It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof that UAL175 didn't hit the south tower?

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Before we get started, this does not mean no planes hit the towers. The planes that hit may or may not have been the reported flights, or they may have been military drones. Either way, planes did hit the towers.

For those that have been researching 9/11 for quite some time, you may or may not know that it's possible that there were more than one FL.11 and FL.175 that was airborne on 9/11. Probably due to the many different wargames that were going on and the insertion of false plane blips onto radar.

For more information on the multiple FL.11's, you can visit this link:
911wideopen.com...

This post will concentrate on UA175 that allegedly hit the south tower. From the following link:
911woodybox.blogspot.com...


The gate departure of United Airlines 175 is indisputable: 7:58 a.m., which is also confirmed by the database of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS):

www.bts.gov...

However, the BTS database reveals a strange discrepancy regarding the "wheels-off time" of Flight 175 - i.e. the moment when the plane lifted off from the runway. The BTS notes a wheels-off time of 8:23, which differs distinctly from the "official" wheels-off time, which is 8:14.

This 8:14 take-off is confirmed by the ATC/pilot radio transcript and various radar data. So what about the 8:23? How was this datum being generated?

The wheels-off time of is triggered automatically by a mechanical switcher when the plane loses contact to the ground. The data are sent automatically to the airline via ACARS, and the airline forwards them to the BTS on a regular base. So apparently no human failure is possible. The fact that the gate departure 7:58 coincides with the official story suggests that the data are valid.

Being familiar with the duplication of Flight 11 at Logan Airport as well as the duplication of Delta 1989 at Cleveland Hopkins Airport, I arrived at the inevitable conclusion that this was another case of a duplicated plane - i.e. a "Flight 175" taking off at 8:14 and another "Flight 175" taking off at 8:23. However, there was no independent confirmation, so I hinted at the discrepancy on occasion, but always added a question mark -here, for instance:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I am now able to proudly present an eyewitness for the 8:23 wheels-offtime of Flight 175: Steven Miller, US Airways pilot, who was next in line behind Flight 175 to take off from the runway:

On the taxi-out in Boston, they ((the pilots of US Airways 6805)) waited at the runway's hold-short line, where Miller looked up to watch a United Boeing 767 take off, United Flight 175. The final weight and balance calculations from dispatch came over the ACARS at 8:05, and with that in hand, the crew was ready to fly. Wide-body aircraft produce especially powerful wingtip vortices - horizontal, tornado-like winds off the ends of the wings - which require time to dissipate before other aircraft can take off, so he waited the required three minutes after United 175 departed before he received his takeoff clearance.

(Lynn Spencer, "Touching History", p. 58)

A quick check with the BTS database reveals that USA 6805 had a wheels-off time of 8:28. Miller explicitly describes that he waited 3 minutes before getting takeoff clearance; adding a little bit for the timespan between takeoff clearance and actual wheels-off, Flight 175 must have lifted off the runway around 8:23-8:24. It is out of the question that Miller observed a plane that took off at 8:14.

The BTS database also reveals that the tail number of the plane that took off at 8:23 was N612UA. This was United Airlines Flight 175. And there is no proof that the plane that took off at 8:14 was indeed N612UA, leading to the conclusion that the pilot only pretended to fly United Airlines Flight 175. (the 8:14 one)


With that in mind, an interesting discovery has been made. Flight 175 was airborne on 9/11 at 10:25 am. Almost an hour and a half after it had allegedly hit the south tower.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Taking a look at the next video, at the 2:45 mark, the news reporter starts showing the Flight Explorer system which shows live FAA flight data for planes in the air.

www.youtube.com...

Looking at the 3:00 time, he starts mousing-over some of the flights and one of them just happens to be UAL175:





What this says is:

UAL175
318 439
B762
BOS 08:15a
LAX 01:44p

318 = Flight Level: 31,800 feet
439 = Airspeed
B762 = Boeing 767-200
BOS 08:15a = Estimated departure time from Boston
LAX 01:44p = Estimated arrival time at Los Angeles.

Also notice the location of the plane on Flight Explorer and the direction it's heading. It is approximately 50-75 miles northeast of New York city and heading in the direction of Boston.

In this video, 3 minutes after showing UAL175 being still airborne, the north tower collapses. The north tower collapsed at 10:28a and therefore this UAL175 was in the air at least until 10:25a which is almost an hour and a half after it's alleged impact time.

