to piece together the pieces, in order to reconstruct what had happened.

    With 9/11, there was no similar effort, either wrt the alleged plane crashes in Manhattan or the other ones.

    I know I’m going out on a limb here, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that NTSB officials are charged with piecing together evidence from the crash sites to determine likely cause, or causes, in case it had something to do with mechanical components or aircraft design… so they could put forward recommendations to try and prevent it from happening again.

    In the case of 9/11, it wouldn’t of made a whole lot of sense to try and piece together the plane fragments to determine the likely cause of these crashes, now would it?

    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
  75. Bill says:
    @Avery

    How do things generally go for whistleblowers revealing classified information?

  76. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, and if you analyze the videos closely, some of them show a wildly divergent flight path for the alleged airliner. The most famous of the videos, the Hezawarkani (spelling?) video showing the South Tower swallowing up the “airliner”, is a physical impossibility. Again, Chopper 4′s live raw footage shows an explosion inside the South Tower, but there is no commercial airliner to be seen anywhere:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zrHojwJzis

    Notice the news anchors mention an explosion from inside the Tower; there s no large aircraft to be seen anywhere.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  77. Blobby5 says:

    In upstate NY recently, there were there guys who tried to ‘game’ a fishing derby, their conspiracy was discovered (disgruntled Ex I believe), and they were found guilty. If this simple conspiracy fell apart how on earth can the fate of this plane remain a secret? Nevertheless, if Ron buys it, so do I.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  78. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    Your suggestion of a separate 9/11 page as a way to avoid cluttering other threads with 9/11 babble sounds reasonable, but I doubt it will work. People just keep coming back to 9/11. as you just did, (for about the tenth time in this thread) with:

    I’m convinced that there were no passenger jets that hit the Pentagon or Shankville, but something else entirely. And I’m also reasonably certain that large jets, (only not passenger jets full of commercial passengers) did in fact hit the two towers.

    (Which prompts me to ask, in that case, where did all the people on board the four hijacked airliners go, as we do know that those named on the passenger manifests, some specific individuals anyhow, were real people and did in fact disappear?)

    Even our esteemed publisher referred to 9/11 in his original piece, quite reasonably because in discussing one alleged cover-up it is natural to compare and contrast with other alleged cover ups, and 9/11 is the mother of all cover-ups, at least in recent memory. No doubt if readers knew more about TWA 800, there would be more relevant comments, but evidently they, as yet, have not found much to add to this article, which seems a pretty thorough review of what is in the public domain.

  79. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    Again, Chopper 4′s live raw footage shows an explosion inside the South Tower, but there is no commercial airliner to be seen anywhere

    Here are 17 other videos which do show a plane. it seems reasonable to suppose that the NBC chopper was on the opposite side of the tower to the aircraft at the time of impact.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Avery
  80. I happened to be dating an air traffic controller at the time this happened. She told me the day after the accident that her controller friends in NYC all knew it was a missile, had seen it on instruments. We watched the story unfold and I became distrustful of the media for good.

  81. Mithera says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    For those still with open minds on the planes question. Plz follow the link.

  82. Rurik says:

    People just keep coming back to 9/11. as you just did, (for about the tenth time in this thread)

    I did respond (I think three or four times) to some of the things that were said, but then felt a sense of contrition. I try to be circumspect and respectful of the editor who provides this site and writes (often excellent) articles that deserve discussion on their own merit. (but no one would call me an sycophant ; ) I didn’t say what I did just because of this one article, that as you mention, does mention conspiracies, but what I see as a trend, with about half the articles I visit are cluttered up with Holocaust and other distractions. (not that I don’t think it’s fine to discuss those issues, or 911, but perhaps not on every thread)

    where did all the people on board the four hijacked airliners go,

    I suspect they were liquidated. Perhaps even literally.

    natural to compare and contrast with other alleged cover ups, and 9/11 is the mother of all cover-ups,

    as I said, I wasn’t talking about this article specifically, just that this has become a trend

    as far as for myself, I’m as guilty as anyone. I often froth over the Eternal Wars, and other abominations to reason and truth. So as a repeat offender, I know all too well the temptation.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  83. Flight 800 didn’t result in the Patriot Act, several wars of aggression and turning America into a police state. By 2020 we will have spent the first fifth of the 21st century in the shadow of Terror and 911 attacks.

    911 is also different in that it engaged the scientific community and that there is copious evidence of the conspiracy, the crime and the coverup. It has been slow in developing, but the evidence is now clear and widely available.

    Many people believe that the planes were radio controlled. John Lear’s contention that you can’t get enough “stick” to push the airplane to the recorded speeds can be gotten round if you are directly controlling the flight computers.

    Also, a lot of people don’t really consider what it takes to crash a plane into building at those speeds. You have to have a hand steady as a rock. The slightest twitch of your hand will mean a miss and all the while you have to adjust for winds and turbulence. And of course, you are about to die.

    The number of people who could do that is maybe one in a million or less. You are talking about a Nietzschean Superman–or a computer.

  84. Mulegino1 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If you watch the entire footage from Chopper 4, it is obvious that this cannot be the case, because:

    A: The news chopper’s camera panned in and out and had virtually a 360 degree view of the skyline, and obviously any aircraft as large as a commercial airliner coming in would have been visible (even behind the Towers at some point) and drawn attention and…

    B: There DOES appear to be some kind of small flying object descending diagonally towards the South Tower from a great height and disappearing behind the Tower immediately before the explosion, but it is definitely NOT a commercial airliner.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @CanSpeccy
  85. Avery says:
    @CanSpeccy

    {Again, Chopper 4′s live raw footage shows an explosion inside the South Tower, but there is no commercial airliner to be seen anywhere}

    {…it seems reasonable to suppose that the NBC chopper was on the opposite side of the tower to the aircraft at the time of impact.}

    Well, I don’t know why the aircraft is not visible to others, but [12) NBC Chopper live], I can clearly see an object approaching the building. Because of the position of the chopper – aircraft flying towards it – the speed appears slow and picture is not clear, but the aircraft is there.

    At 7:18 you can see a black dot upper right side of frame and then it descends towards the tower and then impacts.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  86. @geokat62

    In the case of 9/11, it wouldn’t of made a whole lot of sense to try and piece together the plane fragments to determine the likely cause of these crashes, now would it?

    No. It wouldn’t make much sense. But it makes even less sense that the flight recorders for the airplanes that hit WTC were all lost and destroyed, but somehow the passport from the ringleader and head terrorist survived.

    Also, they could have and should have tested for explosives residue, but didn’t.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  87. Avery says:
    @Mulegino1

    {The news chopper’s camera panned in and out and had virtually a 360 degree view of the skyline,}

    You can’t have 360 degree view of skyline by panning in and out: best you can do is 180 degress.

    {…. but it is definitely NOT a commercial airliner.}

    Visually comparing the size of the object to the tower, it IS definitely a commercial airliner. And the 16 other videos clearly show the commercial airliner impacting the tower.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  88. nsa says:

    If we here in Ft. Meade and Langley owned up to knocking your jooie buildings down and blasting a passenger plane out of the sky for fun……what would you do about it???? Answer…..nothing…..maybe head to the fridge for another beer.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    but then felt a sense of contrition.

    I sometimes feel the same way, although bits and bytes cost little, and its easy to skip drivel in a comment thread.

    But if someone brings up 9/11, about which I have taken some effort to inform myself, I think it right to offer relevant data or logic where I believe a correction is appropriate, even if 9/11 is only indirectly related to the subject of the discussion.

    Nine/11 is, after all, central to the course of early 21st century world history, and it tends to overshadow a lot of issues. Yet, I agree, 9/11 clutter often messes up what might otherwise have been a relatively coherent discussion. Because it is so often a useless distraction, I tend to be quite aggressive in dealing with 9/11 misinformation or illogic spewed by dopes, dupes, trolls and agents of cognitive infiltration. With enough informed people commenting, that kind of reaction perhaps provides adequate control.

    But if I were Ron Unz, I’d install a “declared redundant upon receipt” button on my control panel, and blot out annoying comments. Including this one, perhaps.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  90. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    The news chopper’s camera panned in and out and had virtually a 360 degree view of the skyline, and obviously any aircraft as large as a commercial airliner coming in would have been visible (even behind the Towers at some point) and drawn attention and…

    It is not obvious at all that “any aircraft as large as a commercial airliner coming in would have been visible” if that aircraft had been on the opposite side of the tower to the camera. One would need to know the exact distance of the chopper from the tower, the width of the tower and the wingspan of the aircraft to make a definite determination. The exact position of the chopper would be difficult if not impossible to determine — with data available to me.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  91. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Avery

    Oh, OK. You’re a better observer than I, but your comment seems to settle the issue. Good.

  92. Never believe something until it has been officially denied.

  93. Avery says:
    @Ron Unz

    {…huge public pressure to court-martial any naval personnel responsible for carelessly shooting down the plane and send them to prison for 10 or 20 years}

    That’s the best reason I have heard so far as to why none of the sailors or officers on the missile-ship have talked: fear of going to jail for gross negligent manslaughter. Didn’t see that one at all.

  94. @Mulegino1

    The skin of an airliner is indeed rather flimsy. However, the airframe is not: UA 175 was a Boeing 767-200 which weighs up to 179 tonnes. Even the wings are substantial structures under the skin, because they must support the weight of the engines.

    Newton’s Third Law states that the force applied by the building to the airliner was equal and opposite to the force applied by the airliner to the building. This force was not enough to cause the airliner to bounce or be shredded on impact, because the 767 had a large mass traveling at over 500 mph, and the impact was insufficient to reverse the aircraft’s momentum.

    If in doubt, watch the collection of videos in comment # 82.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  95. Someone back then theorized that the reason the jet exploded, was that it had been overseas for a few years and might have gotten the wrong kind of fuel (Aviation vs Jet Fuel).
    I actually was running in Babylon, LI that night around the same time of night, but don’t remember seeing anything.

  96. hell, this was like the perfect trial run for the 9/11 cover ups.

  97. geokat62 says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    No. It wouldn’t make much sense. But it makes even less sense that the flight recorders for the airplanes that hit WTC were all lost and destroyed, but somehow the passport from the ringleader and head terrorist survived.

    Also, they could have and should have tested for explosives residue, but didn’t.

    I guess, for you, these two factors constitute sufficient evidence that the TT and bldg 7 were all brought down by controlled demolition? I’d hate to be an innocent man on death row and have you as one of the jurors that sits on my trial.

  98. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Well, I don’t know offhand.”

    There are a lot of things you don’t know. Just about any kind of physics, apparently. Your responses are laughable enough, so I won’t bother to comment on them further. Your understanding of the physical world appears to derive from comic books and road-runner cartoons.

  99. sund says:
    @edNels

    yours is a classic case of confirmation bias, sir. you can’t handle the idea that bad things happen, like Sandy Hook, or 9-11. And so you convince yourself that it was all staged.

    This gives you the psychological comfort that there is someone in control. You can’t stand the idea that this world can be chaotic. That bad things happen due to chance. The people die unfairly all the time.

    No, for your delicate little psyche, things always have to happen for a reason. And the government is like God to you. In control at all times, creating illusions of bad things, but never actually doing it.

    Well, sir, you are weak. And you are trying to convince others to be weak. Your time would be better spent looking at yourself in the mirror, and asking yourself why you are such a coward.

    • Disagree: edNels
    • Replies: @edNels
    , @edNels
    , @CanSpeccy
  100. @Ron Unz

    TWA 800 was too high to be hit by a MANPAD. A larger Navy missile could have been launched from an aircraft or shore. But even if launched from a ship, only a dozen sailors may know what happened, and they would be arrested if they went public. The Navy recently threw a sailor in prison for a year for taking pictures on his submarine and posting them on facebook. And the only thing they could say is that a missile was launched a few minutes before, with no proof that it hit the aircraft.

    The Navy has lots of old ranges that it still uses because it wants to justify their use so they stay open. Mistakes are made. Self-guided missiles can go off course and fly many miles looking for targets. A Navy P-3 recon aircraft just happened to be flying above TWA 800 when it was hit.

    But Ron Unz missed the big story here, the newest documentary. Once most of the NTSB investigators retired, some who were part of the TWA 800 investigation went public and helped produced a documentary. They are in this documentary, confusing called just “TWA Flight 800″ that was released in 2013. I saw it on Netflix and thought, well what happens now?

    It got some attention at first, like this Fox Story with some video clips.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original.html

    But it was quickly removed from Netflix and it’s not even on Youtube, which means it is censored from there too! This is the big story, and this documentary can be watched on some odd sites like this one.

    http://putlocker.is/watch-twa-flight-800-online-free-putlocker.html

    The federal NTSB investigators are there on record stating that for the first time ever, the FBI was in charge and they watched the FBI removing all aircraft parts that showed odd damage. And then after the acceptable parts were turned over to the NTSB and they began looking at parts and discussing things, the FBI began stealing parts from their hangar.

    Why?

    Note the TWA 800 coverup coordinator FBI SAC Kallstrom came out of retirement after 9-11 to again to mock and dismiss “conspiracy theorists” on the corporate networks.

    Please watch this newer video Mr. Unz and do a follow-up.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  101. @Jonathan Revusky

    One of my clients saw Flight 11 hit the North Tower. So did all of his employees in the conference room with him.

    You see, their windows looked out on the World Trade Center. They were having a morning meeting.

    My client soon moved his offices to the Chrysler Building, because he just couldn’t stand the memory, the trauma, and looking down at all that rubble.

    So, go ahead and tell me that the businessman I know, and all of his employees, were part of some kind of conspiracy to fake an airliner crash.

    This stuff is just dopey, and it distracts from the real event, which is suspicious enough by itself.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  102. Ron Unz says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    But Ron Unz missed the big story here, the newest documentary. Once most of the NTSB investigators retired, some who were part of the TWA 800 investigation went public and helped produced a documentary. They are in this documentary, confusing called just “TWA Flight 800″ that was released in 2013. I saw it on Netflix and thought, well what happens now?

    Actually, that was exactly the 2013 documentary I discussed towards the middle of my piece, including the video link to the 35m Amy Goodman segment (second video), which includes extensive excerpts and a discussion.

    But thanks for the link to the entire (pirated?) documentary that you provided, since I hadn’t found it when I’d hunted around a little on Netflix or YouTube.

  103. Mulegino1 says:
    @Avery

    Okay, a fully panoramic 180 degree view, with nothing resembling a commercial airliner striking the building.

    No Boeing 767 struck the South Tower.

  104. Mulegino1 says:
    @James N. Kennett

    What do you mean, “the 767 had a large mass traveling at over 500 mph”? Wouldn’t that mean that the building, the over 100,000 ton South Tower also had the equivalent of a mass traveling over 500 mph striking the “airliner”?

  105. edNels says:
    @sund

    What the hell did you say Punk?

    This gives you the psychological comfort that there is someone in control. You can’t stand the idea that this world can be chaotic. That bad things happen due to chance. The people die unfairly all the time.

    I’m just playing with words here about the different kinds of constituents that can be employed to flesh out various kinds story lines and that kind of thing, when we talk about alternatives to basic bs cover stories, who the hell takes anything serious like that? and you call me coward from your parents garage in East Palo Alto?

    You mentioned God, go study that, or read Steven Hawkins, or just go to Hell!

  106. @Buzz Mohawk

    One of my clients saw Flight 11 hit the North Tower. So did all of his employees in the conference room with him.

    I don’t believe you.

    • Replies: @5371
    , @Mr. Anon
  107. edNels says:
    @sund

    Consider this a substute revision for the previous:

    Sund ole timer, I read your scathing response to my loosely put together one, and you did a fairly provocative psychological appraisal of the it.

    It took me a couple of minutes of reflection, and I think I have a fix on what motivated your input.

    Surmising that the use of a term that was involved with the crisis actor part. I think I got an idea of what that is, and that makes sense out of your emphasis on chaos, and the unavoidable fact that people get hurt all the time without any need of it being part of any plan. I agree to that random aspect too.

    But I won’t give up all hope of Providence of a higher power, not just yet anyway hovering in the background.

    Your invocation of the term coward, is key to how I figured you to be a wounded vet.

    Sorry to cross you, I shouldn’t have stepped into that verbal swamp anyway.

    Best of luck.

  108. The most deplorable one [AKA "Wanderer"] says:

    You seem unhappy with Wikipedia.

    Have you considered creating an alternative?

  109. Mr. Anon says:

    Interesting videos. Thanks for posting.

  110. Mr. Anon says:

    One thing that always bothered me about TWA 800 was the CIA video. Not so much the particulars of it, although the documentaries mentioned point some of those out – no, it was the very fact that the video was made. Since when is the CIA in the business of producing accident reconstructions? That’s a little out of their normal duties.

    In fact, one would think that it would seem rather clunkily heavy-handed, which in itself is also odd. Couldn’t the CIA make the video and just give it to the NTSB to pass off as their own? Maybe – this was only a few years after Waco and Ruby Ridge – the government thought that the FBI didn’t have a lot of public trust, and that the story would seem more believable if it came from the CIA. I don’t know.

    In any event, if the US Navy did inadvertently shoot-down a US airliner, I have no problem believing that the government would cover it up.

  111. @geokat62

    I’d hate to be an innocent man on death row and have you as one of the jurors that sits on my trial.

    Well, your standards for what constitutes evidence seem pretty weak, as long as you think said “evidence” supports what you want to believe.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Mr. Anon
  112. Hello,

    The NSA — a military agency — gathered and retains video footage of the Flight 800 downing which it has steadfastly refused to release.

    Were the explosion merely the result of a virtual phlogiston fireball, as the government and its MSM blowfish diligently (and vigilantly) maintained, the NSA would surely have had no cause to withhold its spysat vignette from the public domain.

    That there was trouble in the Pentagon’s Paradise became readily apparent when the CIA — which often functions in the dualistic capacity of flak catcher/chaff dispenser for more “senior” (i.e., more powerful) military intelligence agencies — was called upon to perform a desperately needed ritual purification. The agency — which possessed no qualifications to investigate airline crashes — manfully responded by crafting a deceitful anime depicting the Pentagon’s version of events which, unlike the previously referenced NSA footage, was immediately made available to the public.

    As someone with two-plus decades experience as an aviation spares vendor (and who is quite familiar with the fuel storage, metering, and delivery systems of a modern jetliner), I found the government’s “explanation” — that vapors wafting about within a fuel cell had been ignited by a spark originating from its internal capacitive fuel probe — to be preposterous, what with its being technically impossible. The combination of low voltage and virtually nonexistent current, required for fuel probe operation, would not produce a spark under any imaginable circumstances; it was the magic bullet theory transmogrified.

    Had qualified FAA investigators not been immediately muscled aside by unqualified FBI bully-boys — summoned forth solely to perform the grunt work of coverup — the Pentagon might, just this once, have been compelled to own up to its misdeeds. But, alas, America had long since devolved into a military despotism, unaccountable to anything or anyone; perpetually exempt from expiation.

    Who among us truly believes that this is going to end well?

    JQP

  113. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:

    I’m not entirely at ease with the theory that the Navy shot down TWA Flt. 800 by mistake. If there was to have been a live fire exercise of any kind in that area, I would think it would have been closed to civilian traffic. Additionally, the USN mistakenly firing a missile for any reason would rank as a Charlie Foxtrot extraordinaire: barely plausible, and highly unlikely.

    There is also the issue of the so-called 30 knot track, a small vessel tracked by radar as closest to Flt. 800 at the time of its mid-air explosion, and then tracked moving rapidly away at speeds reaching 35 knots. It was reasoned by the NTSB that the crew on this small ship couldn’t see the explosion, and therefore had no reason to turn back toward the crash site.

    Further, review of the Islip radar data for other similar summer days and nights in 1999 indicated that the 30-knot track was consistent with normal commercial fishing, recreational, and cargo vessel traffic

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

    Fishing and cargo vessels moving at 30 knots? I think not. Some recreational vessels can make that speed, and so could military vessels, but they would need some reason for going that fast in the dark, so I view the “30 knot track” as suspicious. It is conceivable that a more potent SAM with longer range than MANPADS could be mounted on a small vessel.

    The agencies involved in the investigation point to the possible involvement of a foreign power, along with an urgent need to make it work. However, that cheesy Clueless In America video points to something, but I don’t know what they were thinking. I guess the bar is set pretty low for the gullible. Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier for the Navy to simply admit a mistake?

    My alternate theory for Flight 800 is Terrorist Gambit Declined. There may have been a few of these during the Clinton years while Slick Willy was busy enough making questionable deals with the Chinese, and moving NATO up to Russia’s doorstep to jump at any obvious provocations inviting US involvement against Israel’s enemies. That would have to wait for Bush.

    ~

    And sure, two jetliners flew into the twin towers, smashing through steel as if it were paper, leaving a vivid record of their passage in the form of a sharp outline of the plane’s profile cut dramatically into the towering exterior support columns – 14″ rectangular tube structures of 1/4″ steel prefabricated into 3 story sections, 3 columns wide with massive, horizontal, shield-like spandrel plates forming belts around the buildings, but which nevertheless gave way to the relatively flimsy aluminum airplanes in ways both fantastic, and impossible.

    And then the WTC airplanes just vanished forever, perhaps somehow dematerializing as the towers disintegrated.

    Not much to work with for the NTSB. Well, the FBI did find an engine part near Chuch & Murray streets, but oops! Wrong engine type, from 737 not 767. But heck, anybody can make a honest mistake.

    One NYFD fireman quipped: “We investigate a dumpster fire more than we’ve investigated the WTC.”

    On the day of 9/11, while the remains of the twin towers and WTC7 were still smoldering, one of Mayor Giuliani’s first concerns was clearing away the evidence from the crime scene.

    RUDY GIULIANI: “We were able to move 120 dump trucks out of the city last night, which will give you a sense of the work that was done overnight.”
    [...]
    As Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth points out, the massive operation to haul away over 1.5 million tons of debris and to sell much of the steel to Chinese firm Baosteel at discount prices was not just an overzealous approach to clearing the area, but was itself a crime.

    https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-rudy-giuliani/

    This is the guy now at Trump’s elbow.

    –sp–

  114. @Mulegino1

    You forgot Newton`s first law: The aircraft pieces and parts would continue their forward motion, albeit subject to linear deceleration due to meeting the relatively stationary building. The building would deform and the facade would fail when met with the force of the mass hitting it as a relatively high speed (second law. .. F=MA). The external facade was a relativity light curtain of steel and glass. The airframe and skin would likely be chewed up to confetti nonetheless. The relatively solid engines would have met the more robust core and ended their forward journey there. You might recall that a relatively robust set of landing gear did continue its forward journey and was found some distance away.

  115. @Ron Unz

    I’ll admit I’m not thrilled when I write a lengthy column on something and maybe half the discussion is cluttered up with totally irrelevant comments about 9/11 or whatever.

    Frankly, it seems to verge on the disingenuous to say that 9/11 is “totally irrelevant” as regards this latest article on the TWA flight. Just speaking generally, there aren’t really that many plane crashes. At this point in time, commercial air travel is extremely safe. So, when you bring up a plane crash, that people start thinking about 9/11 is hardly that surprising.

    Now, I look at the photo up top in the article, the “reconstruction” of the plane, from all these parts they managed to get hold of. And the first thought that comes to my mind is: why was this procedure not followed on 9/11? I cannot believe that I am the only person who spontaneously thought that. So, it is unclear to me why we should bit our tongues (figuratively speaking) and not say that?

    [MORE]

    Now, people answer saying that the case is not comparable because the cause of the crash was known, so there was no need to gather up all the parts and do this. But I’m thinking, this is still the evidence from a crime scene, isn’t it? Who made the decision NOT to follow the procedure that was followed for the TWA flight? On what basis? I don’t know, of course, but even if, for the sake of argument, I was posing a silly question, it would still be a natural question that flows from the material in the article.

    And also the issue of 278 people say that they witnessed the flash of light. It is worth comparing this to how many people claim that they saw a plane fly into a building on 9/11. It is claimed that there are all kinds of witnesses but that does not seem to be true.

