The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Unz ArchiveBlogview
American Pravda: The Destruction of TWA Flight 800
Reconstruction of TWA Flight 800.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Reconstruction of TWA Flight 800. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The American Pravda Series
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-destruction-of-twa-flight-800/#comment-1586503
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    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.
  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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wade, Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Che Guava

    Your opinions are your right.
     
    Not too bad a starting point.
    , @highrpm
    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!"
    , @Carroll Price
    By employing common-sense reasoning in lieu of advanced degrees in critical thinking, I arrived at the exact same conclusions, forty years ago.
    , @The Scalpel
    "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....
  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.

    Read More
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    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?
    , @Bart
    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.
  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!

    Read More
  7. 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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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.
    , @Johann
    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.
  8. 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.

    Read More
  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?

    Read More
  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“.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "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?
    , @Si1ver1ock
    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?

    , @Bill

    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.
  11. It’s not like we haven’t accidentally shot down airliners before … Google Iran Air flight 655.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    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.
    , @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. 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.
  12. @Anonymous
    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

    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.

    Read More
  13. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    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.
  14. 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    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.'
    , @Che Guava
    I'm sure they do.

    Not that I am going to read it.
  15. 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.

    Read More
  16. 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/

    Read More
  17. 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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    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.
  18. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Three words: Extortion 17 shootdown.
    , @Chico
    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.
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    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."
    , @Carroll Price
    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.
  20. @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...

    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

    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".

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    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.
  21. @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...

    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

    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".

    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?

    Read More
  22. 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.

    Read More
  23. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Or the murder of JFK which Nixon said (caught on tape) as being the greatest hoax ever played on the American people.!!
  24. @The Alarmist
    It's not like we haven't accidentally shot down airliners before ... Google Iran Air flight 655.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    That may have been the report of the OJCS ... Ah, you fill in the rest.
  25. @CK
    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.

    Three words: Extortion 17 shootdown.

    Read More
  26. @The Alarmist
    It's not like we haven't accidentally shot down airliners before ... Google Iran Air flight 655.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.
  27. @Si1ver1ock
    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.

    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.”

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

    Read More
  29. 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

    Read More
  30. @MQ
    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

    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.’

    Read More
  31. @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...

    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

    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".

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.

    , @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU55FzcM2A

    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.
  32. @Mister M
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  33. 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.

    Read More
  34. 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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    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

    http://christianovercomers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Molech_Worship.jpg

    I suppose in 0ne way or anther, it has always been like this
    , @Former Darfur
    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?
  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.”?

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Rurik
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpdlkECHio8
    , @dahoit
    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.
  36. @SolontoCroesus
    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.

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

    Read More
  37. @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. 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.

    {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.

    Read More
  38. @John Jeremiah Smith
    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."?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    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.
    , @Jonathan Revusky
    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.
  39. @MQ
    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

    I’m sure they do.

    Not that I am going to read it.

    Read More
  40. 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 ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    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.
    , @Anonymous
    Passenger List: TWA Flight 800 here.
    , @The Alarmist
    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 ;)
  41. @disturbed_robot
    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.

    Your opinions are your right.

    Not too bad a starting point.

    Read More
  42. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Good ideas, except for the "extra votes for those with higher educational qualifications."
    , @neologism
    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.
  43. @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.
     
    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!

    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

    http://christianovercomers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Molech_Worship.jpg

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

    Read More
  44. @Rurik
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpdlkECHio8

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    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

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flight_paths_of_hijacked_planes-September_11_attacks.jpg

    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
    , @Rurik
    I meant to say someone else who would know.. ;)
    , @The Scalpel
    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
  45. @disturbed_robot
    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.

    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!”

    Read More
  46. 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/

    Read More
  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.

    Read More
  48. @utu
    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 ?

    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.

    Read More
  49. @John Jeremiah Smith
    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.

    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

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flight_paths_of_hijacked_planes-September_11_attacks.jpg

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.
     
  50. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    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.
    , @Rurik
    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

    http://widebodyaircraft.nl/a300tun.jpg

    here's an F-14 fighter

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf084-11xl.jpg

    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
    , @The Scalpel
    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
    , @Matthew Kelly

    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.
    , @No_0ne
    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?
  51. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @utu
    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 ?

