The theory isn't just "it's burning jet fuel", though; it's that the plane broke apart, and that the now tail-heavy back section with the wings flew upwards as the nose fell to the water. It's not an insane idea, and is at least partially backed by radar data.

Not an insane idea? How much lift can a pair of wings generate without thrust or stabilization? If the plane broke apart in mid-air, as you say, the engines would have shut down immediately. The only "thrust" the back section had remaining is the inertial energy from its moving mass. Without attitude control and with a huge gaping hole in the front acting as an air brake, I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.

If it were that obvious, cover-up would be impossible. You’d have had hundreds of aeronautical engineers screaming to everyone who’d listen.

Well there were thousands of architects and engineers screaming ideas about 9/11. Doesn’t mean much

https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/Record/7884068/File/Docume...

> I struggle to see how the plane could have climbed any more than a few meters before stalling.

This is because you understand neither aerodynamics, or what happens to planes during failures, specifically big ones where when the front falls off.

Thankfully, other people do.

This is not a good-faith comment. This is incredibly dismissive without providing any supporting information. Do better.

Sorry, just bored of the self-centered "I don't understand this thing, so therefore it can't be true" mentality that seems to be a common trait across most conspiracy theorists.

So this tells us its OK to lie as long as 200 people die and you can tie up the evidence for a couple decades.

I'll remember that when I'm teaching my kids its bad to lie about stealing an extra cookie. Thanks CIA, etc

1. You should never use the CIA as a moral example for your children.

2. With respect to lying about hundreds of people dying, is that really a surprise to you? Just a few possible examples off the top of my head.

RMS Lusitania, claimed to be carrying tens if not hundreds of tons of undeclared high explosives, which would have made it a 'legitimate' target for the u-boat that sank it. This is officially denied, but the Royal Navy has since endeavored to destroy the wreck and warn divers away from investigating it.

K-219, a Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in early October 1986. Later that month USS Augusta, an American attack submarine, went in for repairs to a smashed radar dome. The US Navy denies any connection between the two.

K-129, another Soviet ballistic missile sub, sank in 1968. The US Navy figured out where it was before anybody else, claiming to have found it using sonar buoys and Bayesian search techniques. A few days after K-129 sank, USS Swordfish went into port for repairs after a supposed collision with sea ice. The US Navy denies any connection between the two.

MS Estonia was a ferry that sank in 1980 when the front loading doors failed. Allegations that the ferry was being used to smuggle military hardware were denied by everybody, then the wreck was deliberately buried under thousands of tons of gravel so that nobody can inspect it.

1988, the US Navy shoots down Iran Air Flight 655. The US Navy claims it was self-defense because their Aegis cruiser misidentified the Airbus A300 as an Iranian F-14.

Unfortunately, if the USA may repeatedly hit-and-run Soviet/Russian submarines it sounds like a worthy tactic instead of an accident. Blame should be on the Soviet/Russian side for failing to counter.

If there were collisions, I think they were probably accidents. For one, deliberate collisions would risk the loss of the American submarine too. They weren't built for ramming.

Secondly, the circumstance of an accidental collision seems very believable. Such collisions would not have been freak accidental encounters; the main mission of US attack subs at the time was to tail Soviet ballistic missile subs very closely and not be detected. The Soviet submarine commanders had some inkling of this, and responded by making erratic maneuvers to "clear their baffles" (essentially, look behind themselves, where their sonar was otherwise blind.) Trailing an unpredictable submarine very close is inherently risky. I think the blame falls on the circumstance of the Cold War itself, which compelled both sides to believe their actions were necessary.

And it has happened to others that almost certainly weren't trying to kill each other: In 2009, a French and a UK ballistic missile sub collided

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

not to mention quite a few more incidents of subs ramming surface vessels, which should be even easier to avoid.

Also allowing the Soviets to claim an undersea accident vs “you totally rammed our sun you idiot” allows them to save face and also prevents escalation.

People still believe the Pearl Harbor attack was an inevitable occurrence or a radar detection and communications problem almost 100 years later. President Roosevelt told General Marshall to send a message to the Hawaiian commanders: "Don't interfere with Japan's overt act of war. The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act."

Maybe in 100 years the questions and evidence presented in the 5 hour documentary "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013)" will be answered and/or justified.

Can you source that quote?

The closest I can find that made it to actual commanders is:

"If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense."

Which is very different from the conspiratorial intent you're implying.

Yep, I believe that's the exact quote. The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily and when it was obvious that Japan was pushed to the breaking point the attack on Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to justify the ensuing war back home.

Interestingly I see a lot of parallels in the war in Ukraine right now. The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred. Now everyone sees Russia as the overt oppressor. Mission accomplished?

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/did-the-us-provoke-japans-...

Japan had plenty of oil and energy to sustain peaceful operations. They "needed" more oil to wage their land war in China and naval conquest across the Pacific. They tried negotiating with the Dutch to get oil from the Dutch East Indies. When these negotiations failed, they hatched a plan to take that oil by force. The subsequent oil embargo against Japan was a response to that. The reason they picked a fight with America was because the American occupied Philippines was located directly between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. They knew that to take the Dutch East Indies they would need to take the Philippines as well, so they decided to destroy the US Navy first.