    Now, there is a much more general point to be made about this, which is that 9/11, along with the JFK assassination 38 years earlier — these are key events in American history. With JFK, you either believe the official story, that some random loser just shot the president for basically no reason. Or, you realize that there was the mother of all cover-ups. (Up to that point.)

    With 9/11, the event was used to launch a whole series of wars, generally called “the Global War on Terror” in which hundreds of thousands of innocents perished. You either believe:

    (a) This series of wars occurred because of 9/11.

    OR

    (b) You believe that 9/11 occurred because elements of anglozionist deep politics desired the ensuing wars.

    Belief (a) is the view promulgated by the mainstream media in the West. Belief (b) is that of students of deep politics and deep history who know the history of false flag operations, such as the sinking of the Maine and things like that.

    This is an extremely fundamental question in terms of understanding the world we live in. Astronomers could not go on indefinitely “agreeing to disagree” on whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth. Eventually the problem was resolved. The earth goes round the sun and claiming otherwise is simply not intellectually respectable.

    I would put it to you that, as long as such a basic question as the (a) versus (b) above remains unsettled, it is to be expected that all kinds of conversations end up being drawn back into this basic problem.

    In any case, in my view, it is obvious that any intellectually honest analysis of the question will establish that (b) above is the correct view.

    But in any case, it seems to me that if you’ve got an elephant sitting in the middle of the room, it is hardly a surprise that people keep bumping into it… regardless of how much you exhort people not to talk about the elephant and pretend that it is not there!

  116. @Jonathan Revusky

    “… why was this procedure not followed on 9/11? I cannot believe that I am the only person who spontaneously thought that.”

    You weren’t … There wasn’t really much of anything large enough to piece back together.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Carroll Price
  117. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Well, your standards for what constitutes evidence seem pretty weak, as long as you think said “evidence” supports what you want to believe.

    You’re kidding, right? Your statement applies to your position in spades! If your standards are so much higher, why don’t you try providing an explanation for that little riddle I put to you? You crack that one and I will defer to your superior reasoning.

  118. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    But I’m thinking, this is still the evidence from a crime scene, isn’t it? Who made the decision NOT to follow the procedure that was followed for the TWA flight?

    Ok, I’ll play. Let’s say the NTSB decided to piece the planes back together, then what? What would they have gained from this exercise? Or are you now implicating everyone at NTSB.. that they were also members of this conspiracy and that they refused to piece together the planes, fearing it would reveal that controlled demolitions was the true cause of their destruction, and not the fact that they slammed into these buildings?

  119. 5371 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So who is lying here – Buzz, or his client? You must know this. You know all hidden things.

  120. dahoit says:

    As a LIer,I worked(school) with a fire chief of a large LI town,and he said the FBI threatened the people(eyewitnesses) who claimed it a missile with arrest.
    And last year,or two years ago,a brief story of two 800 investigators who called the investigation a coverup disappeared from Media coverage like a rock in water.
    Another case of nothing to see there.

  121. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “I don’t believe you.”

    I don’t believe a single thing you say.

  122. Mr. Anon says:
    @5371

    “So who is lying here – Buzz, or his client? You must know this. You know all hidden things.”

    Everyone. We’re all in on it, as far as Revusky is concerned.

  123. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Well, your standards for what constitutes evidence seem pretty weak…..”

    That’s rich, coming from you. You have no standards at all.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  124. dahoit says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Far far better to rest the blame on terrorists(where it ultimately belonged of course) than our own govt killing Americans is easy to decipher.
    They found the tail at least a half mile from the fuselage,and the crash site was cordoned off from reporters and public.
    Another lie,as usual from a serial lying govt,with a media eager to please.

  125. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Frankly, it seems to verge on the disingenuous to say that 9/11 is “totally irrelevant” as regards this latest article on the TWA flight

    I don’t think he was speaking only of this article specifically, but in general terms

    regardless of how much you exhort people not to talk about the elephant and pretend that it is not there!

    When I look around, I don’t see too many people with solid reputations who’re even willing to entertain the possibility that we were lied to about 911. Or it’s very tepid. Like with Philip Geraldi or Steve Sailer right here on Unz. Ron Unz (and PCR) however are the exceptions. And are willing to entertain the idea that the official lies are exactly that, lies.

    As for myself, you know well how I see it. And I agree with you and the others here that 911 was an inside job. Where we part is over the notion of the ‘no planes’ theory where everyone who saw and heard the jets that day were suffering some kind of mass delusion, and every video of the event was doctored, and the smoking holes in the buildings that were there for a long time after the explosions and were photographed from every possible angle and perspective, were basically “Wile E Coyote’ illusions too, or the Israeli art students had cleverly set about blowing in the sides of the towers in exactly the same way with exactly the kind of damage that would have occurred if a jet had crashed though the facade.

    This is why we should have a running thread just for this kind of thing. To hash out these details.

    I was thinking. (I know, I know but it’s true!), I was thinking it could be a tiered system. With the first tier being for those who believe the governments version to a T. And that it was Osama and his nineteen henchmen and the whole nine yards, with the ‘failure of imagination’ as the reason NORAD and SAC and all the other intelligence agencies and so forth were sleeping (or barking orders that “the orders still stand”) and that basically it all happened exactly like they said so. We could call this the ‘Reed’ tier, and then if people graduate from that one, they can move on to the ‘Giraldi’ tier, were they have doubts, but don’t dare ‘come out’ and subject themselves to the dreaded label of “truther”. And on and on, down to what can be called the ‘Revusky’ tier, where the “planes” hitting the towers and all the videos of it were all a carefully staged illusions, and not only 911, but virtually every single crime committed by a Muslim against a westerner in N. America or Europe are all hoaxes. Including all sexual assaults by Muslims in Europe or hate crimes by blacks against whites in the US. Hoaxes every single one. ;)

    And we could all participate at our own comfort level, and then if we get convinced to the degree that we’re willing to move on to a different tier.. at the end of the day we could check and see where the most cogent arguments are coming from. Good idea?

  126. Rurik says:
    @The Alarmist

    There wasn’t really much of anything large enough to piece back together.

    there should have been at Shanksville

    unless the earth simply swallowed up the plane and all the passengers and luggage, etc.. and went down close enough to the core of the earth where it’s so hot it just vaporized it all.

    • Replies: @Ex-Pralite Monk
  127. @dahoit

    They found the tail at least a half mile from the fuselage,and the crash site was cordoned off from reporters and public.

    I suppose the tail ripped-away from the fractured fuselage due to vibration stresses during the 560 MPH dive into the ground. Sidewinders are designed to take out engines, but have a warhead big enough to blow away the wing at the point where the engine pod attaches. A 757 hit like that would whip over, spin a few times, and go straight down. If the opposite engine is still functional, the dive will just be that much faster.

    After impact, a lot of little pieces. Ever seen a NASCAR vehicle hit a pylon at 150 MPH? Lotsa little pieces. When a (basically flimsy 757 airframe) hits the ground at 540 MPH, a whole lotta little pieces.

  128. Nelson DeMille wrote a novel (Night Fall) about TWA 800. A couple filming their illicit affair on a Long Island beach captured the images of the missile striking the jet. The nearly 5-year law enforcement investigation ends up with……

    SPOILERS!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    A meeting to turn the tape over to the police/FBI is scheduled to take place at Windows on The World on the morning of September 11th!!!!! Needless to say the tape is destroyed and the investigation is dead in the water.

  129. @disturbed_robot

    By employing common-sense reasoning in lieu of advanced degrees in critical thinking, I arrived at the exact same conclusions, forty years ago.

  130. @Otto the P

    Tell us how many high-ranking military officers, lowly airmen, or flight controllers on duty that day, have come forward to publically discuss any thoughts or opinions they might have regarding the strange, unprecedented military stand-down orders they were under on the morning of 9/11?

  131. Bart says:
    @Otto the P

    When someone in that chain created by the Second Seaman went to the media, the tale would be branded as just part of the original conspiracy nuttiness; old news.

  132. I had an experience that proved to me that the US Government will lie to save it’s butt. Years ago, when a 16″ gun turret on the USS Iowa blew up killing dozens of sailors, the US Navy claimed initially that the tragic accident was caused by a suicide by homosexual sailor. In truth, the Navy had no idea what caused the accident. As a contractor, I had equipment on board that was supposed to emit foreign radar signals for the whole battle simulation. The Navy was looking to blame my equipment for stray emissions, but luckily my equipment had been turned off and power cable removed prior to the incident. So, I guess the poor sailor had to take the blame. As I was involved, I learned that after a year or so of study, it was determined that an equipment fault was discovered that it was possible for the tamping rod in the breach to get accidently extended prior to closing the breach. This is what happened – the extended tamping rod slammed into the powder bags with the breach still closing, setting off the powder with a breach open. I knew, but I wonder if the Navy ever published its findings. Certainly not to the public media – they just left the false story about the wrongly accused sailor to stand.

  133. @CK

    I wonder if there was a vetting of the passengers after the fact to determine if one or more of them might have been a very valuable target.

    My thoughts exactly, and the exact same questions I asked within 5 minutes of hearing the news. As far as I know, no one has ever crossed that bridge.

  134. @Si1ver1ock

    It’s really not that difficult when you have a 100% Zio controlled news media, in addition to Zio loyalist occupying key positions within all government agencies and departments known to exist.

  135. Scott65 says:

    Themastermind of the first world trade center bombing the week before told a mole in prison watch long island a plane will be shot down.
    Also reports of a missle coming off a small boat.
    I believe it was a terror attack and covered up like oklahoma city bombing was.

  136. @Currahee

    To avoid needless repetition, read post #133.

  137. Turboglo says:

    I knew it was a cover-up the moment I saw the CIA-produced animation (cartoon?) that flashed, “There was no missile.” It reminded me of Obi Wan Kenobi in “Star Wars” saying, “These are not the droids you are looking for,” and, like magic, he is believed.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  138. About a year ago, my girlfriend and I watched a documentary about this on Netflix. I’m not sure if its the same documentary to which you referred, or whether its still on Netflix, but we did find it very convincing, as per a Federal cover-up of a Naval missile test that went tragically awry.

  139. edNels says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    No Parts to do that, they didn’t even hang on to the steel beams any longer than necessary. (the parts of the buildings that is…) There was a lot of pesky dust around for a long time, but eventually that got swept up, with all the asbestos fibers, and office detritus, and thermitic residues.

    Not enough left of the planes to reconstruct. You wouldn’t want to see what that reconstruction would be, it would have to be made out of ”whole cloth”, but would never the less be quite persuasive to many… too many.

  140. Rurik says:
    @Fred Reed

    I don’t know why I didn’t mention this earlier..

    I suppose because I was young when all this was happening, and it all seems quite academic to me now,

    nonetheless..

    I once spent a day at sea out of Norfolk aboard the Vincennes, a Tico-class antiaircraft cruiser…

    … if a naval vessel shot down an airliner, it was intentional, and the entire crew would know about it, and have to keep quiet about it for decades. This in not behavior common among Gis. Whether a captain would shoot down a civilian airliner even if ordered is unlikely.

    The story of Iran Air 655 begins, like so much of the U.S.-Iran struggle, with the 1979 Islamic revolution. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, the United States supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein against the two countries’ mutual Iranian enemy. The war dragged on for eight awful years, claiming perhaps a million lives.

    Toward the end of the war, on July 3, 1988, a U.S. Navy ship called the Vincennes was exchanging fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy kept ships there, and still does, to protect oil trade routes. As the American and Iranian ships skirmished, Iran Air Flight 655 took off from nearby Bandar Abbas International Airport, bound for Dubai. The airport was used by both civilian and military aircraft. The Vincennes mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet, perhaps in the heat of battle or perhaps because the flight allegedly did not identify itself. It fired two surface-to-air missiles, killing all 290 passengers and crew members on board.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/16/the-forgotten-story-of-iran-air-flight-655/

    the claim is..

    “The Vincennes mistook the lumbering Airbus A300 civilian airliner for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet..”

    here’s an Airbus A-300

    here’s an F-14 fighter

    I guess it’s understandable how one could easily be mistaken for the other. Especially when you’re only operating the most sophisticated missile cruiser heretofore known to mankind. A one…

    Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser outfitted with the Aegis combat system that was in service with the United States Navy from July 1985 to June 2005. It was one of 27 ships of the Ticonderoga class constructed for the United States Navy, and one of five equipped with the MK 26 Guided Missile Launching System.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)

    perhaps this incident was brought up earlier in the thread and I just missed it..

    regardless, it does seem to show an almost absolute ability to commit terrible war crimes and atrocities and cover them all up with near perfect symmetry

  141. A real tell that often gets overlooked is what the Government does not do rather than what it does.

    When relatively minor defects arise in auto’s- air bag switches that kill maybe 5-10 people, million car recalls costing billions of dollars are common.

    When some-one killed a toddler with a John Deere lawn tractor by reversing over it with the mower blades turning, Deere announced a “reverse implement option” on all their tractors.

    https://jdagccc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/128/srchopen/true

    The fact that it’s counter productive because you have to lean forward to push a button while simultaneously looking backward to make sure the coast is clear is irrelevant.

    So what didn’t happen with TWA 800?

    If the problem was that a power cable that ran through the fuel tank (and whose fucking bright idea was that?) had degraded and sparked, every Boeing 747 would have been grounded until checked and rendered safe: Couldn’t have bodies falling from the skies like rice a Chinese wedding, now, could we?

    Never happened.

    Similarly, after 9/11 when building seven collapsed in its own footprint due to a minor office furniture fire, no revolutionary wave of re-design, fireproofing and strengthening swept the steel-framed office world.

    Funny dat.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  142. Rurik says:

    an almost absolute ability to commit terrible war crimes and atrocities and cover them all up with near perfect symmetry

    I just scanned the thread and it seems this is the first mention of this incident, that was an international scandal at the time

    and on a thread about shooting down commercial airliners with missiles and on a site known to expose conspiracies and with ex-naval personnel and Islamics and even a guy known to have a lot of knowledge of all things military and who was even on the USS Vincennes itself!

    I mean does that or does that not speak to their (absolute) power to cover up and suppress inconvenient information?!

    they know they can get away with *anything*, and so they do anything they want to, and blame it on anyone they want to- and with near perfect precision, they create the narratives and the paradigms and the matrix we all marinate in

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  143. @geokat62

    Unz and others have already said they don’t want the thread taken over with 911 stuff so I’m not going to list everything here. But . . .

    The hard evidence centers around Bld 7 going into free fall which is impossible without controlled demolition.

    Evidence of high temperatures that can’t be explained by jet fuel fires.

    The evidence of thermetic reactions in the dust of the WTC complex. A substantial percentage of iron micro-spheres was found, which can only form when molten iron is hit with a blast causing it to spray.

    The debris pattern of the “collapse” of WTC1 and WTC2 is consistent with the buildings being blown out not falling down to to gravity.

    Powdered bone fragments of first responders found on the rooftops of adjacent buildings are further corroboration of high explosives being used.

    There is a lot of circumstantial evidence as well. Officials repeatedly caught lying an so forth. A recent study found zero percent chance that Bld 7 collapsed due to office fires (the official story). The study was done by a forensic structural engineer. Which counts as expert testimony.

    Expert testimony is admissible in a court of law. As is eyewitness testimony.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @NoseytheDuke
  144. Mulegino1 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Indeed it would have been quite obvious if a large commercial airliner had approached the building, seeing as the view from the chopper extended well past the Jersey shoreline. It would certainly have been visible along its flight path before being obscured by the Towers.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  145. @Rurik

    I don’t think he was speaking only of this article specifically, but in general terms

    Well, I was speaking about this article specifically and in general terms as well. The 9/11 Truth topic just is bound to keep coming up because it’s like the proverbial elephant in the room.

    Where we part is over the notion of the ‘no planes’ theory where everyone who saw

    Well, I’m not that committed to a pure “no planes” theory. I have repeatedly said that I do not know for sure. BUT here is the point, Rurik….

    [MORE]

    For pure logical coverage, we do need to consider the NPT, the pure no planes scenario. Let’s just break it down this way:

    I know this could initially sound pedantic and silly but bear with me…

    We know for absolutely CERTAIN that either planes hit buildings or they did not. (Any trolls care to contest that?) So, in case 1, if planes did hit buildings, they were either hijacked Boeing passenger jets or they were not.

    This gives us 3 logical possibilities:

    (A) As per the official story, Boeing passenger jets were hijacked by dem dastardly Ay-rabs and flown into the respective buildings

    (B) Planes were flown into buildings but they were not the Boeing passenger jets and no hijackings took place.

    (C) No planes flew into any buildings at all.

    With A, B, and C above, we have completely logical coverage. These are the only possibilities, okay?

    Now… we have the testimony of John Lear and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth who basically say that the hijacked Boeing scenario is completely impossible for a whole host of reasons. I see no reason to question their judgment. Do you? Furthermore, if experienced pilots think that this was impossible, but are mistaken and it really is possible, how did these Al Qaeda people know that it was possible in advance? The whole thing makes no sense.

    Look, we agree on this. The Arab hijacker story is OBVIOUSLY false, and that, actually, is the only really important point to recognize. Once one recognizes that, then the whole official story is false, because this being perpetrated by the dastardly Ay-rab terrorists is the single most important element of the constructed 9/11 myth, right?

    But, it is still useful to continue the conceptual exercise and now, if we exclude A, then we are left with B and C, right? On logical grounds, it simply MUST be one or the other. One quite important point you can get out of the analysis is that it does not even really matter that much whether it was B or C.

    Getting back to my point about gathering all the plane parts from the wreckage and even trying to reconstruct as much of the plane as possible (as was done with TWA flight) it is fairly obvious why this was not done. If it’s scenario B and they flew some sort of specially outfitted drone into the building, then gathering up all the plane parts is going to show clearly that the plane that hit the building is not the passenger Boeing. Big problem for the perps.

    If it is case C, then no plane flew into a building so there are no plane parts to gather up!

    So, whether it is case B or case C is actually of no real importance. The explanation of why they don’t do what they did in the TWA flight case is fairly obvious. Though it differs. In one case, they can’t do it because the plane parts they scoop up are the wrong plane parts. In the other case, there are no plane parts.

    It’s a distraction to debate whether it is case B or C too much, because either case actually has roughly the same logical implications. All the forensic evidence must get shipped off to China as soon as possible to get recycled and, like the proverbial dead man, tells no tales…

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  146. @Rurik

    Rurik, I know you’re a good guy and you mean well, but you really should be more careful about misrepresenting what other people say — as well as…. well, I don’t know how to put it diplomatically…. logical errors of various sorts…

    Like in what follows…

    And on and on, down to what can be called the ‘Revusky’ tier, where the “planes” hitting the towers and all the videos of it were all a carefully staged illusions, and not only 911, but virtually every single crime committed by a Muslim against a westerner in N. America or Europe are all hoaxes. Including all sexual assaults by Muslims in Europe or hate crimes by blacks against whites in the US. Hoaxes every single one. ;)

    Okay, I notice the winky at the end of that text, so it’s a bit of a joke, I suppose, or I hope so, but I feel I have to answer this straight-up because… you know, some people are, through no fault of their own, a bit on the left side of the old bell curve, and…

    [MORE]

    I obviously never said that every crime committed by a Muslim anywhere is a hoax. That’s a blatant straw-man rendering of my views.

    Now, regarding “hate crimes”, I’m not even sure I know WTF a “hate crime” is. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if, for whatever unknown reasons, you walk up to a black man you know and say “You asshole” and punch him, that is not a hate crime, is it? But if you walk up to him and say “you N-word” and punch him, that’s a hate crime maybe. I mean to say, the whole thing is such a bullshitty construct anyway…

    But the point is this: I can perfectly well recognize that there is a big problem with a black criminal underclass that commits a totally disproportionate amount of the violent crime. At the same time, I can recognize that there is a history of law enforcement framing innocent blacks for crimes. The two phenomena can and do perfectly well co-exist.

    Or look at it this way with another example. If you listen to the “Winter Soldier” hearings, you hear all this horrible testimony about things that happened in Iraq. War crimes basically. U.S. troops had these “drop weapons”, a few AK-47′s that, if they killed an unarmed Iraqi, they could drop the weapons by him and say the guy was an insurgent, right? You know the story surely.

    So if I say that U.S. troops did this shit, killed innocent unarmed people and then claimed that they were insurgents and that’s why they killed them, does that logically imply that actual armed Iraqi insurgents do not exist? No, of course not.

    I can perfectly well believe that there are violent criminal blacks AND believe at the same time that there is a whole sordid history of framing innocent black people for crimes. There really is! The world is sufficiently complex that the two things do not contradict one another. There are people who comment on this site who just cannot get their little minds around this level of complexity. So if I say that people were framed (possibly anyway…) for a crime, for them that implies that all crimes are frame-ups. But no, I never said that…

    And by the same token, as regards Muslims being framed for crimes, well, we both agree Muslims were framed for 9/11. And also other high profile terrorist things like 7/7 in London. But there are millions of Muslims and some of them commit crimes, sure.

    But I’ve never said anything remotely resembling these straw man positions you’re constructing above. Okay, I hope it’s a joke, but I have to respond straight because…

    • Replies: @Rurik
  147. @5371

    So who is lying here – Buzz, or his client?

    Well, obviously Buzz. The client probably doesn’t even exist.

    You must know this. You know all hidden things.

    Well, not really. What I do know is that the second-hand testimony of an anonymous troll on the internet is not worth a bucket of warm piss. You, I guess, do not realize that.

    Anyway, the fact remains that there are very few people who claim that they saw an airliner hit a building on 9/11. I have heard it said that it is very easy to find somebody who knows somebody who saw a plane hit a building, but practically impossible to find anybody who saw it himself.

    The only systematic study I have located of trying to figure out how many people really saw a plane hit a building — it’s quite surprising how few people it is.

  148. @Turboglo

    I knew it was a cover-up the moment I saw the CIA-produced animation (cartoon?) that flashed, “There was no missile.”

    :-)

    Yeah, don’t ever believe anything until it’s officially denied…

  149. Boris says:

    an amateur home-video showing a missile striking and destroying TWA 800, with the tape eventually being sold for more than $50,000 and briefly broadcast on the MSNBC cable news channel

    This would be pretty convincing evidence. Why don’t you link to it instead of an hour long documentary?

    • Replies: @Avery
  150. geokat62 says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    The hard evidence centers around Bld 7 going into free fall which is impossible…

    This ground has been repeatedly plowed. If you’re interested, you can refer to my previous comments to discover why I have serious doubts with the CD hypothesis.

  151. Bel Riose says:

    I’ve long been interested in TWA 800. I wonder if any of the commentariat know that several eyewitnesses reported seeing a “small plane” flying near TWA 800 shortly before the crash.

    Read the below, then Google “Firebee Drone.” The Drone looks remarkably like a “small plane.”
    ______

    The Southampton Press [1] reports that on May 13th, Long Island resident Dede Muma accidently received a fax from Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical [2] that was intended for the FBI’s office in Calverton, Long Island. The fax indicates that parts of a U.S. Navy missile target drone, a BQM-34 Firebee I [3], may have been found in the wreckage of TWA 800.

    The reason that Muma accidently received the fax, which she passed on to the Southampton Press, was probably because her fax number is 369-4310, while the FBI’s number is 369-4301. About the fax, the Southampton Press states:

    Official documents faxed mistakenly to a Riverhead resident…show that the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation…was investigating whether pieces of debris
    found among the wreckage of TWA Fight 800 were the remnants of an aerial
    target drone used by the U.S. Navy…

    The fax shows a diagram of what appears to be a missile, along with a breakdown of its tail section and a parts list…

    The object shown in the fax was identified this week by Jane’s Information Services in Alexandria, Virginia as a Teledyne Ryan BQM-34 Firebee I, an air or surface – launched recoverable aerial target.

    The targets are used all over the world, including within the military “warningareas” that come as close as about 10 nautical miles off Moriches Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy practices shoot-
    ing down drones within the warning areas.

    Ms. Muma said she called the FBI when she received the [Firebee] fax… Ms.
    Muma was told to “send it along to them,[the FBI] and destroy the original.” Shesaid she asked what would happen if she didn’t do so, and was told “we’ll have to investigate you.”