    Passenger List: TWA Flight 800 here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
  52. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Passenger List: TWA Flight 800 here.

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

    Read More
  53. @CanSpeccy
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  54. @John Jeremiah Smith
    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.

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

    Read More
  55. @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    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?
  56. @utu
    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 ?

    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 ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Except for not collecting $5 billion for your troubles, you're almost as lucky as Pull It Larry Silverstein.
  57. @Rurik
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpdlkECHio8

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    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.
  58. @Rurik

    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

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Flight_paths_of_hijacked_planes-September_11_attacks.jpg

    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

    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.

    Read More
  59. @Ron Unz

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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?
  60. @Bill

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    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.
    , @James N. Kennett
    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.
    , @The Alarmist
    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.
  61. @Avery
    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?

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {...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.

  62. @Bill

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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 ..
    , @Bill
    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.
    , @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.

    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.
  63. @Old fogey
    Good ideas, except for the "extra votes for those with higher educational qualifications."

    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.

    Read More
  64. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    {…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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    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.
    , @Bill
    How do things generally go for whistleblowers revealing classified information?
  65. @Mr. Anon
    "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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mithera
    For those still with open minds on the planes question. Plz follow the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJIb5Oo_HAE
    , @Mr. Anon
    "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.

  66. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU55FzcM2A

    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.

    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 ..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    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.
    , @CanSpeccy
    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.
  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?

    Read More
  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.

    Read More
  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!

    Read More
  70. @Avery
    {...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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {...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.
    , @Carlton Meyer
    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.
    , @Sigismund Vortunk
    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.
    , @The Scalpel
    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
  71. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.
  72. @Rurik
    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 ..

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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!
  73. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU55FzcM2A

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  74. 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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock


    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.
  75. @Avery
    {...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.

    How do things generally go for whistleblowers revealing classified information?

    Read More
  76. @Anonymous
    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.

    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:

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @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
     
    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.
  77. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    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."
  78. @Rurik
    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 ..

    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.

    Read More
  79. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.
    , @Avery
    {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.
  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.

    Read More
  81. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    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.

    For those still with open minds on the planes question. Plz follow the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJIb5Oo_HAE

    Read More
  82. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

  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.

    Read More
  84. @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
     
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.
    , @CanSpeccy

    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.
  85. @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
     
    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.

    {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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Oh, OK. You're a better observer than I, but your comment seems to settle the issue. Good.
  86. @geokat62

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    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.
  87. @Mulegino1
    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.

    {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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Okay, a fully panoramic 180 degree view, with nothing resembling a commercial airliner striking the building.

    No Boeing 767 struck the South Tower.
  88. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    So, if that's the case, why not test your hypothesis?
  89. @Rurik

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    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.
  90. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.
  91. @Avery
    {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.

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

    Read More
  92. @Ron Unz

    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.

    {…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.

    Read More
  93. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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"?
  94. 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.

    Read More
  95. @Si1ver1ock


    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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.
    , @Si1ver1ock
    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.
  96. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    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.

    “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.

    Read More
  97. @edNels
    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.''

    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.

    Read More
    • Disagree: edNels
    • Replies: @edNels
    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!
    , @edNels
    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.
    , @CanSpeccy

    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).
  98. @Ron Unz

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    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.
  99. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU55FzcM2A

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
     
    I don't believe you.
  100. @Carlton Meyer
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  101. @Avery
    {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.

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

    No Boeing 767 struck the South Tower.

    Read More
  102. @James N. Kennett
    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.

    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”?

    Read More
  103. @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.

    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.

    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!

    Read More
  104. @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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    So who is lying here - Buzz, or his client? You must know this. You know all hidden things.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I don’t believe you."

    I don't believe a single thing you say.

  105. @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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  106. You seem unhappy with Wikipedia.

    Have you considered creating an alternative?

    Read More
  107. 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.

    Read More
  108. @geokat62

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    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.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Well, your standards for what constitutes evidence seem pretty weak....."

    That's rich, coming from you. You have no standards at all.
  109. 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

    Read More
  110. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    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–

    Read More
  111. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  112. @Ron Unz

    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.

    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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "... 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.
    , @geokat62

    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?
    , @Rurik

    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?

    , @edNels
    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.
  113. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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!