Is this the real UAL175 or just a false radar insert as part of the multiple wargames going on that morning? A truly independent investigation could answer these and many other questions relating to the events of September the 11th, 2001.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


That is truly amazing piece of information right there, I literally can't believe I just saw that. Just when you think you have seen all there is to see with 9/11 something like this comes out.

I'd cannot wait to see how this is going to be handled by the OS guys. So wow, this means there really were fake blips, at the very least this is clear evidence of attempts to confuse the military first responders.

All that talk of the FAA and Norad chasing flights that had supposedly already crashed seem to be true, hmm.

This is what the Commission was trying to steer us away from for sure.

Thanks for the heads up Bonez.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This is proof that either there was more than one UAL175 in the air, or that there were false radar blips inserted into the radar as part of the war game exercises. Criminals screw up and that's how they get caught. This is one of those screw-ups. This just screams "INSIDE JOB".

[edit on 13-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Is this the real UAL175 or just a false radar insert as part of the multiple wargames going on that morning? A truly independent investigation could answer these and many other questions relating to the events of September the 11th, 2001.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]


Excellent work there BoneZ... nice thread.

It still never ceases to amaze me how the biggest crime in recent history had such a small investigation and report.

The discrepancy you describe here may have had an innocent explanation (although I sincerely doubt it) but we will almost certainly never know.

To my mind I would have expected a thorough forensic investigation and an extensive study of the mass murder that occurred on 9/11.

Every detail and facet examined - a definitive time-line established and everything laid out with as little doubt as possible.

The superficial investigation and final report indicates quite clearly that SOMEONE doesn't want SOMETHING at about that fateful day discovered

Something is being covered up, without a shadow of a doubt

[edit on 13/3/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Also notice the location of the plane on Flight Explorer and the direction it's heading. It is approximately 50-75 miles northeast of New York city and heading in the direction of Boston.


This was explained shortly after 9/11 and it's purely a measure of P4T's incompetence that they "discovered" it and think it's meaningful.

I've had Flight Explorer since long before 9/11.

When I was finally able to get a connection on 9/11, UA 175 had just hit WTC 2. I took a screen snap of the FE screen showing UA175 in Connecticut.

This is perfectly in keeping with how Flight Explorer worked back then and has already been beaten to death years ago.

Flight Explorer updates its screen data every minute. That does not mean it updates every flight every minute. There are also data interruptions. FE was designed to deal with missing data and interruptions by displaying a projected position in time based on the last confirmed data update. We who use FE already knew that.

UA 175 data dropped immediately on hitting WTC 2. FE kept displaying UA 175 projected positions for 2 cycles, the first over Long Island Sound, the second into Connecticut. The projected positions were based on the last real data read of UA175's position, heading, altitude, and speed, which, as we know, had it going right through WTC 2.

This is just another example of the 9/11 Truth Movement's desperation to not even understand a known feature of FE.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


After doing a little more digging and discovering the following image, I'm going to agree with you on the point that FE was projecting UAL175's flight path after the FAA lost it's signal because the last plots of UAL175's flight speed and altitude stayed exactly the same which tells me FE was projecting:



This thread should be closed.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well Bonez I don't really think the thread should be closed, I for one had no clue about FE and everything that JT says. Along with what you posted that makes sense to me, I mean it follows along the same exact path.

Someone else who has no clue about FE, like me, that comes across this info will at least be able to find this information listed with the information you found.

What I can only think about now is how could the P4T guys, supposedly a bunch of pilots, not know this was BS and dismiss it out right immediately? That puts P4T in a whole new light(for me at least) the fact that you had got this from them made it more believable.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What I can only think about now is how could the P4T guys, supposedly a bunch of pilots, not know this was BS and dismiss it out right immediately? That puts P4T in a whole new light(for me at least) the fact that you had got this from them made it more believable.



This was not "found" by P4T. It was posted on P4T forum by a forum poster named "Seatnineb". Forum posters do not represent the organization as the big white bold letters state on the bottom of the forum. Rob Balsamo did respond in the thread finding it "interesting", but it appears that is as far as it went, as many at P4T (the organizaton, not the forum) are aware of what is called "radar coasting". It also appears on AA77 out to STL on Flytecomm.

This is just another demonstration of jthomas' incompetence to actually click a source link and/or lie in a poor attempt to discredit his adversary... The above research is not a product or "discovery" of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Bonez, in the future, you may want to make such a point clear so people like jthomas dont have to be caught in such lies.