    The source of the fax, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical of San Diego, CA, manufactures Firebee drones for the Navy. The “Firebee fax” Muma received was sent from Erich Hittinger of Teledyne to FBI agent Ken Maxwell, who was to pass it on to a Teledyne Ryan representative at the FBI’s Long Island office, Walt Hamilton.

    Hittinger of Teledyne Ryan told the Southampton Press that the FBI contacted them to ask if orange pieces of debris found at the TWA 800 crash site were from one of their Firebee drones, which are also orange [3]. Hamilton was then flown from San Diego to the FBI’s Long Island facility to examine the suspected Firebee debris. According to Hittinger, Hamilton concluded that the orange metal “wasn’t from our Firebee,” which suggests that it was from someone’s Firebee, but not ours.
    ______

  152. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    Indeed it would have been quite obvious if a large commercial airliner had approached

    Yeah, well everything’s obvious to you.

    Thing is there obviously was a plane in 17 other videos that I drew attention to earlier in this thread. So what’s your “obvious” take on that? That the CIA made 17 fake videos for distribution immediately after the event, but failed to suppress the vital one taken from the opposite side of the Tower to which the aircraft is alleged to have approached?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  153. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @richard vajs

    I had an experience that proved to me that the US Government will lie to save it’s butt.

    Richard, it’s not necessary to have been a personal witness to the disaster on the USS Iowa to know that the US government will lie to save its butt (Although I’m glad you reported here on your knowledge of Iowa incident. At the time, I was puzzled by the official account, which seemed quite weird — weird presumably on the premise that a weird explanation would be accepted as the truth since no one would make up such a bizarre explanation). But to understand the morality of government (i.e., the lack thereof) you just need to read the manual for all government operatives, which is entitled The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. As one reviewer over at Amazon.com states:

    Politicians usually read this text in the first political science class which they take. Actually, understanding Politics without understanding the principles in this text is an impossibility. A person who does not understand the principles of this text is too naive to understand why their leaders do what they do…

    There is thus a fundamental law of politics that individuals rise to their level of dishonesty. Hillary is right up there, but Donald is giving her a strong challenge. The only way to rid democratic politics of scum like them is to have a brighter, better educated electorate.

    By educated, I of course do not mean academically processed, since that entails government directed propaganda and mind-bending to insure submission to endless government lies — it’s called political correctness, which is what universities now chiefly concentrate on, as demonstrated by Hofstra U. before last night’s Presidential debate, for example.

    Unfortunately for us, Chinese and Indian universities still focus on hard subjects like math, physics and engineering, so we can expect any reform of the Western system to be delayed until after its inevitable decay, collapse and subordination, either to the Muslim tyranny or something more enlightened, perhaps Chinese in origin.

  154. Enzo Nak says:

    Just a point of correction. Flight 800 was not the greatest loss of life for NYC in the 20th Century. this corruption caused steamboat fire in 1904 claimed over 1000 lives. Mostly women and children: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_General_Slocum

    • Replies: @utu
  155. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey, JR!

    This gives us 3 logical possibilities:

    (A) As per the official story, Boeing passenger jets were hijacked by dem dastardly Ay-rabs and flown into the respective buildings
    (B) Planes were flown into buildings but they were not the Boeing passenger jets and no hijackings took place.
    (C) No planes flew into any buildings at all.

    With A, B, and C above, we have completely logical coverage. These are the only possibilities, okay?

    There is a forth possibility: during their regularly scheduled maintenance, the Boeing passenger jets were retrofitted with the necessary computer gear to remotely hijack them en route. Rabbi Dov Zakheim was a senior vice-president at Systems Planning Corporation just months prior to 9/11. SPC manufactures state-of-the-art remote control systems for aircraft.

    http://www.sysplan.com/capabilities/radar/fts/

    • Replies: @Erebus
  156. Bel Riose says:

    Another interesting fact re: TWA 800.

    The Navy was responsible for recovery of the TWA 800 wreckage.

    On March 11, 1997 President Clinton signed Executive Order 13039. This Order *revoked* federal “Whistleblower” protection for members of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group.

    This may mean nothing, as the US Navy’s Salvage Report states that the wreckage was recovered by divers from Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group Two (working in conjunction with non-military divers).

    However, some claim that Navy SEALS were quickly (and clandestinely) deployed to the crash site to search for, and remove, the Firebee Drone wreckage. Once the drone wreckage was removed, EOD Group Two commenced salvage operations.

    If this chronology is correct, perhaps the Executive Order was intended to muzzle any SEALS who found, and removed, drone wreckage from the crash site.

  157. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @sund

    yours is a classic case of confirmation bias, sir. you can’t handle the idea that bad things happen, like Sandy Hook, or 9-11. And so you convince yourself that it was all staged.

    This gives you the psychological comfort that there is someone in control. You can’t stand the idea that this world can be chaotic. That bad things happen due to chance. The people die unfairly all the time.

    No, for your delicate little psyche, things always have to happen for a reason. And the government is like God to you. In control at all times, creating illusions of bad things, but never actually doing it.

    Instead of spewing fact-free twaddle, why don’t you explain how the Newtown Bee managed to interview the Principal of Sandy Hook Elementary after she had been shot dead, and then, even more amazingly, published its report of the interview online on December 13, 2012, the day before the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary school was reported to have taken place (sorry the linked page doesn’t format very well but it can be deciphered by anyone really interested. It was simply cut and pasted from the Bing.com cache, the Bing cache page itself have been deleted long ago).

  158. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Yea, JR, that was a bit of hyperbole. But I am often shocked by your extreme (IMO) views at times, I confess. But we both do agree on the Arab patsies on 911 and 7/7, (and Boston bombing and other bullshit, and of course even the crazed white racist who shows his ‘white power’ mettle by shooting little old church ladies)

    a good example of a hate crime is ‘knock out game’, where young black thugs target frail looking white people so that they can try to knock them out with one punch. Very macho and all that..

    or when they gang rape girls in front of their husbands or boyfriends. That kind of thing.

    or when they set up some pathetic white patsy as a crazed ‘Confederate flag killer’, because they *hate* that flag and want it banned.

    And also to respond to an earlier post, yes, we both agree that it wasn’t Arab terrorists in the pilot seats. So that is the main point. The other stuff ends up being a distraction IMHO.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  159. Avery says:
    @Boris

    {This would be pretty convincing evidence. Why don’t you link to it instead of an hour long documentary?}

    Why don’t you paste the entire relevant paragraph, instead of just the portion that suits your purpose:

    {…with the tape eventually being sold for more than $50,000 and briefly broadcast on the MSNBC cable news channel before reportedly being seized as evidence by FBI agents.}

    If you got connections to FBI, maybe you can link to it instead of blowing smoke, homes.

    • Replies: @Boris
  160. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    holy shit!

    and I can tell you SC, I do make an effort to check out your posts in particular

    that is strange !

    how did Fred ride on the Vincennes and not know this? That was that ships seminal event

    anyways, I must be more circumspect in the future

    thanks

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  161. Bel Riose says:

    Couldn’t edit my last comment in time, so here goes:

    Former pilot Richard Russell claimed to have a tape of radar recordings showing a “non-beacon target” in “close proximity” to TWA 800. The tapes evidently confirmed that the target was travelling at a speed of approximately 600 knots. As Russell’s sworn Affidavit states, “the target disappeared from the scope just prior to the loss the (sic) transponder signal from TWA 800.” His Affidavit further states that one of the air traffic controllers identified the target as a missile.

    Clinton signed E.O. 13039 on March 11, 1997. The very next day — March 12, 1997 — the FBI, acting pursuant to a federal subpoena, seized the radar tape from Russell.

  162. utu says:
    @Enzo Nak

    General Slocum fire wiped out German Lutheran community in Manhattan. Some churches later were converted to synagogues as Jewish community was filling up what was abandoned by Germans.

  163. Mulegino1 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If what is shown on the “17 videos” is impossible (in the real, physical world) then – to paraphrase Conan Doyle – whatever remains, however improbable – must be the truth. Commercial airliners are not swallowed up by steel and concrete skyscrapers.

    This is a simple matter of ballistics. Get a 1/4″ thick steel plate. Shoot a hollow aluminum bullet at it (even one filled with kerosene) and see if that bullet will penetrate the plate.

    What is needed to pierce that plate? Try an armor piercing round, say a 7.62 by 54 r armor piercing round, with a hardened alloy jacket, a hardened nose, and a solid steel core. Nothing like the fuselage of a commercial airliner.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Avery
  164. @Ron Unz

    Clinton quickly slapped a gag order on the Navy units involved in that exercise — TWA 800 apparently straddled, or veered slightly into, the designated No Fly zone, and was struck by a sub-launched missile.

    Violating these kind of military gag orders can result in up to 30 years in prison, I believe.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  165. @Rurik

    no problem, Rurik.
    I didn’t mean to be a smartass (that’s reserved for Sam).

    It is interesting that the two Newsweek reporters, John Barry and Roger Charles, who tore apart the government narrative, seem to have disappeared — I was not able to find any other reporting by them.
    (Newsweek was owned by Washington Post in 1992; since then Newsweek has passed thru several reorganizations and acquisitions, ending up in the portfolio of Jane Harman’s husband.)

    related but o/t: Only one of the comments on Ron Unz’s article about Dehaven Smith’s book on Conspiracy Theory mentioned a central thesis of the book; namely, SCAD theory — State Crimes Against Democracy. Are such cover-ups as We the People have come to expect, in fact, SCADs? And shouldn’t we be outraged about being lied to routinely?
    I’m reading Les Miserables in which Hugo devotes a chapter or two to differentiating types of émeute — citizen uprisings vs. citizen insurrections — fine distinctions, but the overall point is that the French people, at least in the mid- to late-1800s — seemed quite willing and able to call their government to account, employing whatever means were available
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/135/135-h/135-h.htm (Book 10 Ch 1, 2)

    Revolt is a sort of waterspout in the social atmosphere which forms suddenly in certain conditions of temperature, and which, as it eddies about, mounts, descends, thunders, tears, razes, crushes, demolishes, uproots, bearing with it great natures and small, the strong man and the feeble mind, the tree trunk and the stalk of straw. Woe to him whom it bears away as well as to him whom it strikes! It breaks the one against the other.

    It communicates to those whom it seizes an indescribable and extraordinary power. It fills the firstcomer with the force of events; it converts everything into projectiles. It makes a cannon-ball of a rough stone, and a general of a porter.

    If we are to believe certain oracles of crafty political views, a little revolt is desirable from the point of view of power. System: revolt strengthens those governments which it does not overthrow. It puts the army to the test; it consecrates the bourgeoisie, it draws out the muscles of the police; it demonstrates the force of the social framework. It is an exercise in gymnastics; it is almost hygiene. Power is in better health after a revolt, as a man is after a good rubbing down.
    Revolt, thirty years ago, was regarded from still other points of view. . . .

    • Replies: @Rurik
  166. @The Alarmist

    Except for not collecting $5 billion for your troubles, you’re almost as lucky as Pull It Larry Silverstein.

    • Replies: @utu
  167. @Jonathan Revusky

    Electronically hi-jacked via the flight controller computers aboard the planes. All airliners have flight controllers, then and now. There were no Muslim terrorist anywhere near Flight 93, or any of the other planes, because they wouldn’t have been needed. In addition to the fact that human hi-jackers could never have flown any of the planes with half the accuracy and precision with which they were flown to their pre-programmed targets. The best guess is that the pilots aboard Flight 93 were savvy enough to figure out a way to regain control of their plane from the hacked flight controller, thus making it necessary for Cheney issue the order that it be shot down by trailing, US fighter planes. Parenthetically, one thing that none of the airliners were equipped with on 9/11 was cell phone technology permitting passengers to contact relatives while in flight. That particular fabrication reeks of classic Black Ops, as do several other terrorist events to occur before and since.

    • Agree: Anonymous Smith
    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Eagle Eye
  168. Hell. I always believed everything I read in the papers, including that America was the land of the free and the home of the brave and that we were the world’s white hats.

    My moment — months? — of panicked dissonance involved the Oklahoma City bombing and the Vincent Foster “suicide,” almost contemporaneous events. Since 1994, I’ve read a lot including “The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror” and Hugh Sprunt’s wonderful “Citizen’s Independent Report” about the Foster death.

    At the time, however, I was glued to the highly credible writings of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the DC bureau chief for the London Telegraph. He wrote about both events and my twitching elbow told me this was truth — but the views, the facts, were no place else, never showed up in the NY Times or WaPo.

    When I was exploding with the dissonance, I called the DC office of the Telegraph. Evans-Pritchard answered the phone. “Who the hell are you?” I began. We had a wonderful talk and he told me that when my husband and I got to DC next, he would take us to lunch.

    He did, at the Capitol Grille. As I prepared to pay, he took the check and said, “The Telegraph can afford this.” He is a gentle soul who always believed that the truth about both incidents would come out. …..sigh….

    I prayed for him a lot, that he would not have a fall over a loose balcony railing, or a problem with his car breaks….. ….that he would get out of America alive.

    Today, he’s back at his beginning: economics, the International Business Editor for the paper. I’m not sure if it’s safer for him.

    His book about the Clinton administration is a thriller, as is Hugh Sprunt’s work.

    Mostly, I leave this stuff — 9/11, flight 800, Obama’s “real” background and papa — alone. It takes a toll. I have learned that the government — and media — will lie in lockstep conformity and in direct contradiction to the most massive physical evidence. And, they always get away with it. That knowledge is good enough for me. …..Lady in Red

  169. utu says:
    @Carroll Price

    I wonder if insuring WTC (designed by Japanese architect) with Japanese company instead of some American firm was also a part of a plan. The tower that replaced the WTC was designed by Jewish architect born in Poland.

  170. Argggghhhh! I misspelled “brakes!” ….Lady in Red

    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
  171. @Blobby5

    In the below quote, Adolf is credited with explaining the philosophy of the Big Lie, which may or may not be helpful in arriving at an answer to your question regarding the lack of large numbers of people coming forward to question events of a gigantic nature:

    “All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that 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. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

  172. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mulegino1

    If what is shown on the “17 videos” is impossible

    But you haven’t shown anything to be impossible. And try not to keep saying what you have no proof for is “obvious” or “a simple matter.”

    If you wish to do an experiment with bullets and steel plate, go ahead and document the results, although you should realize that the results are most unlikely to prove anything about airliners and steel frame high-rise buildings.

    This kind of hand waving waffle is what gets those who question the official 9/11 story a bad name. There are certain aspects of the 9/11 story that are open to critical examination. That’s where you should direct your attention — unless of course you are trying to muddy the waters, in which case you’re doing a good job.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  173. @CanSpeccy

    I agree, it is rather difficult to intelligently discuss other important issues when a 9,000 lb. elephant with a bad case of Kosher breath, keeps lumbering around the room blocking the view. For what it’s worth, it’s my conviction that unless and until 9/11 is dealt with in an open and honest fashion, including bringing those we know to be guilty before a court of justice, we as a nation cannot and will not advance much beyond where we are today, which is somewhere about half way between acute reality and la-la land.

  174. I very strongly suspect that the US Navy accidentally destroyed Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (8 March 2014 // 239 people murdered).

    This had to be covered up because the South China Sea is an extremely sensitive area, with endless disputes, and many countries vying for access and control, including the USA and China.

    If it was revealed that the USA accidentally shot down MH370, then China could use it as a pretext to politically squeeze the US Navy out of the area.

    Therefore wild stories were fabricated about MNH370 having reversed course and headed out to the Indian Ocean. Search teams have looked everywhere except the shallow sea where the airliner actually vanished.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  175. @The Alarmist

    The soil where 9/11 crashed into the ground (assuming it was a plane) was once a large strip mining area that has been partially reclaimed by filling it with backfill that’s un-compacted and relatively loose.

  176. Avery says:
    @Mulegino1

    {This is a simple matter of ballistics. Get a 1/4″ thick steel plate. Shoot a hollow aluminum bullet at it (even one filled with kerosene) and see if that bullet will penetrate the plate.}

    This is a simple matter of nonsense.

    1. The fascia of towers was not solid 1/4″ thick steel plate. It was mostly glass, with steel columns. All modern skyscrapers have fascia that is mostly glass.

    2. A 767 is not a hollow aluminum bullet. It has a solid aluminum airframe. Lots of solid metal travelling at 500 mph.

    You shoot an aluminum bullet thru a tempered glass plate, and see if it will penetrate.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  177. @dahoit

    Parts of Flight 93 were found on land and in a lake 8 miles away from where it crashed. Although you can find U tube videos of the original MSM broadcast, this “irrelevant”‘ bit information was broadcast only once before being deep-sixed down the memory hole.

  178. The old Soviet Union was notoriously reluctant to ever acknowledge serious government errors, but its propaganda machinery was of mediocre quality, routinely ridiculed both in the West and among its own citizens.

    Our propaganda machinery is of superior quality because it’s trusted, and it’s trusted because it’s “independent.”

    Well, yes it’s independent from the government, but not from those who run the government.

  179. @richard vajs

    The Navy admitted the real cause of the incident about 8 years, or so following the accident. But like the Jewell guy who was a lowly guard at the Olympic Park in Atlanta when the back-pack bomb went off and who was viciously and falsely accused by the FBI of planting the bomb and “discovering” it just in time to prevent more casualties and become perceived as a hero, the lowly seaman (along with his family) killed in the explosion, never could have received adequate compensation for damages done to their reputations.

  180. QUESTION: How could government conspiracies be kept secret? Someone would have talked by now.

    ANSWER: Witnesses talk all the time, but they are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists.” Secrets are easy to keep when the masses don’t want to know the truth. Besides, what difference would it make? The lies about 9-11 continue, even though no one believes them.

    Suppose you yourself were part of a conspiracy. Would you really come forward knowing that your life would be ruined, and that no one would care? For every Edward Snowden there are hundreds of thousands of people who decide it is safer to remain silent. “What difference would it make if I talked? Why should I commit suicide by exposing the truth to a nation of cattle?”

  181. neologism says:
    @CanSpeccy

    First, raise the minimum voting age, from sixteen or whatever our corrupt leaders have lowered it to now, to at least 31.

    I sort of like that idea. Since Obamacare says that anyone under 26 isn’t old enough to pay his own medical bills that seems like a good start.

    Personally, I prefer a system whereby one declares himself to be an adult. Once you say that you’ve crossed that line you can vote, buy beer and take out an auto loan, but can’t opt out of jury duty because you’re too busy being a student or make dad’s insurance company pay for your contacts and treating your gonorrhea infection.

    I would also like to see a system where you have to personally present yourself at a voter registration office thirty to sixty days before the election and name ONE candidate for at least one public office that’s not the top of the ticket. You aren’t voting for them, just proving that you know at least something about the whole affair. Alas, our betters tell us that certain segments of our society don’t even have time to get an official ID to bring to the polls, but still somehow are sufficiently informed to deserve a voice in governance. So good luck on getting that to happen
    before the next revolution.

  182. @richard vajs

    @ richard vajs:

    Actually the 1989 explosion aboard the USS Iowa was one of the few times that the Navy (eventually) admitted the truth.

    Admiral Frank Kelso, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, publicly apologized to the surviving family of Clayton Hartwig, who had been falsely accused of causing the explosion as part of a suicide.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

  183. This has been a terrific series of essays. I hope you continue your exploration of America’s media.

    You write:

    I personally know of at least a couple of individuals prominently situated in our current elite establishment whose private views on various controversial topics [conspiracies]

    I once asked my college history professor — a well-know and respected historian who would sometimes contribute to Pres. Clinton’s speech drafts — whether JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

    Yes, he said. But, he hastened to add, he thought Oliver Stone was “nuts”. I think he was trying to distance himself from the way Stone was treated, much like Pierre Salinger.

  184. Mulegino1 says:
    @Avery

    The towers were surrounded by structural steel perimeter columns, concrete floor pans and the even more massive and sturdy steel spandrels, not glass.

    The fuselage and cockpit of a 767 are relatively delicate, and can be damaged by colliding with a bird in flight. There is no question of “solid metal”.

    You shoot the equivalent of the fuselage and cockpit into a steel perimeter column and you flatten and/or shred it. It will not penetrate.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Bill Jones
  185. rod1963 says:
    @Sigismund Vortunk

    Yep, you don’t go public when this is done or the military says it’s secret.

    Take the Atomic Veterans – human guinea pigs that the DOD used to test the effects of atomic bombs on soldiers. Until 1996 they were forbidden to talk about it because the testing was classified. It took a act of Congress to nullify it.

    These tests were a horrible black mark on our military and scientific establishment.

    Today very few know about or care except those families that were harmed by it such as my recently deceased father who suffered greatly because of being exposed to nuclear fallout from a Hiroshima sized bomb.

    But it gets better, the DOJ established a fund to give survivors some money. Problem is: “Unfortunately, the only copies of service and medical records for many of these veterans were lost in a fire at the National Archives in 1973.[10] Veterans, or families of deceased Veterans, whose records were lost in the fire, were denied these services and must go through an extensive reconstruction process in order to establish their presence during the time of atmospheric tests.”

    So most of that money sits unclaimed because it’s almost impossible to provide the government with all records it needs. They make it tougher than getting a TS level clearance.

    Conspiracy? probably. Getting rid of all those records keeps the government from paying out $$$.

    But it gets worse. In fact the AEC had been conducting illegal radiation experiments on humans since the 1940′s. In most cases the patients or prisoners didn’t know they were being experimented on. So much for a honest and decent medical establishment that conducted experiments that would make Mengele jealous.

    Conspiracy? Most certainly. The medical and sciencitific establishment didn’t say shit for 50 years. What a bunch of moral lepers and mini-mengeles. And the government that approved them? F**king monsters who should stood trial for crimes against humanity.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  186. @Si1ver1ock

    Good, clear and succinct response. Still, there will always be those who cling desperately to their vision of a world that they would like it to be rather than as it really is.

    The confirmation bias is alive and “well”.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  187. Erebus says:
    @Anonymous Smith

    Revusky’s:

    This gives us 3 logical possibilities:

    (A) As per the official story, Boeing passenger jets were hijacked by dem dastardly Ay-rabs and flown into the respective buildings

    (B) Planes were flown into buildings but they were not the Boeing passenger jets and no hijackings took place.

    (C) No planes flew into any buildings at all.

    With A, B, and C above, we have completely logical coverage. These are the only possibilities, okay?

    and your…

    There is a forth possibility:

    … are actually the same, as modified Boeings fit under Revusky’s (B). Rurik has advanced his idea that the planes were not only remote controlled, but had the requisite more powerful engines, advanced avionics, and strengthened airframes.

    [MORE]

    For myself, this is all too complex. There is another 4th possibility that accounts for witness accounts of both airplanes and missiles, radar tracks, Pentagon carpark video, physical evidence, etc…

    Unless sub-sonic (namely, jet propelled) cruise missiles are to be subsumed in (B) Planes… they constitute the 4th (and IMHO, most likely) possibility.
    In defence of that thesis, I suggest that these are the only widely available, off-the-shelf items to be had at the time that had the:
    - requisite speed (5-600mph),
    - requisite avionics/accuracy/lo-altitude manoeuvrability,
    - requisite jet-engine sound, triggering “airplane” memories in witnesses who actually saw nothing
    - sufficiently “airplane-ish” appearance to fool any witnesses not observing them for some seconds, especially if painted with appropriate airline livery colours
    - sufficient fire-power to account for Pentagon damage as well as matching the visuals in the carpark video,
    - would match the Shanksville explosion video & subsequent crater (assuming this one either went astray or was intercepted)
    - though the WTC impact explosions could have been entirely internal, an incendiary warhead would create the fireball explosion seen in the videos and/or trigger secondary internal explosions to create the Wiley E. Coyote cutouts.
    - would provide the easily masked video placement cues for subsequent CGI alterations

    Cruise missiles are little more than an electronics suite, a warhead, a jet engine, some fuel, and an airframe to hold it all together in flight. Their size and lack of commercial aircraft impedimenta would result in very little collectible debris, especially after the warhead detonated.

    One of the most compelling aspects of this theory is that all 4 airplane incidents are covered, whereas “specially modified commercial airliners” at the WTC, a missile at the Pentagon, and who-the-hell-knows-what at Shanksville takes on a suite of complexities that would add difficult to manage risks.

