Isn't the true reason congress outlawed sst concorde flights over the us was to drive aerospace competition into bankruptcy?

Allegedly congress claimed the sonic booms from the concorde would cause harmful environmental noise pollution. Using that excuse, the new york port authority also banned the concorde from landing in new york, the plane's biggest potential market.

but wasn't that merely a ruse to protect american aerospace companies from foreign competitors, whose concorde poised them to take the lead in the commercial aviation market? Witnesses claimed the concorde's booms sounded no worse than distant thunder, no problem at all. But congress had just cancelled funding for the us version of the sst, placing american aerospace companies in jeopardy of losing their lead to the new foreign competition. Rather than fund the us sst, congress' cheap alternative was to attempt killing the concorde by banning it from the us market. Without the ability to fly over the us, the concorde was not economically viable. The true reason the us
banned the concorde had nothing to do with noise or the environment. It was old fashioned economic protectionism.

The Concord was never a practical mode of air travel. Due to it's massive fuel consumption and the cost of a ticket, only the rich and famous could afford to fly on it. The sonic booms were just one more problem and did not prevent methods from being developed to eliminate them over US soil. Even without the sonic booms, the noise from the engines at takeoff and landing would be unacceptable by today's standards.

What you say is very likely true.
Considering that there are hundreds of military supersonic planes - and they are not banned.

But then, why didn't the US industry develop their own supersonic passenger plane.
The US still does not have one.

Most of the things you've written are inaccurate. The ban was very early in the operational history of the Concorde, and was completely lifted in the late 1970's. The Concorde flew daily between New York and Europe from then until its retirement in 2003. It also regularly flew to or through Washington-Dulles and Miami.

The Concorde wasn't a profitable mode of travel. It was expensive to fly, expensive to operate, and as a result had a much lower demand than subsonic flights.

Supersonic flight was outlawed long before the Concord or SST were developed.
I remember hearing sonic booms as a child back in the early 60's. Then it was outlawed because of the complaints not out of some nefarious reason

You are talking out of the wrong end of your gastrointestinal tract.

Both BOAC (later British Airways) and Air France had multiple daily Concorde flights between New York and London and Paris throughout Concorde's operations. Both Boeing and McDonnell Douglass were developing supersonic transports, so your protecting the US aerospace industry doesn't hold water either.

The sonic boom is what kept the Concorde from flying supersonic over land. While there were less than 20 Concordes in operation at any one time and the occasional sonic boom from them alone wouldn't have been a big problem, what if the supersonic travel took off as anticipated in the 1960s? Imagine living under a major transcontinental airway with hundreds of supersonic jets passing over your head every day. You'd be hearing a boom every minute. That was unacceptable.

Hardly. While the sonic booms were a massive problem for intra continental flights (everything from waking people up at night, broken windows, to chickens refusing to lay eggs, and cows dropping in milk production), the Concorde was a money pit.

The cost of its fuel alone - especially during the oil embargo years, was outrageous.

Concorde would have ruined Boing
The US Libtards just couldn't handle that

Congress NEVER "banned" Concorde flights over the USA. After receiving THOUSANDS of complaints and being sued for property damage relating to sonic booms, the FAA made it illegal for ALL civilian aircraft to exceed the speed of sound over the Continental USA. Military aircraft are also restricted from flying at supersonic speeds over land except for very specific circumstances.

Some could argue that, but the point is that New York WAS routinely connected with flights of the Concorde originating from London and Paris, point being that supersonic flight regime ended several minutes before landing, when the plane was still above the ocean.
The overland supersonic ban affected the New-York/Los Angeles (and similar) possible routes, which were another big market.

That said, it was just last year that the US administration tried to impose 300% tarifs against Bombardier aircraft, claiming subsidies, while Boeing did not even have an aircraft in that class, so narrow minded and unfair politicians do exist.

Yes. Also Alex Jones and hard ni***please!