Edit: Added Flytecomm radar link



[edit on 15-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


Did you actually read this whole thread before posting? I know jthomas is our resident debunker from JREF, but in this instance he was not lying and my next post after his shows that. I can't believe I'm sticking up for a JREF'er, but we are all seeking the TRUTH and there were no visible lies in his post and my post after his backed his up.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Bonez,

The only way you will be able to "back up" the above information was "discovered" by P4T (as claimed by jthomas) is if you post a direct link to the main site. So far, you have only sourced a thread created by "SeatnineB" regarding this "discovery" in P4T forum.

Rob Balsamo did reply in the thread finding the "discovery" interesting. But that no way makes "P4T" responsible for the "discovery" as claimed by jthomas.

I look forward to your "proving" it was discovered by "P4T" and telling us exactly which core member it was discovered by. Might be hard to do since you already source "Seatnineb" as your source for the discovery.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


Firstly, your posts are off topic and not even what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that jthomas said "discovered" in quotes because P4T didn't discover it. Jthomas also mentioned P4T's incompetence at not discovering the afore mentioned evidence.

Right now you're just pulling at straws and trying to play semantics. The information that I backed up from jthomas had to do with the way Flight Explorer works, you know, what this topic is about. Not who the hell discovered what.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Two words, Blue Beem.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Bonez,

my posts are not off topic. Please read this quote from jthomas.


Originally posted by jthomas
This was explained shortly after 9/11 and it's purely a measure of P4T's incompetence that they "discovered" it and think it's meaningful.


Is that an accurate statement? Was the research in your OP "discovered by" P4T? Does P4T consider it "meaningful"? No to both...

The statement made by jthomas is another poor attempt to discredit his adversary through lies. Period.

Bonez, i know you have a personal grudge against P4T when they demodded you for using your mod status as weight in debates, and then cried to have your account deleted, but that is no reason to let jthomas spread his lies and then let others think the source was P4T when in fact, it wasnt. jthomas also claims P4T thought the research in the OP was "meaningful". If that were the case, the research would be posted to P4T main site. You should know this being a former P4T mod.

jthomas is either incompetent regarding actual source, or lying to discredit his opponent. Its just that simple.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
With respect to the research in the OP, (and AA77 radar)

There are two schools of thought here...

1. The radar was in coast mode.

2. The radar was actually painting a target.

Of course those who make excuses for the govt story will always choose number 1, and those who are skeptical of the govt story see numer 2 as a possibility.

The only way to know for sure is to have open discussion and govt transparency in the form of an open court.

Note: jthomas does not source any of his claims as usual. Just the typical handwaiving, "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

Note: The research in the OP was not discovered by P4T, P4T does not think they "discovered it", nor do they think its "meaningful". It appears however they found it interesting. But, considering the date of the source thread at P4T forum, its been months since the thread has seen activity and such research has never made it to the main site at P4T. So, one can only conclude that P4T no longer finds it very interesting, or is researching other issues they find more important which dont have possible explanations (such as radar coasting being a possible explanation in the case of the OP).



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


You have absolutely no idea what happened over there. And once again you're off topic with your attempted attack on me. Your post has been reported and we can discuss off topic things in U2U.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Bonez,

You didnt answer the questions.

Is jthomas' statement accurate with respect to the source of your OP?

Please answer these...

Is P4T the source of your OP research?

Does P4T think they "discovered" such radar anomalies in your OP as claimed by jthomas?

Does P4T think the OP research is meaningful?

Being a former P4T mod, what actions does P4T take when they consider research "meaningful"?

Can any of the research in your OP be sourced to the P4T main site with an actual core member as the author?

Please answer....


edit to add: and yes, i know exactly what happened at the P4T forum. I read through it, Its all there. Click the link above.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What I can only think about now is how could the P4T guys, supposedly a bunch of pilots, not know this was BS and dismiss it out right immediately? That puts P4T in a whole new light(for me at least) the fact that you had got this from them made it more believable.




Bonez, answer this one too...

Why didnt you correct the above ATS member when you know for a fact the source of your OP was not P4T?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Was the research in your OP "discovered by" P4T? The statement made by jthomas is another poor attempt to discredit his adversary through lies. Period.

I'll respond until the mods come clean up the mess you made in my thread. Jthomas was not implying that P4T discovered this research as evidenced by his quote marks around the word "discovered". Any more reading into this is pulling at straws and doing what the disinfo agents do, making things up and communicating them as facts.