    Parenthetically, I have asked myself, “How would I do it?” for most of the high profile aspects of 9/11. The only one I can’t come up with a plausible mechanism for is turning 400kT of concrete into dust. Shattering the strong chemical bonds of concrete’s hydrolysis reaction takes an enormous amount of energy. Sending it flying laterally in clouds takes even more. Depending on the precise mix, this would be “n” orders of magnitude higher than the kinetic, chemical (fuel) and gravitational energy available to the building/planes collapse system.
    Basically, almost no sizeable lumps of concrete were found. This served several purposes:
    - it facilitated the speedy removal of the steel, and
    - diluted the forensic explosive evidence through the cms thick dust that covered south Manhattan as if a nearby volcano had erupted, and
    - perhaps most importantly, it prevented the building from tipping as it fell. Mass was being removed from the top down as fast as the steel supporting it, so there would be little danger of any asymmetrical support removal tipping the building. Simply put, there was nothing left to tip over.

    How one turns a 400kT (roughly 200kM3) mass of concrete into dust in a few seconds is above my pay grade. After I watched the 1st tower come down I said aloud “WTF’in hell was that?!?!?”. I had some time to think about it before watching the 2nd one come down in an identical manner. At that point I knew that this was not only no “terrorist attack”, it was no ordinary demolition either.

    Now I feel as guilty as Rurik for permitting myself another, misplaced, 9/11 rant. Sorry’bou’dat. Sigh…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  188. @Liz Harris

    I read a report at the time that a US drone had been downed and the electronics were being shipped to China via Malaysia which is why it was lost.

    I forget where I found the drone info but I’ve never encountered that story elsewhere, has anyone else, I wonder?

  189. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:

    On their upper floors, the external support columns of WTC 1 & 2 were approx. 14″ square hollow rectangular tubes fashioned from 0.25″ steel plates. Thicker steel was used for the lower floors. There were 59 of these columns on each face of the towers. The windows were just 19″ wide, and not popular with all tenants because of the narrow aspect and view.

    In order to have penetrated and sliced through one of these external support columns, an object would have to cut through all four surfaces of its structure.

    Aluminum won’t cut it.

    [MORE]

    To penetrate steel armor of a tank, anti-tank rounds of hard, heavy, dense materials may exceed muzzle velocity of 5000 feet per second, whereas our 540 mph Boeing 767 can only manage not quite 800 fps, about the muzzle velocity of a BB gun.

    So, when viewed from the standards of projectiles capable of penetrating steel armor, a 767 is neither hard enough, nor going fast enough to be able to cut through steel.

    Richard Roth, speaking on behalf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially “a steel beam 209′ deep.”

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

    (I guess I can’t add graphics/photos here; even though ‘preview comment’ shows them, ‘publish comment’ seems to strip away -img src- tag. Please see link above for drawings, photos of external columns.)

    Note too that each concrete floor was protected by the wide horizontal steel spandrels, which also added not only tremendous strength to the vertical box columns, but also further steel barriers to aircraft penetration.

    –sp–

  190. Erebus says:
    @Carroll Price

    Electronically hi-jacked via the flight controller computers aboard the planes. All airliners have flight controllers, then and now.

    The problem with this theory is that the controllers are specifically programmed to prevent the plane from being flown outside its design envelope. The “Boeings” of 9/11 were flown well outside their design envelope so that even if that part of the controllers’ software was somehow disabled, according to Lear and pilotsfor911truth, the planes simply couldn’t have flown the way the narrative calls for them to have. At best, they just wouldn’t perform, or perhaps would have broken up trying.
    Flying them remotely doesn’t overcome the physical limitations of the planes. It only overcomes the reluctance any human pilots aboard may have to killing themselves and those they are responsible for. Furthermore, in the absence of triangulated homing beacons, it makes hitting the target much less likely as no remote pilot has anything comparable to the data inputs that an onboard human pilot would have.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  191. @CanSpeccy

    If you wish to do an experiment with bullets and steel plate, go ahead and document the results, although you should realize that the results are most unlikely to prove anything about airliners and steel frame high-rise buildings.

    You make a valid point, I suppose, but I’m not sure it supports your argument.

    Okay, fine, maybe the only way to know for sure what happens when an airplane slams into a steel-framed skyscraper is actually to fly the plane into the building. However, where do you run the experiment? Or, more precisely, if you are planning 9/11, how do you verify that you are going to get the effect you want — except by actually running the experiment. Is there some abandoned steel-framed high-rise building of approximately the characteristics of the twin towers that you could experiment on and run a plane into?

    [MORE]

    You start thinking along these lines and it’s really kind of mind-boggling. But then, you might go on another tack and realize something: the operation does not, strictly speaking, absolutely need for you to fly a plane into a building. What is needed is to convince people that a plane flew into a building!

    If you were one of the planners of the operation, would you not think quite a bit about how you could convince the public that a plane flew into a building without actually having to make a plane fly into a building?

    So… conceptual experiment time… let’s say you repeatedly show a video (Hollywood fakery) of a plane flying into a building on the MSM.

    Is there a problem here? Will most people believe what they are shown on the TV? I reckon there actually is no problem. Everybody will buy it. That’s 300 million people. Most of them were nowhere near NYC at the time and only have what they see on TV to go by. And they’ll believe it, right?

    Now, okay, further, suppose that there are a sizeable number of people who were in the vicinity with a clear view, were looking in the right direction the whole time and they definitely did not see a plane hit a building. How many people? I don’t know. Let’s say that’s 300 people. Or even 3000 people… whatever… but a very small number of people compared to those who saw it on TV.

    Now, imagine that you are one of the people who was there and you did not see a plane hit a building. But then in the following days, you are repeatedly shown the video of the plane hitting the building. Is it far-fetched to suppose that you would eventually convince yourself that the video that you are shown repeatedly on the TV is what you saw? There are famous psychology experiments relating to this, you know.

    Or you convince yourself that you were not looking in the right direction and missed it. Same difference. You convince yourself that what happened is what was on TV, never mind your “lying eyes”.

    Now, even if a small handful of people stick to their guns and say: “I was there and no plane hit a building” who does the general public believe finally? Also, the holdouts who claim they didn’t see a plane, if necessary, can be smeared as deranged crazy people and all that…

    In any case, my view is that if it is feasible to simply fake the whole thing, then that is what the planners would do.

    Look at it this way. Suppose you had to convince people that you climbed Everest, and it was between actually climbing Everest OR mastering that Adobe Photoshop and working up some phony photos. It seems to me that, OBVIOUSLY, if there was little chance that you would be called out over the phony photos, that the people you have to convince would be taken in by them, you would ALWAYS take the Photoshop route. You would NEVER try to climb Everest for real.

    Even if, by some chance, you (unlike me!!!) possess the agility and physical fitness level that you could tackle Everest, even for an experienced mountaineer, it is DANGEROUS! I mean, you could slip and fall off some sheer rock face on your way up or have whatever other sort of accident. Why would you ever do that if some Adobe Photoshop bullshit would work instead???!!!

    My initial reaction to the no-planes theory was like most people… “That’s crazy! Of course planes hit buildings on 9/11!” And then I tried to convince myself rigorously that planes really had hit buildings. And I can’t do it. If you ask me “what happened to the passengers”, well, I dunno. But that somebody goes missing doesn’t prove he was on a plane or that the plane smacked into a building.

    So, what I notice in all of this is that if you bring up the NPT, then you come under horrendous attack, where people say you’re obviously nuts and so forth. Note again that I have never stated any absolute certainty over whether there were planes or not, but my conclusion is that it is far from obvious! So the people attacking me as obviously nuts for saying this, this is because they haven’t put in the serious thought on the question. (OR they are shills… :-))

  192. @Erebus

    are actually the same, as modified Boeings fit under Revusky’s (B)

    Well, after further thought, my 3 posited options are maybe not so complete. I didn’t mention a missile, though a missile is, broadly speaking, an aircraft, so it could be under (B). Also, that stock Boeings hit the buildings, but were not hijacked by Arabs, but rather, remote control piloted. I think that’s more or less a non-starter for the various reasons Lear gives, but it still has to be listed as a possibility, I suppose.

    [MORE]

    But fine, what I wrote, even if flawed, provides some initial structure for a discussion….

    Rurik has advanced his idea that the planes were not only remote controlled, but had the requisite more powerful engines, advanced avionics, and strengthened airframes.

    Yeah, I’ve seen this theory elsewhere though. I remember reading on one blog (and it’s funny, I found the blog because the guy was a fan of my articles here and was linking them) and this guy’s 9/11 take was that these were special “souped-up” Boeings that flew into the buildings.

    You know, the guy recognized the basic problems brought up by John Lear, among others, that a Boeing 767 cannot fly that fast at 1000 feet above sea level, so the planes had to have been outfitted with much more powerful engines and if they couldn’t penetrate the outer wall, these planes were specially hardened maybe… I forget…

    My problem with all of that is, I guess, what we could call the James Bond/Wile E. Coyote dialectic.

    In all these Bond films, early in the movie, James Bond visits Q’s laboratory and Q basically gives him some of the latest gadgets — let’s say in the prototype phase, that have never been tested under real conditions. At some later point in the movie, when Bond needs it, these gadgets always work perfectly, right?

    In the Road Runner cartoons, Wile E. Coyote is always ordering gadgets from Acme Corp. that invariably fail in some spectacular manner.

    In short, in the James Bond world, new technology works perfectly the first time it is ever used. In the Road Runner world, the technology always fails the first time Coyote tries to use it. My sense of things is that the Wile E. Coyote scenario is more realistic.

    These scenarios with souped-up Boeings require a bunch of technology to be developed that has to work perfectly the first time it is ever used, no? I mean, when (and where) would you ever get the chance to test this, i.e. to fly a plane into a massive steel-framed skyscraper? Well, also, in testing it, you would destroy your “souped-up” Boeing and have to build a new one, no?

    I honestly just cannot honestly buy into this. And again, I just keep coming back to the question of trying to prove to myself that planes really did fly into buildings and I cannot convince myself of that. In fact, when you look for the number of bona fide witnesses to this, it is a very small number of people. People say: “Of course, planes flew into buildings. Hundreds (thousands…) of people saw it.” But that is simply not the case! The number of people who claim that they saw a plane fly into a building with their own two eyes, as opposed to seeing it on TV — that is a very very small number of people.

  193. @Lady in Red

    You can always hit the preview button and the edit button. Maybe Unz can increase the time allowed to edit a comment to 10 or 15 minutes. He is supposed to be tweaking the system a bit.

  194. Allow me a long, twist conspiracy theory if you will. You may find it…interesting…

    Around four years ago or so, I was talking to a marine who became a private investigator cum vigilante against government corruption. He was homeless after his wife kicked him out for putting the family at risk with his pursuits. He also couldn’t get a job because he lost his driver’s license–which was revoked after so many tickets were issued against him by the Suffolk police. He also couldn’t find a decent place to shack up because every friend’s place he stayed at would get threatening phone calls from mysterious callers.

    What was he investigating? The Gilgo Beach Murders. If you recall, the profile of the killer was “likely someone in law enforcement” based upon the expertise with which the bodies were disposed. This man’s prime suspect? Chief of Suffolk police, James Burke.

    Here was his story: Burke was a complete pervert. His favorite past time was hiring prostitutes and beating the crap out of them during sex. Sometimes he went too far and killed them. Those that he did ended up on Gilgo Beach in a burlap sack.

    His subordinates knew of this. However, they kept quiet out of that weird solidarity cops have. But then things took a turn for the worse…

    One night, some kid broke into Burke’s vehicle and stole a duffel bag. Turns out, the duffel bag contained child pornography. When Burke found the kid, he was so furious he knocked him out.

    Killing prostitutes was one thing, but child porn was a bridge too far for some of his subordinates, who thus started talking to our intrepid investigator. But others weren’t willing to go against their boss, and thus the harassment with bogus speeding tickets, death threats, etc.

    “But wait,” I said, “If this is true, why not just tell the FBI and let them handle it?”

    And here’s where it gets really interesting.

    He said the FBI was fully well aware of who was killing those prostitutes found at Gilgo Beach. They just couldn’t do a damn thing about it. Why? Because they were compromised with the Suffolk PD.

    How?

    Back in July of ’96, a missile took out TWA flight 800. Not only did the Suffolk County police interview dozens of eye witnesses who saw it, but many of them saw it with their own eyes as well. When the FBI descended, that version of events–as our host describes above–got delegitamized. Why?

    Because then-President William Jefferson Clinton didn’t want that on his record. So he ordered the Feds to cover up the facts of the case. This necessarily required getting the Suffolk County PD to play along.

    Now, this guy seemed legit to me, but the story sounded a little too “out there”, so I took it all with a grain of salt. Then, just a few months ago, I read this story:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/nyregion/ex-suffolk-county-police-chiefs-arrest-hints-at-broader-federal-inquiry.html?_r=0

    Hmm. Then there’s this:

    http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

    I, for one, felt the FBI was completely in the bag for Hillary regarding this whole email server thing. But now I’m thinking that, if my buddy’s story is at all true, this may be the motivation.

    Imagine: [Bill] Clinton orders the FBI to cover up a missile downing a commercial jetliner. Years later, [Hillary] Clinton, running for the highest office in the land, is under investigation by the very same FBI. How easy would it be for her to tell them from the get-go: “You indict me, I destroy your entire operation. The FBI is dismantled. Everyone loses their jobs. And some are arrested.” Hence, she skates free.

    Stranger things have happened my friends…

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  195. geokat62 says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    The confirmation bias is alive and “well”.

    Since Revusky has yet to solve this riddle, perhaps the two of you can lend him a hand:

    Why would the planners go to the extraordinary lengths they did to create the illusion (by using the top down approach and placing explosives just below predetermined impact zones) that airplanes brought down the TT but to then simply say “boy that was hard work, let’s just save some time/effort and wire bldg 7 in the classic bottom-up CD style,” undoing all their efforts to conceal their nefarious plans. It simply makes no sense.

    It’s as if the Japanese would use airplanes with Soviet markings while attacking 2 ships moored at Pearl Harbor to create the illusion that the Soviets were responsible for the attacks, and then for some strange reason attack the third ship using an airplane with Japanese markings. Makes zero sense. Bottom line: if you’re clever enough to create illusions to cover your tracks, why would you cover only two of your tracks, but not all three?

    Your responses will help distinguish those who are guilty of “clinging desperately to their vision of a world that they would like it to be rather than as it really is.”

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

    “When naive individuals suggest that maintaining a large government conspiracy in America is simply impossible because “somebody would have talked” perhaps they should consider the implications of this incident, which occurred so close to the media capital of the world.”

    Love it.

    Thank you Ron. I guess Fred can add another “tinfoil hat” to his list

    I was in my ER residency in Bakersfield when a friend at a small military inteligence related base in the desert near there told me that TWA 800 had been shot down by a missile. It was then that I realized such cover ups are possible. I was also impressed about how Pierre Salinger was tarred. Of course, being a West Point grad, I already knew how large numbers of intelligent people could be brought to intellectual “heel”.

  197. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @disturbed_robot

    “We live in a jungle. And the mighty are all evil, regardless of what philosophy they claim to represent. It is a lie. No “government” represents ANY people, much less it’s own people.”

    (I would change the word evil to “predators”)

    When I tell people that I am an anarchist, I always preface the word anarchist by the word “nonviolent”. (mostly true) Generally, I get a response like, ” Is that even possible?” Then I go on (hoping to make a convert lol) to explain that it simply means that I do not recognize moral authority of the (obviously corrupt) government, and that “individualist” is a similar term. This usually leads to me explaining that the power of government is the coercive power, no more, no less. Might does not make right. I usually toss in the name Thoreau just to get a measure of who I am conversing with lol.

    All this takes a little effort, so I am careful about those who I confide in….

  198. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Anyone with half a brain knows flight 93 was shot down. How else to explain debris falling miles before the crash as reported in numerous outlets. To know that fact and think the plane did a simple nosedive it the definition of doublethink

  199. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Fred Reed

    Oh my…… I just read this response and you are worse than I thought.

    Fred, It was a mistake, but the Navy did fire the missile that downed TWA 800.

    Fred, What you are spouting is propaganda. You might as well say, ” The US government does not torture people, therefore what we did is not torture” I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Now the doubt is removed – unfortunately. You are a good writer. I am sad

  200. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Almost certainly, only 2 or 3 people were in a position to eyewitness the accidental missile launch. Keep them quite with the threat of life imprisonment, and you have a lid on the situation. For everyone else on board, it was second hand information, rumors, etc. more easily suppressed

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  201. @rod1963

    And just what, other than being labeled as biased Jew-haters have the sailors who survived Israel’s attempts to sink the USS Liberty gained from coming forward to tell their story?

  202. geokat62 says:

    The number of people who claim that they saw a plane fly into a building with their own two eyes, as opposed to seeing it on TV — that is a very very small number of people.

    In most murder trials, isn’t the testimony of just one eye-witness, who is deemed credible, sufficient to convict the accused? If so, why can’t we rely on the testimony of “a very very small number of people?”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  203. Boris says:
    @Avery

    If you got connections to FBI, maybe you can link to it instead of blowing smoke, homes.

    Well, if Ron Unz doesn’t have this tape and hasn’t seen it then how can he say what it shows? If MSNBC aired it, why don’t they have a copy of it? The claim seems pretty unbelievable and there is no hard evidence for it. It’s a rumor that Ron and the rest of the conspiracy-minded now regard as unassailable truth.

    I’m open to the possibility that the government is covering something up here, but when people start treating rumors of videotapes as hard facts I get suspicious.

  204. Mr. Anon says:
    @dahoit

    “They found the tail at least a half mile from the fuselage,…”

    Yeah, that happens when an airplane breaks up in midair. Your lot are usually going on about how there supposedly was “no wreckage”. Now you’re complaining that there is wreckage?

    “……..and the crash site was cordoned off from reporters and public.”

    Which always happens at an accident investigation site.

  205. @Erebus

    Bullshit. Classic dis-information. Like all pre-programmed process controllers (which is what flight controllers are) aboard airliners will fly the plane to exact GPS coordinates with far greater accuracy and skill than the most experienced pilot could ever do, up to the mechanical limitations of the plane being flown. Doing so by using any series of vectors (changes in compass setting) to reach its final destination, and at whatever altitude called for. Whether or not the final destination (determined by it’s GPS coordinate) happens to be an airport runway, building or anything else, including the house or apartment in which you live. I program industrial process controllers on a routine basis and am very familiar with their accuracy and capabilities. And with what ease programs can be changed or removed entirely and replaced with a different program. Which in the case of the four airliners hi-jacked on 9/11 is what I assume occurred. With all four planes having been parked at airports where security was provided by ICTS, an Israeli-owned company based in Holland. You can’t make this stuff up. It happened. The info is out there. All you have to know is where to look and what to look for, and the significance of what you’re reading.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_107.htm

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

    http://www.ifpo.org/resource-links/articles-and-reports/protection-of-specific-environments/the-evolution-of-airline-security-since-911/

    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Rurik
  206. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “Almost certainly, only 2 or 3 people were in a position to eyewitness the accidental missile launch.”

    I have never been on a missile cruiser when it fired a missile (I have never been on a missile cruiser at all), but it seems to me to be possible that everybody on board would hear a launch and know that it happened, or that many people would. If that is the case, it wouldn’t matter if only a few people saw it. Any sailor would then know that they a.) fired a missile, and b.) a jet crashed nearby. He would be suspicious. And that would be a lot of potential leak sources. That’s a possibility anyway. But, also, you might be right. I have no experience in the matter.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  207. @Fred Reed

    A MANPAD, Sam-7 for example, would be physically possible, being small enough to be smuggled, but it would go for an engine, leading to a forced landing or at least distress calls

    I should add an additional detail to my second-hand conspiracy theory I mentioned above that I didn’t want to include originally as I thought it was the most outlandish part of the story he told. The investigator’s claim for Clinton wanting to cover up the missile strike was that it was executed not by the Navy, but by Al Qaeda. The story goes that Clinton was already worried about appearing soft on national defense, and didn’t want this to further that. But he was determined to get back at bin Laden, hence the ridiculous “Operation Infinite Reach” about two years later.

    Don’t shoot the messenger–I’m only relaying what I heard from a PI. I do think it’s worth throwing into the discussion though.

  208. Avery says:
    @Mulegino1

    {…, not glass.}

    In between steel columns there is open space filled with glass.
    You can look up old pics of twin towers from inside.
    Here is one:

    http://www.nyctourist.com/wtc_new1.htm

    (scroll down to pic from inside the tower)

    There is about 2′-3′ wide glass between 1′ wide steel columns.
    All around.
    About 60%-70% of the tower surface was glass.


    {It will not penetrate.}

    Who ever claimed anything intact penetrated?
    Enough large chunks and aviation fuel travelling at 500 mph would have penetrated and done whatever damage they did.

  209. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:

    Somehow, TWA 800 blundered into closed airspace. The pilot didn’t notice, nor did the co-pilot. ‘Same with the air traffic controllers, they didn’t notice either. None of these guys would have any particular reason to pay any special attention to the airplane moving into a closed airspace where the Navy might be launching missiles. No worries.

    For its part, either the Navy didn’t notice the big, fat radar return from a 747 entering their live fire zone, or they didn’t care, possibly because the SAM would be locked onto the target drone before the missile was launched. But something went wrong, and instead of acquiring the drone, the missile was targeted at TWA 800. In this scenario, the targeting error could have been made before launch, by personnel somehow mistaking the big blip of the 747 for the smaller one of the drone, or the missile could have been correctly targeted on the drone, but it somehow fixed itself on Flight 800.

    Classic CF, where nobody is paying attention, and everything goes wrong. The levels of ineptitude and incompetence required by all hands in this disaster strain my willingness to believe it happened that way.

  210. Erebus says:
    @Carroll Price

    I program industrial process controllers on a routine basis and am very familiar with their accuracy and capabilities.

    FYI, I too in a previous life coded PLCs, including manual G-Code for 3-axis CNC machines before MASTERCAM et al software became available. I even used to punch paper tape, and did some pneumatic logic, so I probably have as much hands on as old as anybody’s!
    It happens that I have to currently re-learn some of that old stuff for a project of mine. Things haven’t really changed much, one more significant digit, but that’s all very much besides the point.

    Bullshit. Classic dis-information.

    My first point, which you apparently didn’t notice before saying:

    up to the mechanical limitations of the plane being flown

    is that one the controller’s built in functions is to prevent the plane from being flown beyond its “mechanical limitation”, and that the planes were, by sworn statements from experts, so flown.

    My 2nd point was that, “remote control” (meaning something like flying a Predator drone hunting wedding parties in Pakistan from a console in Nevada) was used, then that “pilot” was at a disadvantage compared to a pilot at the controls of the actual aircraft.

    Nowhere did I talk about a “pre-programmed” (utterly different from “remote”, for slower readers) flight by PLC (which by the way wouldn’t be nearly as accurate as you think). EG: my boat has a slam-dunk GPS/GLONASS integrated, gyro-stabilized, nav/radar/sonar system and I sure as hell wouldn’t trust it to bring it to the dock at 3kn, never mind at 400kn.

    all pre-programmed process controllers (which is what flight controllers are) aboard airliners will fly the plane to exact GPS coordinates with far greater accuracy and skill than the most experienced pilot could ever do

    I guess the pilots are paid to make coffee and make pithy announcements. Seems uneconomical. By the way, most commercial airliners do their final approaches and even land automatically, but they do this using triangulated radar to fix their position in 3D space. At 200kn, a system using GPS alone would miss the runway far too often for insurance companies’ liking.

    Bullshit indeed.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  211. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Newsweek has passed thru several reorganizations and acquisitions, ending up in the portfolio of Jane Harman’s husband.)

    for some reason she always makes me think of this ‘lady’

    . System: revolt strengthens those governments which it does not overthrow. It puts the army to the test; it consecrates the bourgeoisie, it draws out the muscles of the police; it demonstrates the force of the social framework. It is an exercise in gymnastics; it is almost hygiene.

    sort of makes you think of Erdogan’s little attempted ‘coup’

    I read that book long ago and it has always stuck with me, the deep and powerful humanity of Hugo. I put him with Dickens and Dostoyevsky for their ability to evoke the tragic and also the near divine within the human spirit. Cruelty, avarice, authoritarianism, malice with a running sense of pity and aspiration. Great stuff.

