9/11 1976 TWA 355 Hoax

AA ProperGander Morrisgaialike this

@Notsofreemason investigates an old plane crash hoax.


Can you believe this narrative of a 9/11, 1976  hijacking with it’s fake bombs, absurd love stories, CIA connections, and unbelievable “coincidences”? 25 years before the far more infamous hijacking??? I don’t think that I can.  MAINSTREAM WIKIPEDIA NARRATIVETWA Flight 355 was a domestic Trans World Airlines flight which was hijacked on September 10-12, in 1976 by five “Fighters for Free Croatia”, a group seeking Croatian independence from Yugoslavia.The Boeing 727, TWA 355 took off from New York’s LaGuardia Airport and was headed to O’Hare International Airportin Chicago. The hijackers were Slobodan Vlaši?, Zvonko Buši?, his wife Julienne Buši?,[2] Petar Matani?, and Frane Pešut. The hijackers claimed to have a bomb as they seized control of the plane in the 95th minute of its flight; the alleged bomb on board was actually a pressure cooker.

Source: The Four Horses Asses of the Apocalypse: 9/11 1976 TWA 355 Hijacking, Fake Bombs, and Terrorist Love Triangle

22 thoughts on “9/11 1976 TWA 355 Hoax

  1. rickyricky

    Good post Ab. Have a fun Christmas and thanks for the gift of the “skeleton key” that’s unlocked the medias’ “ice wall” of misinformation, confusion and outright lies going back probably since “history” has been recorded.

  2. ab Post author

    Let’s retreat from making this personal now and remind ourselves that it’s Christmas – let’s be grateful once more that we are all quite like minded and stand far from the herd. Let us revert to our usernames and focus on points raised, and not make fissures in our already fragile mosaic. Peace!

  3. xileffilex

    “Hallo. What seems to the problem?”
    “Doctor, I think i’m suffering from Conspiracy Fatigue”
    “In what way?”
    “Mobility problems, I’m finding it very difficult to move on from bus crashes, suicide bombings and collapsing and burning buildings, Doctor”
    “Are you suffering from pain at the base of your conspiracy pyramid?”
    “Yes Doctor”
    “And you can’t seem to be able to move higher up the hoax pyramid?”
    Yes, Doctor”
    “Hmmm, I don’t think a course of satellites will do the trick. Or giving yourself some space. Have you tried bigger hoaxes, dinosaurs, history itself?”
    “No Doctor”
    “Well, we have cleared up all the baby hoaxes so no more questions remain and none of my patients now believes anything on TV or in the New England Journal of Medicine”
    “Yes Doctor, but I need to visit primary sources”
    “I think there’s not much hope of a cure, unfortunately. However, I’ll write you out a full membership prescription for JLB. Come back and see me in a month’s time and we’ll see if your fatigue has reduced.”
    “Thank you Doctor”

  4. UNrealUNreal

    Researching older minor hoaxes can of course be valuable and help some hesitant truthers better understand how reality has been manufactured since a long way back.

    However, there is a danger in looking back too much. The same entities that planned and carried out yesterdays frauds are still active today and they clearly hope for inquisitive minds to engage in endless debate on matters that don’t really help us research further and understand what is to come. A convenient place to lay inquisitive minds to rest in a million details that no longer matter. The ‘Real Deal’ proposition.

    Technology and means have changed since the early days of media hoaxes and the danger in getting comfortable by feeling “on top of fakery” by coining methods of the past (9/11 included) is actually quite a harmful process as tomorrows operations are planned as we speak and that we will be ill advised to believe that the hoaxes to come are necessarily like the hoaxes we have become “comfy” with. Conspiracy Fatigue guaranteed.


    1. gaiagaia

      But Unreal, how can it be “harmful” or “biased” just by looking into “new” old interesting staged events and not into the same things everybody talks about (Sandy Hoax, Boston, 9/11 and the likes)? Isn’t it just more advantageous to look into other hoaxes, especially with the idea of being able to “predict” the future ones (like we could ever do that?).

      Analyzing the various modus operandi I think is very useful to learn the tricks up the sleeves of the magician card players.

      To paraphrase James Hutton: “The past is the key to the present”

    2. UNrealUNreal

      The manner in which spending too much time past minor hoaxes is damaging is in providing a false sensation of knowledge and allocating time disproportionally on topics and memes that in their own right no longer are part of what is presently perpetuated and foremost now is planned for the future.

      As reference points older hoaxes are indeed useful when we can relate them to more recent events – but on their own we already know they are preprogrammed time traps as many major hoaxes of the past prove like JFK and 9/11 that goes on forever with new theories showing up regularly to keep the blinding lights on. Good examples of of this can be observed in Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs who will probably find new shooters on the Grassy Knoll still for some time to come. Or another suitcase put in the parking lot of the WTC.

      The very inaptitude of most alternative truthers to even engage in new topics is in itself alarming and a clear sign of how efficient the “conspiracy fatigue” gatekeeper technique of brassing ever evernew evidence on older insignificant hoaxes actually prove to be.