Internet commenters like to make a big deal out of the oil embargo, saying that America twisted Japan's arm and forced them into a war. This is not true. Japan's arm was twisted by their own imperial ambition which demanded that oil. If they never had that ambition they would not have needed that oil in the first place, nor would they have been slapped with an oil embargo.

> The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred.

I think you're getting things out of order there - the economic sanctions came after the invasion.

Don't forget that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014; that also was met with sanctions.

> The US and EU started arming bordering countries and applying extreme economic sanctions on Russia in rapid succession and "everyone" was surprised that the invasion occurred.

Precisely what sanctions did the US and EU levy before Russia invaded Ukraine?

Lets indulge this - if that was the plan, youd hope they would be better prepared for Russia shutting off the gas pipelines. If they didnt switch to renewables and nuclear, at least they would have full gas storage and LNG terminals and contracts in place?

Instead, they were caight with their pants down

Or maybe neighbors were armed because Russia has a long history of invading them.

In Europe, everybody has a long history of being invaded by everybody else, so trying to spin that as "Russia bad" requires a very myopic outlook.

Russia also has a long history of being invaded from the West. That's why Russia is super nervious about NATO expansion.

Most of Europe lost their taste for war a few generations ago, and have since tried to create a world where constant invasions of their neighbors is no longer the status quo.

They are weary of Russia because Russia never got with the program. Russia does not believe that a peaceful future is possible, assumes the old status quo will continue, and act accordingly by continuing to invade their neighbors.

And just to preempt the inevitable whataboutism; America never got with the program either. Not really. But America isn't the one threatening Western Europe with war, and Eastern European countries like Poland and Ukraine choosing to align themselves with America/NATO to protect themselves against Russia speaks volumes about the relative threat of America vs Russia to peace in Europe.

Few generations is not enough. Having a few generations between large-scale war is how Europe operated in the last 200+ years. Maybe it's just few generations o'clock.

Add to that how Europe absolutely botched both Bosnia and Kosovo and had full-scale wars there. Your arguments about world peace are bogus. Europe is encircled in a ring of fire made from ex-USSR, Middle East and Maghreb. All the wars in the world happen around Europe specifically. Maybe it's time to ask why.

As you can see now, not all of Ukraine wants to align itself with America/NATO.

Not sure if all the wars in the world happen around Europe, unless you literally mean AROUND not IN. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_confli...

Most of these wars do not happen in core Europe, but they come dangerously close to it: Cyprus, Bosnia, now Ukraine.

Meanwhile, East Asia or Americas just don't see that amount of action. Africa does, but that's another story.

It's like someone is throwing wars towards Europe.

Last time Russia was invaded: the time they helped a genocidal maniac try to conquer Europe, 80 years ago.

Last time Russia’s neighbors were invaded by them: well, obviously, now.

That genocidal maniac is who unites the EU today. If you no longer blame Germany for Hitler you can't in any kind of good faith blame Russia for Soviet Union's pact with Hitler.

I’m fine blaming the current genocidal maniac: Putin.

> The US started putting impossible demands on Japan to suffocate them economically and militarily ...

This is the same historical revisionist nonsense floated by Japanese right wing to claim that Japan was somehow "forced" to attack America and WW2 was a just war of defense.

Yeah the fact that it was the CIA releasing the video always seemed like a red flag to me. Why were they even involved in the investigation? Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?

- Missile system being tested in the area

- Dozens of witnesses who report seeing missiles in the weeks before and after the crash

- Multiple witnesses including Blackhawk pilots flying nearby who saw a missile hit the plane

- FBI and CIA take over and freeze out the NTSB

Yeah I'd say there were a few red flags lol

That's readily answerable.

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

> At the start of FBI's investigation, because of the possibility that international terrorists might have been involved, assistance was requested from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

> Why didn’t those statements come from the FAA?

They wouldn't normally; without any potential of criminal activity, they'd come from the NTSB.

So why did the CIA produce a video about the fuel tank exploding, when that is something clearly within the purview of the NTSB? Why did they continue to devote resources when it was established that it was not a terrorist attack?

Aviation incident analysis is not one of the CIA’s core competencies, but propaganda is.

Incident analysis - especially where explosives are concerned - is absolutely something the CIA does regularly. (As is causing such incidents.) If I asked the CIA to determine if something was enemy(ish, in this case) action, I'd expect to get a fairly detailed report explaining why or why not back.

I'm skeptical until they provide some details on the FOIL documents received.

The NTSB worked for four years and released a report, as expected.

Wouldn’t the CIA first ask if you needed it to be or not be enemy action?

Sure, if you come to the CIA with "we need you to fake a report", they'll likely fake a report. In that scenario, though, I strongly suspect the 95% reconstructed fuselage wouldn't have been permitted to be a NTSB training aid for two decades afterwards.

How many other air remains had such done to it? 25 years seems a long time.

MH17 was similarly reconstructed.

https://www.reuters.com/world/mh17-aircraft-wreckage-viewed-...

Modern laser scanning makes retaining the original long-term less important, apparently.

It sounds more like "take over" than "assistance."