    • Replies: @5371
  212. @Matthew Kelly

    Good info, Ex Machina!

    Keep us posted!

    ps…do you know about the “Franklin scandal” in Nebraska, or, how about the “Dutroux affair” in Belgium? These were discovered to be child murder/porn (literally child snuff porn) rings for the purposes of blackmailing powerful people. Look into it, if you haven’t already.

    • Replies: @Matthew Kelly
  213. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price

    Which in the case of the four airliners hi-jacked on 9/11 is what I assume occurred.

    hello Carroll,

    I defer to your expertise on the flight controller stuff. But I think the consensus on the Pentagon and “crash” at Shanksville are that those particular incidents did not involve passenger jets. People think it was some kind of missile that hit the Pentagon, and hence the dearth of videos (and missing black boxes and airplane parts and round holes in concrete walls, etc..) and also there were no bodies or plane parts at the “crash site” at Shanksville.

    At least that is I suspect, the running theories..

  214. Erebus says:

    There is about 2′-3′ wide glass between 1′ wide steel columns.
    All around.
    About 60%-70% of the tower surface was glass.

    Umm, had you done even the most cursory homework, you’d know the glass panels were 19″ (43cm) wide, and the columns were 14″ (35.5cm) wide. That translates to almost exactly a 58/42 glass/steel column ratio.
    If one includes the spandrels attached to the floors, then the glass/steel ratio drops dramatically to approx. 30/70 (estimated graphically). In other words, the face of the WTC towers was 70% steel. A lot of airplane had to make its way around the steel and through those gaps.

    Enough large chunks and aviation fuel travelling at 500 mph would have penetrated and done whatever damage they did.

    And according to the numbers above, and assuming aluminium can’t penetrate structural steel, about 60- 70% of the plane would have fallen to the street below.

    Not quite what the “videos” showed, or what the “eyewitnesses” noted.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Avery
  215. @Anonymous Smith

    I doubt I’ll receive any more information on this. I haven’t been able to get in touch with the guy for years, as he had no phone, no address and never responded to emails. He could be dead for all I know. If the trail he was sniffing led to where he believed it would, he certainly faced being taken out.

    Anyway, thanks for the info on those pedo scandals. I was not aware. But it does jibe with a little hearsay I got from a guy formerly in the intelligence biz, which was that rookie CIA agents would have prostitutes sent to their rooms. Not to test their moral fiber, but to get dirt on them that could be used as leverage.

  216. Mulegino1 says:
    @Erebus

    That is indeed what the videos show. For example, the Hezawarkani (spelling?) video shows the airliner being literally swallowed up by the South Tower.

    Most of the other “amateur” videos show the “airliner” striking the Tower yet maintaining uniform velocity.

    What about the video (shown “live” on Fox News) that shows the airliner’s nose to emerge intact from the opposite side of the building, prompting the anchorman to say, “It went right through the building”?

    With all of the news choppers in the air at the time, the odds that there would not be one clear, unambiguous video of an airliner crashing into the South Tower are quite low, even astronomically so.

    Virtually all of the amateur videos of the “airliner” impacting the South Tower are suspect, as they all show the “airliner” maintaining constant velocity as it effortlessly slides into the building.

    In most of the videos, the alleged “airliner” does not even look like an airliner , and they are almost always accompanied by the same overreaction, the screaming female banshee, the same voice that says “Holy s–t!”, etc.

    I can understand the concerns of those who feel that those of us who believe that no airliners struck the buildings are muddying the waters, but it is my contention that the entire official narrative is a badly crafted fraud, beginning with the idea that airliners hijacked by amateur flight students who could not even pilot Cessnas could be flown effortlessly into the Twin Towers at speeds well below their maximum operating speeds at cruising altitude.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Erebus
    , @utu
  217. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    They were practicing missile launches. (See the original post) So no one would think anything of the sound of a missile launch. As far as the plane being shot down, I am sure there were suspicions, but the chain of command surely squashed those with “the official story” and threatened anyone who talked about it with the brig.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  218. Ron Unz says:
    @Mulegino1

    I can understand the concerns of those who feel that those of us who believe that no airliners struck the buildings are muddying the waters

    Well, since the discussion-thread of my own article seems to have been largely hijacked by 9/11 people, I suppose I might as well ask a question…

    Since you apparently believe all the planes were imaginary, are you also one of those Truther nuts who claims that the WTC building must have been demolished by nuclear weapons since no conventional explosives could have possibly produced the actual results?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Erebus
  219. Avery says:
    @Erebus

    {Umm, had you done even the most cursory homework,…}

    Ummm, my most cursory homework is reviewing a photograph of one of the twin towers taken from inside:

    http://www.nyctourist.com/wtc_new1.htm

    (scroll down to pic from inside the tower).

    Take a look at the photograph, with guy in blue jeans, and try to convince me that the ratio of glass panel width to column width is anywhere near (1.35 to 1 (19″/14″)), and not at least 2-to-1.

    Unless you are alleging the photograph is fake or has been altered.
    Over to you.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  220. Fred Reed says:

    Perhaps I am being unduly difficult, in which case I apologize in advance, but I come from a newspaper background and worry about sources and so on. I would be happier if primary sources were given for the many FAA installations (How many? Which ones?) that tracked a missile on radar, or for the residues of missile exhaust. Very few labs would know anything about propellants and, since their findings are known, they must have made them public. A link directly to these labs would help. There is an awful lot of it is rumored that and allegedly and countless people said.

    I presume the warships said to be in the area have been identified and at least one demonstrated to be carrying surface-to-air missiles. This is the sort of thing desk editors ask. No, the Navy does not test fire anti-aircraft missile of heavily trafficked civilian airports. That part is silly, no matter how much rumored, alleged, reported, or many said.

    The most likely ship given the absence of information is one of the CG-47 class, the Arleigh Burkes I think not yet operational then, though I may be wrong. The Ticos carried as we all know the SPY-1 phased-array S-band radar, very high tech for the times, and the Standard series missiles either on the original chain-drive or VLS,. These missiles certainly could have dropped an airliner., and did in the Gulf.

    However, I would appreciate hearing from a technically-oriented commenter who has spent time in the CIC as a reporter to explain just how a missile might be fired accidentally. These commenters–there surely are at least several–would know that missiles are not carried armed and cannot be accidentally armed. There are various modes for firing, but all take preparation involving many sailors. Those commenters familiar with the ships will see then that the missile, if fired at all, had to have been fired on purpose.

    There seems to be here the tendency to regard the military as a Unitary Blob of Evil, a sort of metaphysical dark force, tightly united by a code of omerta. Some 250 sailors, not CIA agents or Thirty-Fourth degree Masons, accidentally kill several hundred people and never say a word about it. Alternatively, ordered to kill these unknown people, they simply do it, and not a squeak later. This view does not suggest profound familiarity with GIs.

    But maybe it happened, and I am among the witless sheep. Many readers have suggested as much over the years.

  221. Erebus says:
    @Mulegino1

    For example, the Hezawarkani (spelling?) video shows the airliner being literally swallowed up by the South Tower.

    FWIW, when I run an animation in a 3D CAD program like Solidworks, and I allow the parts to move without placing collision detection restrictions on them, I get exactly, and I mean exactly, the sort of effect one sees in that video. One “solid” entity sliding effortlessly through another “solid” entity. The exact same effect would have resulted in Solidworks 2001, though the graphics would look more primitive. 3D CAD is not CGI, which is vastly more sophisticated. Or rather, it should be, if the perps weren’t doing it on the cheap.
    If I were doing it, I’d have had Peter Jackson’s CGI crew on standby and made a glorious crash & burn out of it. We’d all be true believers then! As it is, we’ve got a Grade 9 tech school animation full of physical errors. Good enough for government work, as we say, but if I presented that sort of shit to one of my clients, well, I’d have one less client. YMMV.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  222. Erebus says:
    @Avery

    Over to you.

    I’m working from the dimensioned architectural drawings, not photographs.

    • Replies: @Avery
  223. Ron Unz says:
    @Fred Reed

    I would be happier if primary sources were given…

    Well, since I was only very vaguely familiar with the TWA 800 case, I sat down and read five books on the subject before writing this column, including the two “official” ones. I also watched the two documentaries. Naturally, I couldn’t fully summarize those thousand-plus pages of material in merely a 2800 word column.

    I’ll admit I’m entirely at the mercy of my sources since I did no original research, but the case for a missile seemed absolutely, massively overwhelming. And the likelihood that the missile came from one of the US Navy vessels exercising in the vicinity and allegedly firing missiles, seemed almost as persuasive.

    If you want to judge for yourself, you might want to read the most recent book, by a well-regarded investigative journalist of decades standing, which runs about 250 pages of text and is also available in Kindle and Audio formats. I already linked the Amazon page for the book in the body of my piece, but here it is again:

    https://www.amazon.com/TWA-800-Crash-Cover-Up-Conspiracy/dp/1621574717/

    The 114 Amazon reviews are overwhelmingly favorable, and the book includes glowing blurbs from a former Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and a former NTSB Board Member who focused on TWA 800.

  224. @Erebus

    In order to renew their pilots license (not sure how often renewal is required) all commercial airline pilots are required to taxi a plane to tale off position, activate the flight controller, and allow the controller to accelerate and fly the plane off the runway to any designated airport, and allow the controller to land the plane on the runway, with the pilot never touching the controls. Flight controllers will fly any plane to any location within its range and within inches of any designated target programmed into the flight controller. To avoid further imposing on the patience of Mr. Unz, I will not respond to further post made by uninformed individuals, on this particular subject.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @JMcG
  225. @Mr. Anon

    “That’s rich, coming from you. You have no standards at all.”

    Yes, the mendacious, stupid troll Revusky attempts to steer the subject away from TWA-Flight 800 to idiotic tripe about 911.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  226. Mulegino1 says:
    @Erebus

    That’s quite interesting and informative. Although I am admittedly an ignoramus when it comes to matters involving CGI, the amateurishness of the 9/11 videos is obvious even to the lay observer.

    What exactly does it take to penetrate 1/4″ of structural steel? A hollow aluminum bullet – even one filled with kerosene – will not do so. Neither will a hollow point lead bullet. An armor piercing round will – for example, a 7.62 x 54r, which contains a hardened alloy tip, an alloy jacket, and a solid steel core. Ballistics is ballistics.

    Commercial airliners can be damaged by colliding with birds in flight at cruising speed, and totally destroyed by hurricane level winds. I would invite all those who doubt the relative fragility of commercial airliners to peruse video and photographs of the Donetsk airport. The commercial airliners there were torn apart by small arms fire. One can hardly imagine one of them surviving an impact with a massive steel and concrete skyscraper.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Mulegino1
  227. utu says:
    @Mulegino1

    “Most of the other “amateur” videos show the “airliner” striking the Tower yet maintaining uniform velocity.”

    Did you measure this velocity from frame to frame? How many frames you had to work with?
    3- 7 frames and form this you can establish uniformity or its lack?

    What is accuracy of time stamp of each frame?

    With respect to which visible marker did you measure the timing between the frames? Was it a tail? And do you understand how image compression between frame may slightly change the position of the marker?

    How did you account for perspective effect that the marker did not move in the plane parallel to the plane of camera focal plane?

    Besides time you have to measure distance to determine velocity. v=s/t. What were your errors ∆s and ∆t? And how accurate is your deceleration (nonuniformity) ds/dt?

    I think you know nothing. You just repeat what you read somewhere and to what you haven’t given a millisecond of thought. Thinking might not be one of your habits.

  228. Avery says:
    @Erebus

    {I’m working from the dimensioned architectural drawings,…}

    So you say.

    I don’t know who you are; you don’t know who I am.
    I have no idea what architectural drawings you have access to, and which particular glass panels measure 19″.

    What I, an ordinary John Doe, has access to is a publicly available photograph taken from inside one of the towers.
    In that publicly available photograph, I can see a glass panel that is at least 2X of the steel column to the left of it. I can also enlarge the pic and measure the ratio on my computer screen. It is 2.plus-to-1.

    Again, are you alleging the photograph is fake or altered?
    If not, then try to explain how is the glass panel 2X the width of the steel column to the left of it.

    (the rightmost glass panel is the one that is about 90-degrees to the camera that took the picture)

    • Replies: @Erebus
  229. Mulegino1 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Do you have a better explanation than small (or micro) nuclear weapons?

    Can nano-thermite cause an electromagnetic pulse, which caused the metallic components of automobiles in the vicinity (not hit by any debris or close to any fires) to burst into flames while their non-metallic components were left virtually unscathed?

    Would either a gravity collapse or nano-thermite generate the longest burning structural fires in history – underground and self-fueled?

    What caused the extremely high temperatures – which melted the bedrock and turned the steel and concrete into the famous “meteorites”? Would that be either nano-thermite or gravity collapse?

    What else could have caused most of the Twin Towers steel and concrete components to undergo molecular dissociation?

    Does either gravity collapse or nano-thermite explain the extremely high incidence of uncommon diseases among the first responders and cleanup workers which are consistent with exposure to radiation?

    Can either nano-thermite or a gravity collapse mimic to perfection the detonation of a small, tactical nuclear weapon, complete with mushroom cloud and fireball?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  230. utu says:
    @Mulegino1

    “A hollow aluminum bullet – even one filled with kerosene – will not do so. Neither will a hollow point lead bullet. ”

    How do you know?

    You can cut steel with water jet.

    With right mass and speed you can. Besides this is not about penetrating but about breaking and bending steel bars.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @anonymous
  231. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, since the discussion-thread of my own article seems to have been largely hijacked by 9/11 people, I suppose I might as well ask a question…

    Indeed. I expressed some sheepishness about contributing to said hijacking upthread. My sheepishness continues.

    Of course, the real issues aren’t the minutiae of real vs “imaginary” planes, etc, the real issue is that our socio-political narrative, the reality most people live in is shaped not by the physical facts, but by people we don’t know, with agendas we are only vaguely aware of. To the extent your American Pravda articles illuminate that dark corner, they do a great service.

    However, I suggest that the extent to which your comments evade, or worse ridicule the results of that illumination, a large part of that service is neutralized.
    E.G.:

    …are you also one of those Truther nuts who claims that the WTC building must have been demolished by nuclear weapons since no conventional explosives could have possibly produced the actual results?

    The reference to “Truther nuts” is totally unfair and counterproductive if the physical truth is to remain a desirable goal.
    I refer you to my post #192.
    15 yrs ago I did a quick napkin calculation that indicated the collapse system I was witnessing was orders of magnitude short of the energy needed to do what I watched being done. You, as a theoretical physicist, should be far ahead of me on something like these simple Newtonian calculations remembered from my undergraduate years. There is no need to be any sort of “expert”. This is the sort of calculation that almost every graduating student in my high school would have been able to do. To be sure, that was countless decades ago, but unless education standards have since fallen into a bottomless abyss, a graduate degree in Theoretical Physics suggests that one figured out, somewhere along the way, and at least in broad strokes, how the physical world functions.

    Now whether these were “nuclear” explosions, or of some other sort, the reduction of mature concrete to some 800kT of pyroclastic dust in less than 30 seconds cries for an accounting. If nuclear ain’t it, what do “sane” truthers hold as the mechanism of choice?

    I have no idea, frankly, but I’m pretty sure corrupt cement vendors aren’t part of the definitive equation.

  232. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    Please explain the Hezarkhani (finally got the spelling right) footage. The alleged commercial airliner slides effortlessly into the building, as if the building had simply swallowed it up. This cannot and does not happen in the real world. Had a real airliner impacted the South Tower, most of it would have been reduced to metallic confetti. The titanium engines may have perchance entered the building, but the wings would have sheered off and in all likelihood the jet fuel would have ignited on the perimeter, not on the opposite side of the building.

  233. @geokat62

    Why would the planners go to the extraordinary lengths they did to …..

    It is simply untrue to say that I did not answer that question. I did answer the question. I said: I don’t know.

    That is an answer. I simply do not know why they did things the way did them. How would I know?

    So I do not understand why you keep asking the same question (the same STUPID question) when I already answered it. It is very suggestive of bad faith.

    How many times have I asked you this question:

    What, in your opinion, is the strongest available evidence for the U.S. government account of what happened, i.e. that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by a religious fanatic located in Afghanistan?

    You can answer that there is no evidence, as far as you can tell, and that’s an answer. OR outline the evidence. But I answered your question and I said I don’t know. That is an answer.

    Please answer the question I pose above. I asked it at least half a dozen times, I’m sure. Probably more like a dozen times. Never got an answer.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  234. Erebus says:
    @Avery

    You can view the drawings here, amongst quite a few other places.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

    As for the photograph, I assume you’re referring to the one about a third of the way down the page with the fellow in the knapsack. If so, please note that that photo is taken on the observation deck, where the number of columns is reduced to half. An observant person would see that is so from the other tower visible through the windows, and in the graphic immediately below.

    • Replies: @Avery
  235. Avery says:
    @Fred Reed

    {There seems to be here the tendency to regard the military as a Unitary Blob of Evil,…}

    Operation Northwoods, thought up and planned by American Joint Chiefs (!) envisioned carrying out terrorist acts against American civilians (!) and military targets.

    Not a myth. Nor a conspiracy.
    Fact.
    Fortunately, Kennedy had enough sense to scotch it.
    A different POTUS might have approved deliberate killing of American civilians to achieve some “higher” (sic) political or “national security” (sic) objective.

    If highest ranking American military officers can so nonchalantly plan murdering random American civilians,…….what else are they capable of?

  236. Erebus says:
    @Carroll Price

    I will not respond to further post made by uninformed individuals, on this particular subject.

    Be that as it may, you haven’t yet responded to either of my points, but have responded to something you imagined I said. Or maybe you have me confused with somebody else. Hard to tell.

    Be seeing you.

  237. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Fred Reed

    “No, the Navy does not test fire anti-aircraft missile of heavily trafficked civilian airports. That part is silly, no matter how much rumored, alleged, reported, or many said.”

    That sounds like a personal opinion, and of course, no primary source (and I am afraid the Navy as a source will not do as they are implicated). Furthermore, who defines “[off]of heavily trafficked civilian airports”? – how many miles? How much traffic? If such rules exist, have they ever been waived or violated in the past?

    “Missiles are not carried armed and cannot accidentally be armed”

    That sounds like a personal opinion, and of course, no primary source (and I am afraid the Navy as a source will not do as they are implicated). Furthermore, almost anything can accidentally happen, and again, if such rules exist, have they ever been waived or violated in the past?

    “Never say a word about it”

    Well the word got to me and I am a nobody. But of course you will deem as not credible any evidence contrary to your opinion.

    “maybe I am among the witless sheep”

    You are not witless. That makes you worse, in my opinion. You know a few facts, but for some reason, you are not objective, and that makes your opinion very suspect.

  238. Bel Riose says:
    @Fred Reed

    Hello Fred,

    The missile theory — at least the one I subscribe to — holds that (i) the missile was fired at a drone; (ii) the drone was inadvertenly flown too close to TWA 800, (iii) the drone collided with TWA 800, after which the missile — which was tracking the drone — struck the aircraft.

    See my earlier post re: the inadvertent FBI fax to Dede Muma for some corroboration of this theory.

    If this theory is correct, it might explain why no enlisted sailor has come forth to cry “cover up.” Their ship fired a missile at a test drone; according to their radar displays, the missile hit the target; the test was apparently successful. Later they learn that TWA exploded in midair that same night. A few sailors might wonder…but the government quickly states that the Navy had nothing to do with it, and the sailors have no proof to the contrary.

    Alternately, they might have watched in horror as the missile tracked a drone which was clearly off course and flying in commmercial airspace.

    Just some thoughts. I’d welcome polite criticism of this theory.

  239. @Mulegino1

    You made a very basic tactical mistake here, answering Unz. You had to first establish that he would answer your follow-up question prior to answering any question of his.

    Said follow-up question should probably be more or less:

    Mr. Unz, are you one of the gullible fools who believe that the planes in question, 100 ton aluminum tubes, can crash into 500,000 ton buildings, of which 100,000 tones is structural steel, and cause the entire structure to disintegrate?

    Unless he is willing to answer that question, you should not answer any question of his.

    This is not about Unz specifically. It’s just basic debating tactics. You cannot accept a situation where you always have to answer questions and your interlocutor never has to answer any questions. You can’t accept that any more than a tennis match in which your opponent always gets to serve.

    Also, you should make a point of asking him:

    Mr. Unz, you seem to be convinced that planes actually did hit buildings on 9/11. What, for you, is the strongest available evidence for this?

    But again, there has to be clarity that he will answer your questions for you to answer his.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Sam Shama
  240. Bel Riose says:
    @Fred Reed

    Hello Fred,

    Here’s the newspaper article I mentioned in my recent post:
    ____

    The Southampton Press [1] reports that on May 13th, Long Island resident Dede Muma accidently received a fax from Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical [2] that was intended for the FBI’s office in Calverton, Long Island. The fax indicates that parts of a U.S. Navy missile target drone, a BQM-34 Firebee I [3], may have been found in the wreckage of TWA 800.

    The reason that Muma accidently received the fax, which she passed on to the Southampton Press, was probably because her fax number is 369-4310, while the FBI’s number is 369-4301. About the fax, the Southampton Press states:

    Official documents faxed mistakenly to a Riverhead resident…show that the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation…was investigating whether pieces of debris
    found among the wreckage of TWA Fight 800 were the remnants of an aerial
    target drone used by the U.S. Navy…

    The fax shows a diagram of what appears to be a missile, along with a breakdown of its tail section and a parts list…

    The object shown in the fax was identified this week by Jane’s Information Services in Alexandria, Virginia as a Teledyne Ryan BQM-34 Firebee I, an air or surface – launched recoverable aerial target.

    The targets are used all over the world, including within the military “warningareas” that come as close as about 10 nautical miles off Moriches Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy practices shooting down drones within the warning areas.

    Ms. Muma said she called the FBI when she received the [Firebee] fax… Ms.
    Muma was told to “send it along to them,[the FBI] and destroy the original.” Shesaid she asked what would happen if she didn’t do so, and was told “we’ll have to investigate you.”

    The source of the fax, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical of San Diego, CA, manufactures Firebee drones for the Navy. The “Firebee fax” Muma received was sent from Erich Hittinger of Teledyne to FBI agent Ken Maxwell, who was to pass it on to a Teledyne Ryan representative at the FBI’s Long Island office, Walt Hamilton.

    Hittinger of Teledyne Ryan told the Southampton Press that the FBI contacted them to ask if orange pieces of debris found at the TWA 800 crash site were from one of their Firebee drones, which are also orange [3]. Hamilton was then flown from San Diego to the FBI’s Long Island facility to examine the suspected Firebee debris. According to Hittinger, Hamilton concluded that the orange metal “wasn’t from our Firebee.”
    ____

    Not from “our” Firebee, says Hamilton.

    But apparently, the wreckage came from *someone’s* Firebee.

    I’ve no idea who aside from Teledyne manufactures Firebees for the Navy, but I’d bet that the Navy contacted every such manufacturer after the crash to try and pin down who manufactured the defective Firebee which went off course and caused the TWA 800 disaster. The Navy also most likely issued an Order grounding ALL Firebees made by the company in question, at least until the Navy could determine what went wrong with the Firebee which went off-course.

    If a Firebee drone wasn’t involved with the crash of TWA 800, how does the fax noted above make sense?

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  241. Mulegino1 says:
    @utu

    Yes, you can cut steel with a water jet – provided you also use diamonds (hardest physical substance known) in the water jet. And you forget to bend and break steel bars, you have to shred and destroy aluminum shafts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  242. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Good stuff. Mulegino1 could not be more wrong. Probably, he will now conclude that only heavy water (nukes!) can cut steel.