      Moreso than dwelling in infinite detail and lend too much importance on the controlled leaks that always seem to happen on the past hoaxers – i’m much more convinced of the significance of the overall picture of hoax history that the recent Fakeopedia present in a valuable form.

        1. UNrealUNreal

          Thanks – appreciated.

          Just for information, the term “Sir” actually can be quite deceptive as it phonetically corresponds to the french word “Soeur” which means ‘sister’. An EGI pun in my opinion and deceptively used i’d suppose by those in the know.

          As such nomenclature seems to have originated from religion* – i’m pretty doubtful this double entendre is by any means happenstance.

          *article – Sisters are mostly Brothers

          1. UNrealUNreal

            I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot … All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say: ‘I’m a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!’

            No worries – i’m not that mad !

            1. xileffilex

              So let me summarise – we have no idea how in-your-face daily hoaxes, usually involved death, disease or injury for maximum media impact, are organised, who is doing them, how they are co-ordinated, how people stay silent, how fake deaths are planned, how the vicsims are recruited, or where the vicsims go to. Yet we must “move on” to future hoaxes, the substance of which is unclear or unknown [not sure how we go about that] despite 99.99 per cent of the population still swallowing all the fake blood, fake grief, silly stories and staged photos of the in-your face hoaxes which fill our newspapers and screens every day, using a formula which is unchanged from the Titanic, Why should the perps change a winning forumula which keeps the journalists, lawyers and other professional in the creating reality business.
              Seems like a case of move along please, don’t look here.

            2. UNrealUNreal

              My point was more @xileffilex that we are encouraged to move back to the past to dwell on conspiracy candy & known memes and thus not see the deception that is on the way – like the transgender agenda that many comment on but few to none actually study.

              Too many alternative researchers are stuck in what i’d call arrested development (or Conspiracy Fatigue) where they have found their confort-zone and work hard to stay within – refusing to even do basic research on any topic that challenge their conspiracy-confort-zone.

              I’m not sure how you see the 99% of the population will take interest in the CIA in the 1960s, the Punk Rock conspiracy or a 1976 plane hijacking, but i’m not convinced it has the potential to spark their interest in any new way.

              This is not to say the skillset earned from past hoaxes isn’t useful, but spending too much time in the past on known hoax typologies seems to get in the way from what is currently unfolding and which more directly impact the 99% you speak of.

              Too much detail can actually blur vision moreso than help us see clear, especially when we do not relate the past to the present – by which point the umpteenth plane crash or hijacking do not help us far along.

              But it does feel comfortable to keep doing the same type of research we’re already familiar with. Minor hoaxes from the past won’t move the masses nor push the alternative research needle in favour of detecting the scope of deception currently going on and probably in the making already.

              1. notsofreemason

                Unreal:”Too much detail can actually blur vision” You are a funny guy, unreal! I’ll try pure speculation next time, I know that’s how you like it.

                Unreal:”I’m not sure how you see the 99% of the population will take interest in the CIA in the 1960s, the Punk Rock conspiracy or a 1976 plane hijacking, but i’m not convinced it has the potential to spark their interest in any new way.”

                Your only half-decent example of this advanced process of egi is a Bond “girl” from the 70’s. Real current there!

      1. notsofreemason

        Unreal, you said, “The very inaptitude of most alternative truthers to even engage in new topics is in itself alarming and a clear sign of how efficient the “conspiracy fatigue” gatekeeper technique of brassing ever evernew evidence on older insignificant hoaxes actually prove to be.”

        I’m sorry Andreas, we can’t all be on the cutting edge like yourself. I need to coin a term with a snappy acronym to describe some irrelevant delusion in order to be a non-“conspiracy fatigue gatekeeper”, such as yourself.

        Am I mistaken, are TWA-355 and the Grand Central Station 9/11 Bomb not “new topics”? I’ve done a lot of reading on these topics and I never came across any literature from an “alternative truther” standpoint.

        Would it be more prudent to analyze this psyop if I were to say, hypothetically, that Kathleen Murray Moran had a theoretical in-vitro procedure performed on herself in order to hoodwink the masses to the fact that she is in reality an “embryonic male”?

        Oh, by the way Andreas…I’ve seen in the past that you like to analyze the phonetics of the names of agents and players in psyops to find an esoteric inside joke…I’ve got one for you, that I think fits those qualifications nicely, here it is, ‘Andreas’…And*Re*As*signed gender.

        a guy with a completely unsuspicious name,
        Kyle Mason

        1. UNrealUNreal

          Just to be clear with @notsofreemason – we have never been on first name basis and i actually do not know you as a researcher that well except for the fact you to my knowledge have chosen to go by two pseudonyms both incorporating the word “mason” (Masonic Youth & notsofreemason).

          As you full well know, nomenclature can be misleading and while i’m not opposed to anyone using my real name – i have chosen to appear under my pen-name Unreal while i engage in controversial topics, and those who insist on using my first name to imply unwarranted familiarity with my person or a conflicting side to my integrity do so unasked for and with obvious motives of sophistry.