    “… 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    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.

    http://aldeilis.net/english/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/01/img444.imageshack.us_img444_1033_ua93crashingmk2.gif
    , @Carroll Price
    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.
  114. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  115. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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!

    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?

    Read More
  116. @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.
     
    I don't believe you.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "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.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    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.
  117. 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.

    Read More
  118. @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.
     
    I don't believe you.

    “I don’t believe you.”

    I don’t believe a single thing you say.

    Read More
  119. @5371
    So who is lying here - Buzz, or his client? You must know this. You know all hidden things.

    “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.

    Read More
  120. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    "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.

  121. @John Jeremiah Smith
    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."?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    , @Carroll Price
    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.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "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.
  122. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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!

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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....

    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...
    , @Jonathan Revusky
    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...

    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...
  123. @The Alarmist

    "... 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.

    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.

    http://aldeilis.net/english/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2012/01/img444.imageshack.us_img444_1033_ua93crashingmk2.gif

    Read More
  124. @dahoit
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  125. 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.

    Read More
  126. @disturbed_robot
    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.

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

    Read More
  127. @Otto the P
    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.

    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?

    Read More
  128. @Otto the P
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  129. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

    , @Carroll Price
    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.
    , @Liz Harris
    @ 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
  130. @CK
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  131. @Si1ver1ock
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  132. 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.

    Read More
  133. @Currahee
    okay, suppose it was a missile from and American gunboat....nobody talked???

    To avoid needless repetition, read post #133.

    Read More
  134. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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...
  135. 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.

    Read More
  136. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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!

    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.

    Read More
  137. @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. 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.

    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

    http://widebodyaircraft.nl/a300tun.jpg

    here’s an F-14 fighter

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf084-11xl.jpg

    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

    Read More
  138. 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.

    Read More
  139. 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    you're scanner's awry

    #25 http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-destruction-of-twa-flight-800/#comment-1586818

    #27

    #38
  140. @geokat62

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    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.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    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".
  141. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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?
  142. @Rurik

    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?

    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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
    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/

  143. @Rurik

    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?

    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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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.
  144. @5371
    So who is lying here - Buzz, or his client? You must know this. You know all hidden things.

    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.

    Read More
  145. @Turboglo
    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.

    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…

    Read More
  146. 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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {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.

  147. @Rurik

    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
    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    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

  148. @Si1ver1ock
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  149. @Bill Jones
    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.

    Good observations, Bill.

    Read More
  150. 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.
    ______

    Read More
  151. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.

  152. @richard vajs
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  153. 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

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    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.
  154. @Jonathan Revusky

    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....

    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...

    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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    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.

    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...
  155. 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.

    Read More
  156. @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.

    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.

    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).

    Read More
  157. @Jonathan Revusky
    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...

    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...

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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?

    https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/smbgodzilla3.jpg
  158. @Boris

    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?

    {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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    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.
  159. @SolontoCroesus
    you're scanner's awry

    #25 http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-destruction-of-twa-flight-800/#comment-1586818

    #27

    #38

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    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. . . .
     

  160. 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.

    Read More
  161. @Enzo Nak
    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

    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.

    Read More
  162. @CanSpeccy

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

    , @Avery
    {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.
  163. @Ron Unz

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    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.
  164. @Rurik
    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

    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. . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    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'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobfvKVBT4E

    . 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.
  165. @The Alarmist
    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 ;)

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    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.
  166. @Jonathan Revusky
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonymous Smith
    • Replies: @Erebus

    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.
    , @Eagle Eye
    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.
  167. 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

    Read More
  168. @Carroll Price
    Except for not collecting $5 billion for your troubles, you're almost as lucky as Pull It Larry Silverstein.

    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.

    Read More
  169. Argggghhhh! I misspelled “brakes!” ….Lady in Red

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    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.
  170. @Blobby5
    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.

    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.”

    Read More
  171. @Mulegino1
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    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... :-))
  172. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  173. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    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?
  174. @The Alarmist

    "... 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.

    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.

    Read More
  175. @Mulegino1
    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.

    {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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    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.
  176. @dahoit
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  177. 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.

    Read More
  178. @richard vajs
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  179. 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?”

    Read More
  180. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  181. @richard vajs
    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.

    @ 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

    Read More
  182. 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.

    Read More
  183. @Avery
    {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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {..., 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.
    , @Bill Jones
    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.