  243. bluedog says:
    @nsa

    Or the murder of JFK which Nixon said (caught on tape) as being the greatest hoax ever played on the American people.!!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  244. Mulegino1 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Good point! What I don’t quite understand is Unz’s inability to conflate TWA 800 with 9/11, when the two incidents form a perfect continuum of government deceptiveness and lies. If the government got away with concealing the truth about TWA 800, why should it have acted any different with respect to 9/11, except to lie more boldly and shamelessly?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  245. @Mulegino1

    From PBS we learn ( written before 9/11 and not yet memory-holes)

    “At the World Trade Center, a super-strong lattice of exterior steel columns, placed less than two feet apart and locked tightly together at every floor, would transform each tower into a giant “tube.” The remarkably stiff outer structure could readily resist the force of 150-mile-per-hour winds — far higher than any ever recorded in the region. For almost the first time in the century-long history of skyscrapers, the exterior wall was returned to structural duty.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/newyork-engineering/

    Oddly enough, despite being demonstrated to be preternaturally fragile and liable to collapse, no engineering fatwa has been issued against this building practice.

    Funny dat.

  246. Ron Unz says:

    Ha, ha, ha… So the planes on 9/11 were imaginary AND the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by nuclear weapons!

    Looks like my small webzine has become the hangout for all the “conspiracy nuts” who’ve gotten themselves banned from every other “conspiracy website” on the Internet…

  247. Bel Riose says:
    @Bel Riose

    Forgot to add this to my original comment:

    If someone could confirm whether the Navy immediately grounded any or all Firebees after the TWA 800 crash (and get a copy of any order directing such grounding), that — along with

    1. the Dede Muma fax;
    2. the radar recordings showing a missile;
    3. eyewitness testimony of a missile rising from the sea and striking TWA 800; and
    4. eyewitness testimony of a”small plane” (i.e., the Firebee drone, which looks identical to a small plane) seen flying near TWA 800 just before the explosion –

    – would be pretty compelling evidence that an errant drone + a missile brought down the airliner.

  248. utu says:
    @Fred Reed

    “There seems to be here the tendency to regard the military as a Unitary Blob of Evil, a sort of metaphysical dark force, tightly united by a code of omerta. Some 250 sailors, not CIA agents or Thirty-Fourth degree Masons, accidentally kill several hundred people and never say a word about it. Alternatively, ordered to kill these unknown people, they simply do it, and not a squeak later. This view does not suggest profound familiarity with GIs.”

    Inability to count on the silence of participants seems to be your strongest argument, right?

    Did you hear about P.O. Box 1142? It was kind of Camp Gitmo during WWII in what is now called Fort Hunt Park. The interrogators started to talk after over 60 years of silence after receiving the permission to talk from the DoD. They were just regular guys. Mostly Jewish who spoke German.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93635950

  249. Avery says:
    @Erebus

    Where in the link you provided does it say…..{glass panels were 19″ (43cm) wide, and the columns were 14″ (35.5cm) }
    Maybe you can pointedit out to me.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

    {where the number of columns is reduced to half.}
    Source?

    And measuring the apparent width of the reddish steel columns vs the open space between them, I get ~2X opening to steel column width.

    And…from your link:
    {The left and middle figures show sections of a column near a tower’s tops, where the steel was thinnest. The rightmost figure shows section of a column in the lower part of a tower, where the steel was much thicker.}

  250. @Rurik

    Yea, JR, that was a bit of hyperbole. But I am often shocked by your extreme (IMO) views at times, I confess.

    Okay, fine, but look at it this way. Consider the last article I wrote on this site, entitled “The Show Must Go On”. I went over this absurd synthetic narrative of Pastor Terry Jones and his Koran burning, right?

    [MORE]

    The guy keeps saying he’s gonna burn a Koran. (OMG, OMG…) And then he finally burns a Koran or a few Korans, and the next thing you know, they’re rioting somewhere in Afghanistan. They are just so incredibly pissed off that this jerk is burning Korans in Florida.

    I said: think about it…

    I don’t know why the riot occurred in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. It occurred for some reason, but it damned well wasn’t because this old fool was burning Korans in Gainesville, Florida. We agree on this. I hope we do.

    So I’m saying to people: Look at some of this stuff you’re being told and how ridiculous it is and get a f***ing clue, why don’t you?

    Simple message, right?

    And not long after I wrote that article, somebody allegedly walked into a gay bar in Orlando, Florida and killed 50 gays there, right? What? ISIS? Islamic State… the idea is that there is some political organization or political movement in the Middle East, Syria or Iraq I guess, that wants to kill random queers in a bar in Orlando, Florida.

    Think about it…. So again, I’ll say, like, guys, get a f***ing clue. Right?

    But now I’m getting all this stuff that I am the person who believes extreme, ridiculous things! Okay, fine, I’m an opinionated S.O.B. (and let’s be honest, so are you) so I have opinions on things, and some of my opinions might be wrong. (Actually, some are certainly wrong, but I don’t know for sure which ones…)

    BUT… here’s a point to consider:

    Have I ever said anything so utterly crazy and idiotic as the notion that some riot occurred in Afghanistan because some idiot burned Korans in Florida?

    If you take the most crazy thing that you think I said, it is not anywhere in that league! Also, I think that if you take the most crazy things you think I said, you would probably discover that, on further analysis, I didn’t really say those things anyway. For example, I never said that all the crimes perpetrated by blacks didn’t happen and are frame-ups. I never said anything like that.

    That would be a crazy thing to say. BUT even that, IMO, isn’t quite as crazy as thinking that Terry Jones caused a riot in Afghanistan by burning a Koran in Florida. (Like, how would the people in Afghanistan even know that he burnt a Koran in Florida?)

    But seriously, there are people who believe stuff like this. So, all this stuff going around that I’m so crazy, it’s just very hard to get my head around it all.

    But we both do agree on the Arab patsies on 911 and 7/7, (and Boston bombing and other bullshit, and of course even the crazed white racist who shows his ‘white power’ mettle by shooting little old church ladies)

    Uhh, okay, so you agree that all this is bullshit, right? The crazed white boy in Charleston is bullshit too, for sure. So let’s get this straight. You agree with me on most of the things that would cause all the HIQIs out there to say that I am crazy!

    All these people who want to scream that I am crazy, they would point to these things. “Oh, Revusky doesn’t believe that crazy white boy Dylann Roof shot the church ladies. He’s obviously nuts!” Well, I don’t believe it, but you don’t either, so you’re just as nuts, Rurik!

    So WTF are we talking about here?

    And also to respond to an earlier post, yes, we both agree that it wasn’t Arab terrorists in the pilot seats. So that is the main point. The other stuff ends up being a distraction IMHO.

    Well, I think one point is that whatever scenarios you bandy about regarding 9/11, none of them are going to be as utterly crackpot as the official U.S. government story anyway. So saying that I have doubts about the planes or whatever you think is nutty, fine, but none of it is as nutty as the official story. Oh, have you seen this meme?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  251. @Ron Unz

    So the planes on 9/11 were imaginary

    Out of curiosity, what is the strongest proof, in your opinion, that planes did hit buildings on 9/11?

  252. Eagle Eye says:
    @Carroll Price

    QUOTE – Parenthetically, one thing that none of the airliners were equipped with on 9/11 was cell phone technology permitting passengers to contact relatives while in flight. That particular fabrication reeks of classic Black Ops, as do several other terrorist events to occur before and since.

    PRECISELY – that is also why the FBI staged a huge charade of playing calls to relatives collectively rather than releasing the alleged recordings to individual relatives. Even in 2016, it is usually NOT POSSIBLE to establish a cell phone connection while in flight due to radio wave propagation characteristics and the highly customized way that cell phones interact with phone towers.

  253. @Mulegino1

    Good point!

    Well, you’re welcome. I hope you do understand my point. We’ve got to stop making the most basic debating mistakes.

    Note also that Ron did not address me, because I wouldn’t have let him get away with the trick he got away with. And I guess he knows that I wouldn’t…

    [MORE]

    What I don’t quite understand is Unz’s inability to conflate TWA 800 with 9/11

    Well, I was the first person to bring up any 9/11 Truth issue in this discussion. That was my comment #10. However, I am completely certain that if I had refrained from writing anything on this page, that the 9/11 topic would have come up anyway. I mean, I look at the reconstruction of the plane, the photo at the top of the article, and I immediately think of 9/11 and wonder where the plane parts are. I can’t be the only person who thought this. All of this is such an elephant in the room…

    I mean here, you see them meticulously putting together all the plane parts they could salvage and there is just nothing like that for 9/11. When do they ever show you any plane parts? It’s just too obvious a connecting of the dots. If I hadn’t brought it up, somebody else would have. And it beggars belief that Ron Unz did not anticipate it coming up! “Oy vey, the discussion under my article is getting hijacked.” Uhh, yeah, the lady doth protest too much….

    If the government got away with concealing the truth about TWA 800, why should it have acted any different with respect to 9/11, except to lie more boldly and shamelessly?

    Well, again, the relationship between the two deep events is clear. Once it is clear that you can get away with the most blatant lies, then obviously, you would leverage that. If I could go to the bank and deposit Monopoly money and get my bank account credited as it being real money, if I got away with it once, I would be emboldened to keep doing it…

    But anyway, the logical relationship between the two things is pretty clear. If 278 people basically saw a missile getting fired and you can claim it never happened, and you get away with it, then….

  254. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Looks like my small webzine has become the hangout for all the “conspiracy nuts” who’ve gotten themselves banned from every other “conspiracy website” on the Internet…

    Aren’t the “nuts” Cass Sunstein’s agents of cognitive infiltration, working at taxpayer expense to make nonsense of any discussion of what happened on 9/11?

    In any case, whoever they are, they show up almost anywhere that 9/11 is mentioned, so don’t feel badly that they clutter the space here.

    But you do have only yourself to blame for Fred’s drivel on sundry matters from evolution to 9/11 presented with all of the authority of an Unz Review contributor.

    The stuff about mini-nukes and beam weapons emanated initially, I think, from a Judy Woods, Ph.D., who received endorsement from Morgan Reynolds, a former Bush Admin Assistant Deputy Secretary for something of not much importance.

    I see that Dr. Woods has published in what is called The Journal of 9/11 Research, which is hosted on her personal website and, one suspects, is designed to be confused with Professor Stephen Jones’ Journal of 9/11 Studies, which contains serious technical articles about 9/11 by qualified people who seem to be quite sane.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Ron Unz
  255. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Your chances of publishing another gem here just went up significantly. I’m not joking, I really do think so; Ron’s been on the search for a source of lasting amusement.

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Carroll Price
  256. Johann says:
    @edNels

    So we all now know that we live in the kingdom of lies ruled by dregs of humanity. More apparent all the time that Hilary Clinton will be elected empress of the evil empire.

  257. Mulegino1 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Still waiting for a better explanation than small or micro nuclear weapons. (Neither gravity collapse or nano-thermite will do.)

    “Conspiracy nuts” is the last ad hominem refuge of someone who has no facts, and can provide no plausible counter narrative.

  258. Sam Shama says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Fred’s drivel on sundry matters from evolution to 9/11 presented with all of the authority of an Unz Review contributor.

    Fred has real talent; sharp insights, a life full of diverse experiences he can draw from, and, to top it all he is a delightful prose stylist. He is also quite funny.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  259. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Out of curiosity, what is the strongest proof, in your opinion, that planes did hit buildings on 9/11?”

    You do not take into account that there is the dominant paradigm and thus there is no equal rights for theories. Opponents of Galileo did not have to prove that Ptolemy was correct but it was Galileo who had to prove that Ptolemy was not correct. People were happy with Ptolemy. Only few trouble makers were contesting it. Not necessary because they were great lovers of Truth but chiefly because they had great egos. Galileo’s ego was taller than the tower in Pisa. Once the paradigm shifts which I doubt will happen anytime soon you will have a right to ask Ron Unz to show his evidence. But now from the point of dominant paradigm you are just a contestant, an upstart and you know it and perhaps this makes you so cocky and quarrelsome. Just like Galileo. You may happen to be right. But the dominant paradigm does not care. You are old enough to know that the world is not fair.

    • Agree: geokat62
  260. @bluedog

    Or the murder of JFK which Nixon said (caught on tape) as being the greatest hoax ever played on the American people.!!

    I infer that you mean that the subsequent coverup was the greatest hoax, not the murder itself.

  261. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama

    Haha Yes, Troll: Jonathan Revusky.

  262. 5371 says:
    @Rurik

    [I read that book long ago and it has always stuck with me, the deep and powerful humanity of Hugo]

    Yes, wrong, nuts and infuriating, but a great genius. And he had balls the size of Mars.

  263. @geokat62

    In most murder trials, isn’t the testimony of just one eye-witness, who is deemed credible, sufficient to convict the accused?

    Well, I’m no lawyer, but the key issue is that word “credible”, isn’t it? In an actual trial, there are things like cross-examination. I myself strongly suspect that, under cross-examination, this small number of people who say they saw a plane crash into a building would probably end up admitting that they really saw it on the TV like the rest of us.

    But, also, in a trial, there is the issue that it’s under oath and there’s the penalty of perjury. Here, we have a situation where anybody can say anything, it seems.

    The fact remains that if it really were hundreds or thousands of people who saw the exact same thing, their testimony coinciding, that would be one thing, but if it’s five people or some number you can count on your fingeres..

    And for all of it, the fact remains that, out of all the millions of people in NYC, there are definitely more than a few people who would say anything for a few bucks. In particular, if there is not even any penalty for perjury or any of that…

    The eyewitness testimony that planes really flew into buildings looks pretty weak. Maybe it would become stronger if there was a real investigation and it was with teeth, so people were testifying under penalty of perjury and so forth. But, as things stand, there’s really no “there” there, it seems.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  264. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I’ll admit I’d been assuming that all the 9/11 nuts would leave this thread and migrate over to Linh Dinh’s article, which, after all, is actually about 9/11. But no such luck.

    I hate “censoring” people, but I also hate having the discussion of my own article totally clogged up with all sorts of nuts claiming that the 9/11 planes were imaginary and the WTC was destroyed by nuclear weapons. There’s a regular commenter on this website who (seriously!) believes that the earth is flat, but at least he doesn’t clog up all the discussions with his implausible ideas.

    Maybe I’ll need to start using harsh measures. For example, anyone who posts a 9/11 comment on an article not dealing with 9/11, should take into account the very real possibility that it will be trashed rather than published. Maybe it will be published but maybe not. Once a few “excited” people have seen their long and very detailed 9/11 comments summarily trashed, perhaps they’ll learn to behave themselves or go hang out at some other website.

    I really don’t want to start doing this, but I do think it’s necessary…

  265. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Once a few “excited” people have seen their long and very detailed 9/11 comments summarily trashed, perhaps they’ll learn to behave themselves or go hang out at some other website.greed.

    Good idea. But don’t trash my comments! Well actually you can. A person is perhaps almost as well defined by what they want to trash as by what they wish to assert. That I think explains my outrage at Fred’s piece on evolution, I found it too long either to be funny or to correct, notwithstanding that, having read Darwin in my teens more than fifty years ago, and reflected on his ideas during the interim, I think I could have put Fred straight.

    But as Sam Shama notes, Fred does have an exceptional gift for a humorously unexpected turn of phrase. I usually enjoy his stuff.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  266. @Ron Unz

    I hate “censoring” people, but I also hate having the discussion of my own article totally clogged up with all sorts of nuts claiming that the 9/11 planes were imaginary and the WTC was destroyed by nuclear weapons.

    Well, the problem with what you’re saying is that, if you are upset about people propagating ludicrous theories about what happened on 9/11, shouldn’t you also ban the “conspiracy nuts” who believe in (or profess to believe in) the official government conspiracy theory?

    After all, the most ludicrous account of all is the official story, no? You have 100 ton jets fly into 500,000 ton buildings and causing them to disintegrate. You have Arab hijackers who don’t even know how to fly a single engine Cessna managing to pull off incredible flight maneuvers that very experienced pilots say they could never do. And they do this the first (and last) time they ever fly the plane! And it all happens by pure coincidence on the same day that they’re running all these drills… And on and on…

    You have regular commentators on your site who profess to believe this official story and that is A-OK apparently. No matter how outlandish any alternative theory is, it is less outlandish than the official story!

    So it really seems to me that if you want to get serious about clamping down on people (including me, maybe) who propagate absurd narratives about what happened on 9/11, on strict logical grounds, you really should start with all the people who are propagating the absurd official story!

  267. @Sam Shama

    I’d wager next month”s SS check that Revusky wouldn’t think Israel had anything to do with 9/11 or that the holocaust is a transparent fraud. As to Flight 800 it was an obvious cover-up from day one, regardless of who actually shot it down.

  268. @Sam Shama

    It takes one to know one.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  269. Svigor says:

    I’d be much more interested in a fresh piece on MH17, given the news today that a Dutch investigation has pointed the finger squarely at Russia.

  270. @Jonathan Revusky

    Revusky, I’ve about decided that you’re confusing details of 9/11 with the fake moon landings which were indeed “witnessed” by gullible viewers inclusively via grainy, black & white images projected on TV screens in living rooms and other places. With the images people saw having been filmed by TV cameras trained on movie screens located in Area 51, or NASA labs at Langley Air Base, Virginia. In other words they saw a copy of a copy, sorta like when you take a picture of a picture of a picture.

  271. Svigor says:

    Anyone who believes that a large group of people cannot maintain a conspiracy over a long period of time should examine the Ultra program from WWII and after. That secret was maintained for over 35 years.

    Or, say, the Katyn massacre, in which the Russian commies murdered thousands of Poland’s elite, and refused for 40 years to acknowledge their guilt.

  272. Svigor says:

    I think it’s telling that the Konspiracy Kook Troll Army always blames America for everything. There’s very little Konspiracy Kookery pointing toward Russia, relatively speaking, despite the fact that Russia should be a Konspiracy Kook’s wet dream.

    Much, if not most, of the Konspiracy Kookery is probably just Russia’s answer to the “American” mainstream media. Aided and abetted by the assorted hordes of America-haters and West-haters.

    Which is pretty sad, when you think about it.

    There’s a lot of good criticism of America to be made, but the Konspiracy Kook Klan routinely takes a shit right in the middle of it.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Darin
  273. @Mulegino1

    Ummm…you don’t need diamonds in a waterjet cutter. Hehe…how expensive would that be? :)

    I’ve seen a waterjet cut right through 2″ of steel plate with no problem.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Carroll Price
  274. geokat62 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It is simply untrue to say that I did not answer that question. I did answer the question. I said: I don’t know.

    That is an answer. I simply do not know why they did things the way did them. How would I know?

    As you well know, after responding “I don’t know,” I rephrased the question by asking you “how likely is it…,” to which you failed to provide a response. So, speaking of bad faith, why don’t you tell us:

    How likely is it that the planners go to the extraordinary lengths they did to create the illusion (by using the top down approach and placing explosives just below predetermined impact zones) that airplanes brought down the TT but to then simply say “boy that was hard work, let’s just save some time/effort and wire bldg 7 in the classic bottom-up CD style,” undoing all their efforts to conceal their nefarious plans. It simply makes no sense.

    It’s as if the Japanese would use airplanes with Soviet markings while attacking 2 ships moored at Pearl Harbor to create the illusion that the Soviets were responsible for the attacks, and then for some strange reason attack the third ship using an airplane with Japanese markings. Makes zero sense. Bottom line: if you’re clever enough to create illusions to cover your tracks, how likely is it that you would cover only two of your tracks, but not all three?

    Please answer the question I pose above. I asked it at least half a dozen times, I’m sure. Probably more like a dozen times. Never got an answer.

    L.K. recently put the same question to me. Here was my response:

    Maybe it wasn’t OBL & AQ who did it. Maybe it was the Mossad that orchestrated it all… and the 19 hijackers were merely patsies. I really don’t know. Neither do any of you. As I’ve repeatedly stated, if the TC is truly genuine about having an independent investigation opened, you don’t do it on the basis of speculation that the targets were all brought down by CD or missiles, you do it on the basis of the following hard evidence:

    1. the Israelis were shadowing the hijackers prior to the event;
    2. Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad front that supplied the vans in which Mossad agents were apprehended with maps of targets that suggested they were tied into the attacks;
    3. Carl Cameron’s 4-part special investigation that demonstrated the Israelis had tie-ins; and
    4. eyewitness testimony of a woman who spotted the dancing Israelis celebrating just after the first TT was hit but before the second one was hit… suggesting they knew the event was a terrorist attack, while everyone else thought it was an accident.

    Why not call for an independent investigation on the basis of these facts, rather than giving them the opportunity to dismiss it, as most Americans are not persuaded by the CD allegations and never will be. Once the investigation is opened, however, the investigators can then follow the evidence wherever it leads… explosions and all.

    So if the TC is truly interested in pursuing the truth, why not adopt the best path to discovering it?

  275. Chico says:
    @CK

    Ultra was an official secret which people with the highest security clearances were read into.

    I served on a U.S. Navy ship based in Norfolk of the type blamed for this. We never exercised in that area, nor did I ever hear of any live-firing exercise in that area. Most exercises were off the Va. capes.

    These ships have crews of more than 300, of differing levels of career commitment and motivation. The firing of a missile requires alerts for deck clearance. Even if a mistake, firing a missile produces a sound heard throughout the ship.

    It would be impossible to retroactively silence an entire crew about an incident like this. “Naive?” No, experienced.

  276. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anonymous Smith

    From Wikipedia (sorry, but I doubt that Wikipedia is suspect on such a pedestrian subject as water jet cutting):

    “A water jet cutter, also known as a water jet or waterjet, is an industrial tool capable of cutting a wide variety of materials using a very high-pressure jet of water, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance. The term abrasive jet refers specifically to the use of a mixture of water and abrasive to cut hard materials such as metal or granite, while the terms pure waterjet and water-only cutting refer to waterjet cutting without the use of added abrasives, often used for softer materials such as wood or rubber.”

    So, we see that an abrasive material (perhaps industrial diamonds?) must be used in the water jet to cut harder materials such as metal or granite.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  277. @David In TN

    Engaging in ernest dialogue with other people regarding what really transpired at the WTC on 9/11 is not idiotic tripe at all but is rather the duty of true patriots who seek justice and the rule of law in the United States of America. The official story is blatantly false and is littered with lies and fraud.

    You appear to validate the claim of Mr. Anon by demonstrating that you have few if any standards.

  278. @NoseytheDuke

    Sure, but this is not the venue for it.

  279. @Mulegino1

    I looked it up…I found a video that mentioned the waterjet cutter with an abrasive feed rate of xxx. So, yeah, they were definitely using some kind of material introduced into the stream to facilitate the cutting process. In the comments for the video someone asked what abrasive was being used but he never got an answer.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  280. @Ron Unz

    Your’s is a truly valuable webzine! I thank you. You have attracted some excellent contributors and commenters and deservedly so. There will always be those who degrade the comments but clearly 9/11 is THE topic of our age and until it is re-examined and sorted the decline of the USA will continue.

    TWA Flight 800 demonstrates how completely effective government coverups can be so it is logical that the article automatically extends to 9/11, that’s good. Flight 800 didn’t change America the way 9/11 has. Sorry.

    Sometimes the outlandish should be factored in, behold the Black Swan.

    Thanks again.

    • Agree: Rurik
  281. @Fred Reed

    Here is some background for you Mr. Reed. You must have forgot about the Aegis Systems Development Facility at Moorestown, New Jersey (near exit 4 of the Jersey Turnpike). This is the famous “Cruiser in a Cornfield”.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CEC/cec.html

    Note the simulated Aegis ship superstructure complete with phased array radar antennas.

    But it may have been a submarine launched missile, or a drone, or a shore launched missile. We don’t know, as with 9-11. We do know that the federal NTSB investigators have now stated that TWA 800 was downed by an explosion from outside the aircraft!

    Here is more from that link:

    [MORE]

    Los Angeles Times Sunday September 8, 1996
    Home Edition
    Part A, Page 10
    Type of Material: Wire

    SHINNECOCK, N.Y.–Weeks after the TWA Flight 800 explosion and
    hundreds of miles away, an American Airlines pilot claimed that he saw a missile pass by
    his jetliner in flight, federal investigators said Saturday.