          As to your disagreement with my view that older conspiracy material can be used deceptively to have us trapped in what i call “Conspiracy Fatigue” – the points you make seem to be focalised at my person not the topic i adress.

          There are several researchers most would assimilate with the technique described as Conspiracy Fatigue – Fetzer and Marrs. You might not have paid much attention to these researchers nor analysed what they propose for their public as topics – maybe you should.

          Regarding the umpteenth new 9/11 fake story and the september 10th 1976 hijacking these are pretty close subjects that the likes of Fetzer & Marrs could spend a long while dwelling on which at least some might recognise as a stalling technique retaining our attention in the past on conspiracies we have well resolved and come to terms with.

          Nevertheless my post here was not on EGI but rather on how too much focus on past minor hoaxes can be deceptive and lead to a certain condition of ‘fatigue’ – which i can understand someone does not agree with in this particular case of the 1976 hijacking. By not addressing the issue of Conspiracy Fatigue, you seem satisfied with personal quarrelling and ad hominem fallacies which seems like a lack of understanding or possibly just personal animosity.

          And i guess that your own name pun would be made on all Fakeologists as inversion seems the name of the conspiracy pun-game and that your choice of “not so freemason” translates directly into “very freemason” for insiders where the G is on more often than not.

          1. notsofreemason

            @unreal, I explained to you months ago, when you were making negative statements towards the validity of my work that, “I don’t like to argue in text”, mainly because it is likely a futile exchange, and also because I don’t appreciate your point of view nor do I respect what you call research. I tried to avoid interacting with you, and was successful until later in the day when I read your comment that stopped discussing the current TWA topic and brought up “punk rock”. It was at this point that it was clear to me that you were taking a shot at my research as a whole. I regret my interaction with you. I apologize if using your name was offensive to you. I have seen your “name” used in the title of a podcast called Hoax Busters Call (which sounds “controversial” to me and I personally know would be categorized by most as such) that you were a guest on. I think you can see how I thought your name was on the table to reference.

            You can come talk to me on Discord but I plan to adhere to my rule of avoiding text based arguments in the future and I also plan to avoid you Mr. Unreal.

      2. gaiagaia

        You miss the fact that people are all individuals and all have different interests. You went down the rabbit trail into an empty hole; EGI, that is your passion, some may even call it an obsession.

        Other people have other interests. Where do you think you pulled the “right” from to define for other people “what is important”…?

        Right, you cannot. I see this whole EGI stuff as a stupid trail based on photos and videos released just by those people we have exposed as faking photos and videos…

        Don’t you recognize the irony in that? If you don’t, I have done my best to make it clear to you.

        Notsofreemason has done an excellent job in taking down yet another (so-called “minor”) hoax and you criticize him because he doesn’t join you on the rabbit trail? Really?

        If the topic doesn’t interest you, just stay away.

        So many minds, so many thorough thoughts…

        1. UNrealUNreal

          My argument @gaia is not about EGI here – yet many seem all to eager to pigenhole me as a sort of one trick pony. Fortunately, i’ve participated on Fakeologist long enough to justify my wide interest in Fakeology – for starters your Fakeopedia is not a “new” subject, nor is the PsyOps List that existed as a spreadsheet before.

          The endless hamster-wheel of conspiracy is not happenstance and neither is the constant focus on minute detail on past events that i qualify as an indirect means to gatekeep curious minds.

          When you qualify secretly transgendered Elite individuals as “stupid” and disregard imagery as not having any importance – it is curious that you fail to see what is presented to the public these days in terms of role models and how without image/video analysis there would be no September Clues.

          Imagery is not an unreliable medium and actually admitted in court just like fingerprints and DNA – with the the latter two “proofs” being impossible to verify for anyone as such evidence comes from ‘authorised’ state labs where no-one can check if the proof exist or even add up (in the case of DNA – i’m not even sure there is such a hidden nucleus inside any cell).

          As to you invitation to “stay away” it is just rude, but that might have been the point you really hope to make as you qualify research i’ve spent time and effort working on as “stupid” and “obsessive”.

  5. xileffilex

    Good work. I call total Bulšit on that Croatian 355 escapade. Interesting that there was an alleged mid air collision between a BA flight with allegedly just 54 passengers on board and an obscure Cologne bound Croatian flight, with 108 more easily assimilated passengers the same day. What are the chances?
    That’s another obvious candidate for a faked disaster mid 1970s style. I can’t find any complete list of vicsims from the BA flight. [the old “late for work” ruse contributed to the “crash near Vrobec]

    No. 7 in a list of best Yuglslav air “crashes” in this list

    The memorial to “some of the dead” is bizarre, location not stated….
    Apparently it’s in Mirogoj cemetery, Zagreb.

    The report/simulation of the crash is here, no passengers named, only crew

    Contemporary ABC news report and standard video of wreckage and grieving relatives….

Leave a Reply