    The National Transportation Safety Board said the pilot on an Aug. 29
    American Airlines flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Boston said he
    saw a missile pass his Boeing 757 over Wallops Island, Va. NASA has a
    program for unmanned research rockets there.

    NTSB spokesman Peter Goelz said: “We’re going to look into it. So far
    we have not been able to confirm anything.”

    Military spokesmen have said repeatedly that no exercises with live
    weapons were being conducted in the area of Flight 800.

    [end excerpt]
    *********************

    Just two days later,

    09/10/96

    NTSB Reviews Rocket Launch
    WALLOPS ISLAND, Va. (AP) — Federal officials
    are investigating the launch of a NASA rocket last
    month that hurtled past a Boeing 757, startling its
    pilot.
    The rocket missed the American Airlines jet by
    more than three miles, National Transportation
    Safety Board spokesman Peter Goelz said Monday in
    Washington.
    The 15-foot rocket, launched Aug. 29 from NASA’s
    Wallops Island Flight Center on Virginia’s Eastern
    Shore, carried classified research experiments for
    the Department of Defense.
    The pilot reported seeing a “missile,” and the
    NTSB was looking into the matter because of
    heightened concern about air safety in the wake of
    the explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island on
    July 17. One scenario being considered is the jumbo
    jet was downed by a missile.
    NASA spokesman Keith Koehler said he was
    confident the NTSB would conclude that NASA
    followed proper safety procedures and that the
    rocket posed no threat to the jet.
    The Wallops center, on a remote barrier island,
    has been launching rockets for decades into a zone
    of restricted air space that stretches over the
    Atlantic Ocean. Before each launching, Koehler
    said, NASA contacts the Federal Aviation
    Administration.
    The rocket in question had a routine flight and
    dropped into the water. Koehler said NASA radar
    detected no aircraft within the restricted zone.

    ——————————-

    Many have argued for years that the old Wallops facility is an horrible location for a missile launch and test flight center since commercial aircraft flood the area. But it provides jobs and contracts and remains open due to political pressure, so long as it still conducts tests. Our Navy still maintains a large WWII surface warfare test and development center in Indiana!

    http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Crane/

  282. 5371 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Not a fan of those who habitually spam 911 material on unrelated threads, but I think it’s much more urgently necessary to punish people who engage in unprovoked doxxxing of other commenters, which someone has done (not to me) on John Derbyshire’s latest thread.

  283. @nsa

    So, if that’s the case, why not test your hypothesis?

  284. @The Scalpel

    I usually toss in the name Thoreau just to get a measure of who I am conversing with lol.

    Good quote from a fine comment responding to another fine one on an excellent article.

    If you like Thoreau, you probably would enjoy Kropotkin and Tolstoy as well. They wrote some very interesting and valid stuff regarding the anarchy.

  285. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ll admit I’d been assuming that all the 9/11 nuts would leave this thread and migrate over to Linh Dinh’s article, which, after all, is actually about 9/11. But no such luck.

    Maybe the “nuts” did, and the sane ones stayed here because that’s where the action was.

    I love Linh’s human interest writing, but he’s adrift from his moorings with that 9/11 “article” (scare quotes intended), whereas the subject of TW800′s successful coverup is a natural segue to the greatest (semi-successful) coverup of them all. The former was almost certainly a cascading series of negligent errors, while the latter, both in its execution and in its coverup is the seminal event of the 21st century.
    An event, moreover, whose consequences are approaching their Either/Or moment with a sudden rapidity. There’s a distinct sense that Pax Americana is unraveling at an accelerating rate, and it is natural that people would wish to review “how we got here”. Many of them are learning of alternatives to the official 9/11 narrative for the first time, and are eager to discuss them. Or, as in my case, to revisit them after a decade’s hiatus.

    Be that as it may, I’m quite sure that if you did as careful a study of the best 9/11 literature as you did for this TW800 story and the other American Pravda series, you could write the article that would attract both the “Nutty” and the “Sane” clubs, though I’d like to think your findings would reverse the membership lists.

    I encourage you to do so.

  286. A lot of us have moved on with regard to 911. But some people are just now coming to grips with it and this will continue for some time. It can be very unsettling to people to realize they have been living in the Matrix all their lives.

    I still think it would be a good idea to write a book called:

    Aftermath — Visions of a Post Exceptional America.

    The book should deal with the issue of what happens when the world finally accepts the truth about 911. The chapters could be written by different authors each offering his or her take on how the world will change when the Truther paradigm becomes the official reality.

    People have a lot of anger and angst. They are looking at the end of the country they have known and loved all their lives. They need a place to question, to vent a little, to rant a little and to grieve.

  287. @Jonathan Revusky

    This may be simple-minded for you Planet Uranus folk, but “proof” that planes collided with the WTC bldgs might, simply, be that none of the people who had tickets on any of the planes ever showed up on earth again.

    Would that count? …Lady in Red

    PS: I do, also, think that, even to a layperson, it is obvious that the buildings were professionally imploded — somehow.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  288. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “Engaging in ernest dialogue with other people regarding what really transpired at the WTC on 9/11…………”

    “Ernest” is not the same thing as “right”, let alone “sensible” or “intelligent”. The strength of ones beliefs is no indicator of their accuracy.

    “You appear to validate the claim of Mr. Anon by demonstrating that you have few if any standards.”

    My comment was about Mr. Revusky, not about David in TN

  289. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    great meme JR

    I’m going to desist from posting on this thread vis-a-vis 9/11 out of deference to the editor

    this is his digs, and I want to respect that. I also feel it would be a tragedy of sorts to push Mr. Unz over the edge, so to speak, so that he begins trashing comments. Because I love the way he has created a ‘wild west’ site, I certainly don’t want him to regret that. (and it’s part of the place’s charm)

    >>><<<

    Having said that, and remaining on topic with the thread, the one thing that sticks in my craw is Fred's insistence that our military in general (or our Navy in particular) would not specifically target a commercial passenger jet, and yet that is indeed what it did to Iranian airliner flight 655 in the 80s. As Fred even alludes to above. So there are two possibilities:

    Fred thinks the navy's account of mistaking the airliner for a fighter jet is credible

    or

    Fred doesn't, but perhaps having been an honored guest on the Vincennes, he would consider it bad form to bring that up. (I agree)

    but since option number one seems a bit fantastic, (considering the navy's sophistication at the time and that ship's in particular) then the question becomes 'why doesn't Fred just leave it alone?

    Why make a point of saying our navy would never make a mistake like that, or certainly never deliberately target a passenger jet!, when he- (more than any of us) knows in fact that they did?

    (or perhaps he has knowledge about flight 655 that the rest of us are not privy to)

    anyways, I hope that is all on topic

    and it does sort of go to the heart of US government crimes and conspiracies and cover-ups in general

  290. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “They were practicing missile launches. (See the original post) So no one would think anything of the sound of a missile launch.”

    That strikes me as a ridiculous assertion. Imagine: sailor X hears his ship launching a missile. Three days later, he gets back to port and finds out that an airliner crashed on the same day, at the same time, and near the same location his ship was at. Most people would figure – hey – did WE do that? My point stands – it is very likely, that if TWA800 was shot down by a US naval vessel, that nearly everybody on board would have known it, or at least suspected it.

    I’m not saying it would be impossible to buy or coerce the silence of all of them, but it is very possible that that would indeed be the price of covering up the incident. Again, it hinges on whether or not a missile (such as an Aegis) launch can be heard all over the ship. Is that true or not? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @The Scalpel
  291. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lady in Red

    “PS: I do, also, think that, even to a layperson, it is obvious that the buildings were professionally imploded — somehow.”

    It is not obvious to many (perhaps most) demolition experts, who don’t think that they were. Why should it be obvious to laymen? I am an educated laymen, and it is not obvious to me – indeed I don’t think that they were.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  292. @Mr. Anon

    Thanks, Mr. Anon!

    I usually don’t comment on frivolous stuff like this, so I didn’t do much checking.

  293. Sam Shama says:
    @CanSpeccy

    OT [apologies in advance]:
    On Darwin and Evolution, author and theory firmly established pillars of the modern scientific canon, Fred’s piece simply lays out the reasons to at least modulate our thinking in light of the advances in molecular biology, not so much a summary rejection of both. You may have read Michael Behe’s book, Black Box, but if you haven’t, its worth a read.

    Distilling, the criticisms of Behe really start and end with irreducibility and unfalsifiability, which while partially justified are not entirely right.

  294. Rurik says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Again, it hinges on whether or not a missile (such as an Aegis) launch can be heard all over the ship. Is that true or not? I don’t know.

    well, we don’t need to belabor whether or not the Navy is capable of covering up significant, or even deadly incidents on its ships where most of the sailors would have known about it.

    There are extremely good reasons for believing that most of the sailors aboard the USS Liberty knew of an event that happened that was of great consequence and importance. And yet they were all ordered on pain of court martial not to talk about it. At least the ones that were still breathing.

    So if we just extrapolate from that- by now, well documented event, and the subsequent cover up, and conspiracy at the highest levels of our government and media, then we certainly have precedent for that kind of thing. Indeed, when you consider the unspeakable treachery and even treason that was on display on that infamous day, it staggers the mind just how perfidious and cowardly our fecal government (and their lap dog media) actually are capable of being.

    Israel perpetrated an unspeakably cowardly and murderous act of war against this nation and it’s men in uniform, and even as the napalm was exploding on the deck and 50 caliber rounds were riddling the life boats, our president of these United States of America ordered the jets that were scrambled to assist the Liberty… to return- and provide no assistance. Twice. Preferring that our men be sacrificed to the napalm fires or slow death in the water, (the ones that weren’t machine-gunned) rather than embarrass our precious little ally.

    Now when you consider that, and consider the cover up and conspiracy to deceive the nation about that singular act of brazen murderous treachery, certainly it seems that there isn’t anything at all that is beyond them when it comes to deadly betrayal and full-spectrum deceit. No?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Mr. Anon
  295. One proof that planes hit the building is that they rocked back and forth in a manner consistent with having been struck by large airplanes traveling at high speed. It was the design of the building that they should do so. That, plus eyewitnesses and video tapes ,make it pretty clear that planes hit the building.

    Don’t obsess over the details too much just realize the official story is bunk and move on. A real investigation might give us a better idea of what happened, both for 911 and flight 800.

    If you want real answers, support a real investigation.

  296. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Rurik

    You provide an excellent exposition of the underlying epistemological problem in dealing with any claimed historical fact.

    In the public realm, claims are judged by the credibility of the messenger, i.e., the media, and to a lesser extent the publishing industry in general. Credible witnesses, however many there may be, though believed by friends and family, are of no account to the public if denied media coverage.

    Something of possible interest that I don’t think has been thus far been explicitly mentioned here is the role of the submarine USS Seawolf, which according to this report, shot down TWA 800:

    According to a senior member of the staff of then-Secretary of the Navy John Dalton, the test firing of a new generation Navy missile from the submarine USS Seawolf accidentally struck TWA flight 800 en route from New York to Paris on July 17, 1996. According to the former Navy official, the missile test was so important for the Clinton administration, it was being shown live on a Navy closed-circuit television feed at the White House. The Seawolf’s missile was to have struck a drone reportedly being towed by a Navy P-3 Orion maritime surveillance aircraft. However, to the horror of the Navy personnel involved with the test and senior White House staff gathered to witness the missile’s successful launching, it veered off course and intercepted the TWA 800 Boeing 747, killing the 230 passengers and crew on board the aircraft.

    This story, incidentally, comes up first in Russia-based Yandex.com, but is not among early links in a Google search.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  297. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I find it difficult to believe that the USN would be using a towed target drone for this kind of exercise, when there are various kinds of self-propelled drones available for this purpose.

    Furthermore, why would the USN employ a P-3 to tow a target, when there are aircraft in the Navy’s inventory specifically designed for that mission, where the Orion is not?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  298. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    I find it difficult to believe that the USN would be using a towed target drone for this kind of exercise, when there are various kinds of self-propelled drones available for this purpose.

    I find it easier to believe than you do, having witnessed post-war British anti-aircraft gunners doing target practice with a towed target drone. But What the US Navy would use for target practice in 1996, I have no idea. However, a towed target is presumably cheaper than a Predator, or some other self-propelled drone, so why not use it?

    Not that I provided the link with any intention of defending the validity of what is stated there. A blog post is a source of low credibility, and therefore of little signficance unless it is corroborated by other, more compelling sources, of which, in a casual search, I have found none. Unfortunately, John Dalton, the ultimate source on this story is dead, although perhaps he leaves behind a relevant document, or public statement.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
    , @Sparkon
  299. utu says:
    @The Scalpel

    Since you tossed in the name Thoreau just to get a measure of who you are conversing with, tell me what do you think of Thoreau having laundry done by his mom and coming to her for dinners when he was living by his philosophy of self reliance while on the Walden pond? There are many ways of getting a measure of who you are conversing with.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  300. No_0ne says:
    @Fred Reed

    This doesn’t directly address your point, but I find it hard to believe that the CIA involvement (and the overwhelming FBI involvement) in what should be a NTSB investigation was benign.

    In particular, the CIA animation is ludicrous. Not simply that the idea that the CIA was involved in producing a piece of propaganda promoting a particular narrative for the crash, but the physics and aerodynamics of their theory make no sense. If you watch the video, it shows most of the nose of the aircraft breaking off, then the plane goes into a gentle climb for several miles as a result, then gradually slows and goes nose down.

    I’m no aeronautical engineer, but this scenario, with the sudden, massive displacement of the center of mass aft, while the center of lift stays the same, should result in, not a gentle climb, but in the aircraft stalling, then falling out of the sky. This can be verified at home by the simple expedient of removing a similar proportion of the nose of one of those balsa wood toy airplanes, then trying to launch it. Why would the CIA get involved, not only in promoting a particular narrative for this crash, but in promoting a clearly false one?

  301. Bel Riose says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Hello,

    This may be helpful:

    [MORE]

    _____

    The Southampton Press [1] reports that on May 13th, Long Island resident Dede Muma accidently received a fax from Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical [2] that was intended for the FBI’s office in Calverton, Long Island. The fax indicates that parts of a U.S. Navy missile target drone, a BQM-34 Firebee I [3], may have been found in the wreckage of TWA 800.

    The reason that Muma accidently received the fax, which she passed on to the Southampton Press, was probably because her fax number is 369-4310, while the FBI’s number is 369-4301. About the fax, the Southampton Press states:

    Official documents faxed mistakenly to a Riverhead resident…show that the Federal Bureau of Investigation…was investigating whether pieces of debris found among the wreckage of TWA Fight 800 were the remnants of an aerial target drone used by the U.S. Navy…

    The fax shows a diagram of what appears to be a missile, along with a breakdown of its tail section and a parts list…

    The object shown in the fax was identified this week by Jane’s Information Services in Alexandria, Virginia as a Teledyne Ryan BQM-34 Firebee I, an air or surface – launched recoverable aerial target.

    The targets are used all over the world, including within the military “warningareas” that come as close as about 10 nautical miles off Moriches Inlet in the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy practices shooting down drones within the warning areas.

    Ms. Muma said she called the FBI when she received the [Firebee] fax… Ms.
    Muma was told to “send it along to them,[the FBI] and destroy the original.” Shesaid she asked what would happen if she didn’t do so, and was told “we’ll have to investigate you.”

    The source of the fax, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical of San Diego, CA, manufactures Firebee drones for the Navy. The “Firebee fax” Muma received was sent from Erich Hittinger of Teledyne to FBI agent Ken Maxwell, who was to pass it on to a Teledyne Ryan representative at the FBI’s Long Island office, Walt Hamilton.

    Hittinger of Teledyne Ryan told the Southampton Press that the FBI contacted them to ask if orange pieces of debris found at the TWA 800 crash site were from one of their Firebee drones, which are also orange [3]. Hamilton was then flown from San Diego to the FBI’s Long Island facility to examine the suspected Firebee debris. According to Hittinger, Hamilton concluded that the orange metal “wasn’t from our Firebee.”
    ____

    Not from “our” Firebee, says Hamilton.

    But apparently, the wreckage came from someone’s (presumably, another manufacturer’s) Firebee.

    Judging from the above, I’d say that the Navy seriously entertained the idea that a Firebee drone may have been involved with the crash of TWA 800 — or else knew for a fact that such a drone was involved.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  302. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bel Riose

    Yes, good find. Highly suggestive. Wonder what Fred thinks about it?

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  303. @Anonymous Smith

    You probably saw a water cooled laser cutter and mistook it for a water cutter – like I once did.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  304. Yeah, it’s quite a revelation to finally realize that frank discussion of certain legitimate topics, including some obvious and widely perpetuated hoaxes like Obamao’s birth certificate, climate change, Black Lies Matter, Hillary’s manifold perfidies, TWA Flight 800, etc., are willingly verboten as far as our Fourth Estate/Fifth Column is concerned. They ought to realize their First Amendment rights are no less fragile than are others under the Second.

  305. Bel Riose says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Not much, apparently: I posted it earlier in response to one of his posts, but he never commented on it.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  306. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    I have no disagreement that those aboard may have geard the missile launch

    I have no disagreement that many of that group might have suspected the plane was shot down

    But suspected is not sure, and having been in the military myself, I realize that most troops have been conditioned to believe and obey their chain of command, and they did, in fact, believe their chain of command just as Fred believes that story. So only a small subset of those who may have heard a missle launch believed that it was anything more than the training they were engaged in.

    I have no doubt that the commanders told the troops that in spite of whatever rumors they may have heard, their ship DID NOT shoot down the plane AND anyone discusing the topic publicly would be court-martialled. I have no doubt that all of the troops believed this to be true

    For those reasons, of the few troops who had doubts, BUT WERE NOT CERTAIN, no troops went public with their doubts. Some did discuss the matter privately and that is why many heard rumors of a shoot down

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  307. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @utu

    Re.Thoreau, I think it is not such a big deal. In fact, I think it is trivial. Thoreau was not God, and the things you mention are not even “bad” Perhaps they might be described as showing a bit of human frailty/weakness. That does not detract from his philosophy or the example he set. (See Ghandi and Martin Luther King)

    As I recall, Jesus Christ was said to have demonstrated weakness by begging his father to prevent his crucifiction.

    “There are many ways of getting a measure of who you are conversing with”.

    I agree. I have limited evidence, but I would say this post of yours implies you are somewhat of a disaffected nitpicker lol :). Nothing terribly wrong with that. I have ben that way, myself, at times.

  308. @The Scalpel

    You do realize, don’t you, that Henry David Thoreau was a total fraud? While he was supposedly getting by as a secluded, self-supporting hermit living alone in the woods, he was unbeknownst to his admirers, taking his afternoon meals and nighttime toddies at the well-appointed home of fellow-leftist Ralph Waldo Emerson. Who just happened to live over yonder on the other side the woods. And who, as a successful writer of poetry, kept a well-stocked larder and liquor cabinet. Leftist swallow it hook, line and sinker, but his book, Walden Pond (Life in The Woods) was mostly fiction. As were practically all books written by other Transcendentalist and Abolitionist living in la-la land. Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom’s Cabin come to mind.

    http://www.politicsofselfishness.com/2011/02/-was-thoreau-a-fraud.html

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    , @Boris
  309. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Apparently, you don’t even understand the rather substantial difference between anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), and a surface-to-air missile (SAM) as pertains to range safety, so I’m not convinced that further discussion with you on this point is likely to be fruitful.

    No IFF for TWA 800?

    All SAM systems from the smallest to the largest generally include identified as friend or foe (IFF) systems to help identify the target before being engaged.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile

    IFF is a tool within the broader military action of Combat Identification (CID), “the process of attaining an accurate characterization of detected objects in the operational environment sufficient to support an engagement decision.”

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

    The point here, of course, is that there are effective systems in place to prevent engaging and shooting down the wrong target.

  310. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price

    water cooled laser cutter

    plasma?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  311. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rurik

    “There are extremely good reasons for believing that most of the sailors aboard the USS Liberty knew of an event that happened that was of great consequence and importance. And yet they were all ordered on pain of court martial not to talk about it.”

    And yet, some of those sailors did talk about it, I believe, at least after they left the Navy. That’s how we know some of the details of the incident.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  312. Epicaric says:

    Italian civil airliner Itavia flight 870 from Bologna to Palermo, Italy was downed by a missile strike, generally understood to have been fired by the US Navy, on June 27, 1980.
    More pertinent to the topic at hand, however, was the casual facility in which US authorities acted to suppress information regarding the incident. Italy, after all, was a NATO ally with a strong communist party that kept the opposition, led by the Christian Democrats, in an uncomfortable coalition to exclude the Communist party from power. These were the now forgotten years of the anti-nuclear movements in Europe, with constant calls for the removal of US missiles. Undoubtedly Italian authorities conspired with their US allies to send the incident as quietly, and as quickly as possible, down the memory hole.

  313. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Carroll Price

    Thoreau wrote classics of American literature and philosophy and inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King among others (including me). It makes you look ridiculous to call him a fraud. Did he, 100% of the time, live up to his high ideals?. No. That makes him a human being. Can you really say that anyone ever lived up to their ideals 100% of the time?? Including yourself? Are you a fraud? Keep in mind I am not accusing you of being a fraud, but you are probably one by your own definition.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  314. @Wade

    I attended aviation maintenance school (A&P rating) about ten years ago and two of the instructors, being former TWA maintenance personnel, firmly believed the missile theory. I have always been a little skeptical, but it is obvious that the media never gave the missile theory due consideration. I am amazed that given the inventory controls on such things in the US Navy, that someone in the supply chain side would not have leaked what happened. Surely everyone on the ship, or at least all those topside, would have seen what happened?

    Or could it have been a non-US ship, or a “rogue launch” from a US one?

  315. @Rurik

    hehe…the whole point of using a laser, or plasma, is that they are HOT, that’s how they cut…why would you want to cool them down with water? :)

    • Replies: @Man who cuts things
  316. @The Scalpel

    Thoreau was probably no better or worse than all leftist liberals, then and now. He just happened to have several well-connected fellow liberals with big followings. Poets and Abolitionist mostly, at a time when both were widely accepted among radical New Englanders who had lost their Puritan religion, as being Divinely inspired individuals. Look around you and tell me how many leftist liberals you see that aren’t obvious hypocrites and frauds. That adhere to the rules and standards they set for the herd to follow? Liberal/leftist institutions of higher learning are filled with them. So is congress, along with every cathedral, synagogue, church, pulpit, and mosque throughout the world, including the Vatican.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  317. Boris says:
    @Carroll Price

    Well, you’ve uncovered the super-secret fact that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was fiction. Well done.

    BTW, it’s no secret that Thoreau was not exactly roughing it at Walden. You’ll find that out in any lit class that goes into any depth at all. And he always had pencil money to fall back on.

  318. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bel Riose

    That components of a BQM-34 Firebee I drone may have been compounded with the debris from TWA 800, the latter bearing traces of explosive materials, suggests a three-way interaction between airliner, drone and missile, although I suppose interactions of drone and missile with the airliner need not have been simultaneous.

    More here about the possible target drone.

    And a long document here, by Ian Williams Goddard who provides various authoritative sources for the Navy missile theory of the downing of TWA 800. Goddard claims to have co-authored a report with Pierre Salinger, which postulated that the airliner was downed by a Navy missile.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  319. Rurik says:
    @Mr. Anon

    And yet, some of those sailors did talk about it

    eventually sure, but the point is that they were able to get away with a monstrous war crime and cowardly atrocity perpetrated against the very people who show Israel unprecedented kindness, sympathy and generosity. And they repay us with murdered sailors and an attempt to sink our ship.

    It doesn’t even matter now that they talk about it, because no one is held accountable, and the American people (including the survivors of that attack) are being taxed to send yet another 38 billion dollars to Israel.

    Isn’t that something?

    There seems to be no crime or atrocity that the American people aren’t supposed to just suffer and then shrug off as the cost of our near infinite largess towards that country.

    how many mainstream journalists do you know who’ve come out with Pulitzer prize winning expose’s of that terrible act of treachery and treason?

    the fourth estate is in their hands Mr. Anon. Lock, stock and barrel. And there seems to be virtually no crime or atrocity or act of treason or mass-murder that they can’t get away with simply by having their owned and compliant media sell it all for them.

    actually, I sort of wonder if the American people have reached the state of perfect bovine indifference to truth and principles and the rule of law, to the point that even if it all came out tomorrow that our government (and/or Israel) was directly responsible for contrived and illegal wars of aggression all over the globe, including torture and assassinations and sinister coup d’états all over the planet, including even the wholesale slaughter of American citizens ~ if they’d even really care.

    Compared to Kim Kardashian’s asshole, who would care that the US government was responsible for shooting down a passenger jet in the sky?

    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Mr. Anon
  320. @Anonymous Smith

    You’re probably referring to plasma arc cutting on a water table with the bar submerged. There are many reasons to use this with a plasma arc, particularly safety, but it also helps keep the bar cool since while you want to cut you want to minimize heating the rest of the metal.

    Surrounding the cut is a zone that will have been heated which you do not want to get too hot as it can alter the properties of the metal. The importance of this helps you determine the method of cut — with no tolerance you’d use an abrasive method such as a water jet. The water is doped with garnet usually, but ruby, sapphire and yes, even diamonds are also used. It all depends on what you’re cutting, how thick it is, how you good a finish you want (e.g. quick and dirty separation or fine as possible) and the pressure of the jet.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  321. @Rurik

    Read or re-read George Orwell’s Animal Farm in which he presents the perfect caricature of what motivates and controls the populations of all countries, large and small, with the US and remainder of the Western World being no exceptions.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  322. vinteuil says:
    @Svigor

    “There’s a lot of good criticism of America to be made, but the Konspiracy Kook Klan routinely takes a shit right in the middle of it.”

    Ain’t that the truth.

  323. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price

    what motivates and controls the populations

    yea Carroll, I saw the book in my girlfriend’s son’s room a while back, and took another look. That guy sure had their number, that’s for sure.

    for me the most salient thing I remember reading of his was in 1984 when O’Brien was torturing Smith so as to transform his mind, from fundamentally rational into a zombie-like “mind” that only exists for the purposes of submission to power. And he was explaining that all the misery was specifically for the purposes of power.

    That power was an end in it’s own right. That they didn’t seek power for any greater purpose, other than to use it to control and dominate other people for the sheer pleasure of doing so. To degrade people and revel in their humiliation. I suppose that is what motivates the pigs in Animal Farm, and what motivates people like Hillary and Soros and Bibi (and all of their followers of course). From the thuggish cops on the streets of America, to the experts at Gitmo, it’s all about expressing some deep, baboon like imperative to dominate other people.

    Humans can be very ugly on the inside, and governments can be expressions of the very ugliest of all human motivations. The lust for power.

    I wonder if we’ll ever evolve into the kind of beings that simply have no desire for power over anyone, and an equal unwillingness to submit to it. I suspect George Orwell was exactly such a man. And he was relentlessly appalled at the way other men both coveted power for its own sake, or submitted to it so eagerly.

  324. Bel Riose says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Those are great links — thanks for hunting them down.

    I suppose it’s possible that the drone hit the aircraft and was then struck by the missile — or, that the missile struck the drone in such close proximity to the aircraft that the blast brought down both drone and plane.

    Alternately, maybe the drone collided with the plane, causing the subsequent crash. Look at this link, which strongly suggests that the drone itself might have smashed through the plane and ultimately caused its demise: http://flight800.org/petition/pet_sect4.htm

  325. Darin says:
    @Svigor

    There’s very little Konspiracy Kookery pointing toward Russia, relatively speaking, despite the fact that Russia should be a Konspiracy Kook’s wet dream.

    Heh. Russia is the world leader in conspirology, innumerable conspiracies afloat there that would drive David Icke mad. Unfortunately for you, the best quality material is in Russian.

  326. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “I have no doubt that the commanders told the troops that in spite of whatever rumors they may have heard, their ship DID NOT shoot down the plane AND anyone discusing the topic publicly would be court-martialled. I have no doubt that all of the troops believed this to be true

    For those reasons, of the few troops who had doubts, BUT WERE NOT CERTAIN, no troops went public with their doubts. Some did discuss the matter privately and that is why many heard rumors of a shoot down.”

    They’re not “troops” – they’re sailors. People can talk after they get out of the service, when they are not subject to court-martial (although in some cases, they might put their pension in jeopardy). My point still stands – the more people who would have been in the know, the more likely it is that someone would have said something.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  327. Well, the commentary on this article certainly has gone completely off the rails, in every possible direction, no?

  328. @Jonathan Revusky

    “Out of curiosity, what is the strongest proof, in your opinion, that planes did hit buildings on 9/11?”

    Lol, WTF?

  329. @Man who cuts things

    Wow…sounds like you’ve done this before! I stand corrected, and more informed. Thank you, Man!

  330. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Carroll Price

    I tend to asses each individual on their own merit. I guess that is what individualists do, lol. When you use terms like “liberal” and “leftist” whatever point you are trying to make regarding an individual (such as Thoreau) is somewhat lost on me. Although we probably disagree on this, I do not think that there is any standard definition of “liberal” or “leftist” and that each individual has unique qualities.

    If one calls a hypothetical “leftist” or “liberal” a hypothetical “hypocrite” or “fraud” without providing specific details regarding the specific individual in question, then it is all meaningless to me.

    The allegations you made regarding Thoreau would put him in the category of human being. If you can show me evidence that he did not believe his own philosophy, then you have a case for “hypocrite” or “fraud”. I do not think you will find that evidence. You may call Thoreau a criminal. There is evidence for that.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  331. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    “They’re not “troops” – they’re sailors.” – semantics. The sign of a very weak argument

    That’s no lady, that’s my wife! lol

    “My point still stands – the more people who would have been in the know, the more likely it is that someone would have said something.”

    Yes, and my points, since you seemed to have missed them, are that very few people were “in the know.” Like you, almost all of them believed the story their commanders told them. They would have had no reason to “say something” Of the few that did suspect something, it was a mere suspicion, not direct knowledge or proof, so most were unlikely to risk their reputation, retirement, etc. by going on national media. They did, in fact talk to their friends and families, and this is how we know about the issue. One of the problems is that people, perhaps like you, who believe there was nothing unusual, dismiss as not credible, most talk from sources who are not “official.” The pity of this tendency is that it is the official sources that are lying, IMHO.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
  332. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    ““They’re not “troops” – they’re sailors.” – semantics. The sign of a very weak argument.”

    It isn’t semantics – the words mean different things. When using words, the meaning of those words is important. Call a soldier a sailor and see what he says. I do not consider precision in speech to be the sign of a weak argument.

    “Yes, and my points, since you seemed to have missed them, are that very few people were “in the know.” Like you, almost all of them believed the story their commanders told them. They would have had no reason to “say something” Of the few that did suspect something, it was a mere suspicion, not direct knowledge or proof, so most were unlikely to risk their reputation, retirement, etc. by going on national media.”

    No, I understood your points; I disagreed with them and found them to be obtuse and ridiculous.

    Look – if you are a normal, normally reasonable person who is on a ship and who knows that that ship fired a missile on a particular day, and you later discover that an airplane crashed, in a manner consistent with being shot down at the same time, at the same place, you are going to think to yourself – “gee, was that us?” It’s not going to matter what your commanding officer tells you. You might not speak up right away, or indeed ever, but it’s not like you’d just wave it away and say – “oh, okay, that’s settled then”.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  333. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “They did, in fact talk to their friends and families, and this is how we know about the issue.”

    No, that is not the case. To my knowledge, no US Navy personnel have ever come forward and alleged that they themselves, or a relative of theirs, or a friend, or a friend-of-a-friend, was on a US warship that shot down TWA800. That was the origin of this particular sub-thread in the first-place: why is that not the case that there were no US Navy whistle-blowers? Do you know of someone who has?

    “One of the problems is that people, perhaps like you, who believe there was nothing unusual, dismiss as not credible, most talk from sources who are not “official.” The pity of this tendency is that it is the official sources that are lying, IMHO.”

    Who says I think there was nothing unusual about TWA800? I thought that the two documentaries that Mr. Unz mentioned both made a very intelligent and credible case that there was a cover-up of the incident. The case for a shoot-down was reasonable, although not as strong, however that itself is kind of implied by their having been a cover-up. I think it is possible that TWA800 was shot-down, perhaps by a US warship. If that was the case though, I would expect some sailors to eventually come forward about it. That hasn’t happened yet. The more who knew about it, the greater the chance of that happening. That’s what I was getting at.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  334. Mr. Anon says:
    @Divine Right

    Who are you going to believe? Your own lying eyes, or super-genius Jonathan Revusky?

  335. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rurik

    “the fourth estate is in their hands Mr. Anon. Lock, stock and barrel. And there seems to be virtually no crime or atrocity or act of treason or mass-murder that they can’t get away with simply by having their owned and compliant media sell it all for them.”

    You won’t get much argument from me on that account. The media obviously has an agenda, and pursues it. However, I think the only crimes that the government, and/or the wealthy elites who are in league with them get away with are those that were actually committed – not fantastical ones that exist only in the minds of paranoids.

  336. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    “To my knowledge, no US Navy personnel have ever come forward and alleged that they themselves, or a relative of theirs, or a friend, or a friend-of-a-friend, was on a US warship that shot down TWA800.”

    Well that settles it then….If you have not heard about it, it cannot possibly have happened. I stand corrected LOL.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  337. When naive individuals suggest that maintaining a large government conspiracy in America is simply impossible because “somebody would have talked” perhaps they should consider the implications of this incident, which occurred so close to the media capital of the world.

    And scaling this up to the world leaders and 9/11, what can we deduce about the true nature of planetary power structure?

    > Pierre

    Strauss-Kahn made comments that could be perceived as critical of global financial actors, in an interview for a documentary about the late-2000s financial crisis, Inside Job (2010). He said he had attended a dinner organised by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in which several CEOs of ‘the biggest banks in the U.S.’ had admitted they (or perhaps bankers in general) were ‘too greedy’ and bore part of the responsibility for the crisis. They said the government “‘should regulate more, because we are too greedy, we can’t avoid it.’” Strauss-Kahn said he warned the officials of a number of departments of the U.S. government of an impending crisis. He also said: “At the end of the day, the poorest – as always – pay the most.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn

    Inside job screenplay (pdf): http://www.sonyclassics.com/awards-information/insidejob_screenplay.pdf

    Indeed, I personally know of at least a couple of individuals prominently situated in our current elite establishment whose private views on various controversial topics would surely rank as “utterly conspiratorial” but who remain extremely reluctant to have those views become generally known.

    And what does that say about our society and the elite education afforded such individuals?

  338. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    You are being obtuse. The topic at hand was whether or not anyone had come forward, or had been alleged to do so, in this specific instance. I don’t know of anyone who has. You claim that someone did. Who, then? Tell us who, or you are just yammering.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  339. @Divine Right

    [links to videos]

    Obviously the implication is that the videos were faked somehow.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  340. @Mr. Anon

    It is not obvious to many (perhaps most) demolition experts, who don’t think that they were.

    Well, what people say and what people think are often completely different things. ;-)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  341. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    What some people think is true and what really is true are often completely different things.

  342. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Obviously the implication is that the videos were faked somehow.”

    Do you ever stop to think how deranged you sound?

    Out of curiosity, what is the strongest proof that you actually exist? Because, frankly, I’m not buying that you do.

  343. @Mr. Anon

    You appear to have switched from using the word troops to sailors, very sneaky but not very clever.
    OED defines troops as “armed forces” which would certainly include sailors. Another definition involves drilling such as for a parade, sailors certainly do that too.

    I suggest you give up while you only appear to be wrong.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  344. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    I already answered that. It is not up to me to read the thread for you.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  345. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “OED defines troops as “armed forces” which would certainly include sailors.”

    That is a specious reading of the definition. It has never included sailors. The original meaning of “troops” was “cavalrymen”. Is the term “cavalryman” synonymous with “sailor”?

    “Another definition involves drilling such as for a parade, sailors certainly do that too.”

    Sailors also mop floors. Is the term “janitor” synonymous with “sailor”?

    Is that your idea of being clever? Try harder.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  346. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “I already answered that. It is not up to me to read the thread for you.”

    You answered nothing. In fact, you completely changed your story. First you said no sailors came forward because they were intimidated. Then you said that some did come forward and that’s how we know about it. Your argument isn’t even clear in your own mind, so perhaps you can see how it isn’t clear to anyone else either.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  347. @The Scalpel

    A hypocrite is anyone who claims in public to be what they’re not in private. Fraud is knowingly portraying fiction as fact.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  348. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Interesting reading regarding eyewitnesses

    http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/03.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/STATEMENTS.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/STATEMENTS.html

    “Despite early denials, the Navy finally admitted that there had been three submarines present in the area on the night of the crash. The Trepang; a Sturgeon class attack submarine, the Albuquerque; a type 688 Los Angeles class fast attack submarine equipped with vertical launch tubes, and the Wyoming, a nuclear ballistic missile submarine just out of Groton on sea trials. It has just surfaced that something went wrong on those trials, delaying the commissioning of the Wyoming, and her captain and exec were relieved of command.”

  349. Darin says:

    It seems that the debate is over and every one is waiting for the next installment of American Pravda. Thanks once again to Ron Unz for his work!

    BTW, do you have any ideas what shall our esteemed host concentrate in the next installments? What neglected conspiracies deserve attention?

    Bin Laden killing? CIA drug trade? CIA creation of modern art? Gulf of Tonkin and start of Vietnam war? Any of numerous Vatican conspiracy theories ( Vatican 2 council, Vatican bank, death of pope John Paul I., resignation of pope Benedict etc…) Any other ideas?

  350. @Darin

    No one on this site has ever written about UN Agenda 21…I searched and only found a little blurb on the issue. Very important subject, as it concerns the widespread implementation of Communist/collectivist principles in America. Nearly 600 American towns and cities are participating in Agenda 21 through ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives). Still, the vast majority of Americans have no idea what Agenda 21 is, or what it’s intended to accomplish. Americans are dangerously ignorant!

    Niether the Franklin scandal, nor the Dutroux Affair, have ever been covered here, either. Both of those subjects are damn interesting, and deserve much more attention than they’ve received.

    I already know all there is to know about these things, but a lot of people don’t. And since I’m not a good writter, it would be far better for Mr. Unz to cover them than me. :)

  351. @Mr. Anon

    Troop – To march. Do sailors not march?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  352. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    “Troop – To march. Do sailors not march?”

    Drum majorettes march. Are they “troops”? Are they sailors?

    You obviously have nothing worthwhile to say on this matter. I can only assume you don’t have much worthwhile to say on any other either.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  353. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    Actually I did answer, but you did not read that post of mine. Are you too lazy to look for it? Also, you need to improve your reading comprehension. That is not what I said at all. Your lazy contrariness is not worth much time responding to. Until you come up with something intelligent to say, I will not bother responding. I think you are a decent guy and sincere but your trivial banter is wearing me out, sorry

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  354. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Carroll Price

    I have to tell you that those definitions are very broad and vague. One could drive a truck through them. It’s clear you are not a fan of Thoreau. He is dead, and I’m sure he doesn’t care, and neither do I

  355. @Darin

    Although it has long been suspected (and now confirmed) the following would be a good start. This article does not specifically state it, but the videos spoken of here would have almost surely included the fake Bin Laden videos made for the purpose of having George Bush elected to a 2nd term.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-paid-for-fake-al-qaeda-videos.html

  356. What about consequences for governments that “practice deceit”?
    Is there no truth to Shakespeare’s “Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” ?

  357. Mr. Anon says:
    @The Scalpel

    “Actually I did answer, but you did not read that post of mine. ”

    I reviewed your posts here. Again, you answered nothing. My question was – has someone come forward claiming that they were on board a US naval vessel that might have shot down TWA800, or has anybody even reported that their friend, or a friend of a friend, or whatever told them that was the case. A specific allegation. You have offerred no evidence of any such thing. You were merely peddling unfounded speculation.

    My reading comprehension is fine – a lot better than yours, evidently. I know what I’ve written and what I haven’t. You apparently don’t.

  358. @Mr. Anon

    Drum Majorettes are not armed forces and you are clearly an idiot.

  359. JamesG says: • Website

    Very early on the WSJ reported that radar showed a single high-speed boat leaving the scene as dozens of other vessels rushed to the site as potential rescuers.

    I’ve never read any explanation after that.

    My initial guess was a deliberate shoot-down by the Iranians and I’m still of that mind.

  360. john cronk says: • Website

    And here’s a link to an excellent documentary which I think explains the JFK assassination.

  361. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The vast majority of our sheep-like population absorbed the simple media message “No Missile” and went back to watching their football games and celebrity music videos, being greatly relieved to know that well-maintained 747 jumbo jets flown by leading national airlines can occasionally explode in mid-air without any external cause.

    Oh. Because, you know, other populations aren’t sheep-like. It’s our that is.

    Come on Unz. It’s probably innate in well-meaning people to be optimistic, and optimistic about people. But like you can’t change yourself into a blindfolded guy, you can’t change them into people that see.

    And while I appreciate your work — what you personally write and what you let people know through this webzine –, I can’t comprehend your hopefulness. I have in mind your last Memo.
    It’s impossible you don’t know the history of humanity, their nature, and how the only thing that can change in their destiny is the wizards leading them by the nose, and the particular deceptions they are made to fall for; and nothing else.

    Your so-hated Mainstream Media: who are they if not today’s clergy?
    50 or 100 years from now, who knows, it could be the scientists.
    It will be someone, at any rate, and it will be only a very few to know why planes have been destroyed.

    Then, thanks, sincerely, for your work, but don’t deceive yourself into hoping the “sheep-like” will turn into millions of Ron Unzs itching to know whys and wherefores.
    Those in the higher echelons of intellect will always work to mystify their cognitive lowers to their own advantage. Also, they will always find ways to rationalize this as deeds not in disagreement with morals; even as self-less.

    We are how we are; events proceed as they are set to.
    I’ll give it that the never-changing play and its repetitiveness are dispiriting.
    It’s possible, though, to one day learn to accept it.

    The enlightened knew this in ancient India and up to around 1400 AD; nobody seems to know this in the West.
    Ignorance that gives energy, but also fills with resentment (Why don’t things go the way they should?) hatred (of the… culprits, those who make things go the wrong way), or just illusion.
    I don’t know if any of known mass-murderers has made a number of victims that can be compared to the victims of the illusion of free will.

  362. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    and went back to watching their football games and celebrity music videos, being greatly relieved

    I smelled some unexpected condescension there.

    Their sportsball games and celebrity music videos, and Facebook games, and action/romance movies, are your books of advanced physics and coding.

    Simple distractions — that is, distractions that look simple to you — and straightforward non-opaque truths give them relief.
    You get the same when you write a new Pravda article, or improve the site software.

    These undertones of condescension rarely fall to annoy me.
    Moreover, there’s nothing for which to be sorry for them.
    When intelligence and knowledge aren’t used to gain more power, their only use is to burden oneself with doubts, enquiries, and dissatisfaction (the more you know, the more you know you don’t know).

    Schopenhauer said who add knowledge multiplies sorrow.

    I miss when I enjoyed football games and popular singer’s discs. I was living then, free from the damn, accursed, merciless fever of wanting to know more and understand better.
    That was life.

  363. Very interesting article that only supports my view on 9/11.
    Yes. 9/11.
    I believe most will agree we are looking at a conspiracy to hide the truth.
    Looking then what happened 5 years later there is no doubt a similar cover up was performed just on a grander scale.
    So are they related?
    I believe TWA800 and 9/11 are related by more than just airplane events. I regard the Clinton years was preparation for the new global power paradigm starting with 9/11.
    However, the American society was stresstested with TWA800.
    Like a drill the culprits learned who to control, what to say, how far to stretch a lie and where are the media weak points.
    All in order to make the next event, 9/11, as watertight as possible.
    We see the efforts by the government agencies to hide the truth at 9/11.
    An event orchestrated by the same deep elements in that government.
    So how come the same was done just as effective in what could be regarded as a tragic accident?

  364. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The real problem with these threads being hijacked by 911 theories is that all the commenters don’t really know anything about the subject except kindergarten stuff. Thus,sadly, there nothing to be gained by reading them.

  365. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Thank G-d that the timely Centennial Olympic Park bombing swept the TWA Flight 800 shoot down off the front pages.

    Amazing how that happens!

  366. I recall Flight 800 differently. What struck me at the time was, what a very close call that was for the regime. Everyone on Long Island knew all about the government’s frantic eyewitness suppression campaign. The peak moment of government panic was probably when a mischievous newsman asked how close the plane came to No Man’s island. No Man’s Island, that oddly unfrequented nature preserve, was of course one of CIA’s three most critical ancillary sites. You hear a lot about The Farm and Camp Swampy, but nobody ever pulls the No Man’s Island thread. The only two public-domain references to it were in fiction: an in-joke in one of Howard Hunt’s novels traces the flight path of a plane right at it, only to veer off and land somewhere else; and le Carre fictionalizes it, badly, in one of his books (he clearly hadn’t been there.)

    Anyway, people ought to contemplate the Navy missile business as a modified limited hangout.

  367. Ronnie says:

    It is a very simple equation. The MSM support the US government and the government support Israel to the hilt. As our MSM is totally Israel owned we have the state of affairs just described above in this article. The same thing happened before and after after 9/11. Sometime in the future a brave lunatic will break this mould and reveal the truth at the right time thus discrediting our government permanently. It is just a matter of time. The recent UK nerve gas indictment of Russia indicated that the deep state is getting careless and expects us to accept weak logic and rather amateur staging.

  368. I know people who live on Long Island, including one guy who loaded baggage for that flight, simultaneously playing peek-a-boo with a cranky baby and laughing at how hyper the students going to France were. They have never stopped suspecting a cover-up, and the guy who worked for T-way has nightmares about whether he missed something when he was loading. He has to feel guilty, because the Ministry of Truth won’t own up.

  369. Johann says:
    @Randal

    We do indeed live in the Kingdom of Lies.

  370. It was the ghost of Gen. Tojo, the wartime Japanese Prime Minister, who mind blanked the Navy person supposed to abort the navy missile. In the 80s I was in covert operations and well known to the agency. I also am an expert on the paranormal and a good exorcist. The navy had me read a book that said it had been shot down by a Navy missile, which surprised me. The government kept it secret because they had no idea what caused the missile to go arrant, a ghost? aliens? I exorcised the ghost of the Gen ( he was very evil) and informed the government, but they choose to keep it a secret.

  371. @Rurik

    When United Airlines Flight 585 crashed in Colorado Springs, it hit the ground so hard there was literally nothing but fragments left.

  372. I hesitate to keep beating this dead horse thread but…

    Nova had a great episode re 9/11: Why the Towers Fell

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

    Leslie Robertson was an engineer that designed the World Trade Center.

    LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.

    LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don’t know how it could have been considered.

    END QUOTES

    Now I’m not an engineer but if you design a building to handle load x, it stands to reason that it might not handle load x + 10.

  373. @Carlton Meyer

    Another Reason Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. The ABC agencies are in a death spiral over the ascendancy of Mr. Smith and his flyover deplorables – absent a Control File.

    Rather than behave and deny – they are in a death spiral of hysterical – yet ineffective – acts to remove the Donald.

    FINALLY – we understand exactly how depraved the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, IRS and every other ABC agency really is and has been.

    Chappaquidick is another stroke of genius…It forces Dems to gander at just how depraved their ‘heroes’ were, are and will continue to be.

    WE ARE UGANDA… WE ARE MOLDOVA… WE ARE ALBANIA.. with better production skills.

    It really is time for a housecleaning… a revolt… and blood in the streets.

    And Trump is the gift – whose very existence in the SWAMP forced the enemies of our Republic LEFT AND RIGHT to reveal themselves for the hucksters and demons they are.

  374. ohmy says:
    @anon

    Maybe TWA flight 800 was intended to be, media BIG lie propaganda practice for,,, 911. just saying.

  375. JMcG says:
    @Carroll Price

    This agree was in error. I’m a pilot and this is in error in every detail. Once you have a certificate you have it for life. There are medical exams and currency requirements one must fulfill in order to exercise the privileges of your pilot certificate, but one does not renew ones license.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?