Originally posted by RockHound757
i know you have a personal grudge against P4T when they demodded you for using your mod status as weight in debates, and then cried to have your account deleted

This goes to show you have no idea what happened or what you're talking about.

Rob removed my mod status for disciplining one of his pilot friends. A pilot who continued to break forum rules. It was documented of his breaking of rules and he was warned one last time that if he continued to break the rules, he'd be suspended. Well, he broke the rules again and I suspended him. He went crying to Rob and got himself reinstated and Rob demodded me because there are double standards in place that I wasn't aware of.

Even though the forum rules specifically said that NOBODY, mods and admins included, was immune from the rules. But the pilots were immune, apparently.

So for Rob to reverse my decision on that pilot and demod me for it, I did ask for my account to be deleted. And yes I did delete my research in that thread. It was MY research to delete and it had MY pictures from MY website and using MY bandwidth. Rob was not going to have permission to use my research on his forums.

So, you can do like disinfo agents do and make up all the lies you want to make others look bad, but plain and simple, Rob reversed my decision and demodded me for it, so I took my research and left.

I sent a PM to Dylan and several others the day that it happened and I got a response back from Dylan. You can check with Dylan yourself to see if my story has changed. I still have the PM's that I sent and got back from him.

There is no grudge and I haven't had a second thought about P4T since I left.



Originally posted by RockHound757
Is P4T the source of your OP research?

The source links are clearly marked in the OP.



Originally posted by RockHound757
Does P4T think they "discovered" such radar anomalies in your OP as claimed by jthomas?


Originally posted by RockHound757
Does P4T think the OP research is meaningful?

You may want to ask P4T these questions as I have no affiliation with them.



Originally posted by RockHound757
Being a former P4T mod, what actions does P4T take when they consider research "meaningful"?

Since I've been out of the loop for over a year, this is another question that you should ask them as I have no idea what their current policies are.



Originally posted by RockHound757
Can any of the research in your OP be sourced to the P4T main site with an actual core member as the author?

Once again pulling at straws. We both know that things posted in the P4T forums are not necessarily the views of P4T. Just because the OP has a link back to P4T to give the ORIGINAL AUTHOR credit for the discovery, has no bearing whether P4T officially agrees with this research or not.



Originally posted by RockHound757
Why didnt you correct the above ATS member when you know for a fact the source of your OP was not P4T?

The source in the OP clearly has a link to P4T forums to give the original author credit. When someone sees a link from P4T, what do you expect someone to say? The link is to a thread at P4T forums. The rules at P4T explicitly say that posts do not necessarily represent the views of P4T members.

It is neither my job, nor responsibility to pay attention to what others think the sources are. This thread has nothing to do with sources. It has to do with Flight Explorer. Period.

And finally.....



Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What I can only think about now is how could the P4T guys, supposedly a bunch of pilots, not know this was BS and dismiss it out right immediately? That puts P4T in a whole new light(for me at least) the fact that you had got this from them made it more believable.

This was not "found" by P4T.

He didn't say it was found by P4T. He said that P4T should've come to the same conclusion that jthomas and I did that Flight Explorer was projecting after it lost contact with UAL175 and closed the thread accordingly.

None of this has anything to do with the OP. The OP deals with Flight Explorer's data. I could care less what others think the sources are. I posted the sources, that's all I have to do. If you don't like the way others are talking about the sources or if they misrepresent the sources, take it up with them, not me.

My first post has been debunked and we moved on. Time for you to move on also.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Well, thanks for making it clear the OP research did not come from P4T nor does P4T think they "discovered it" as claimed by jthomas... (even if you had to spin it up a bit).

And your "demodding" wasnt over Bill (who you continue to confuse the subject). It started by your deleting members posts... (Quest is not a pilot)


In light of Quest's whiney bitch-fest to the admins and causing Undertow and Painter to make posts about it is beyond bull#. His post was deleted and he was warned about his continued attacks and disrespect towards me and he was sent a PM about it. Then he decides to go whining to the admins causing some admins to get upset.

This sh*t pisses me off that Quest thinks he's above the forum rules and has to go whining to the admins when he doesn't like a decision from me. I don't give a sh*t who's friend he is, disrespect towards forum staff and attacks towards others including forum staff will not be tolerated.



Above source is BoneZ. I dont think he'll deny it.

Bill is not a core member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and has been warned by Rob several times as well. He is not a "pilot friend" and is why you fail to source such a claim.

Your ego got the best of you at P4T, you used your mod weight to influence debate, you deleted member threads at P4T which is against policy, and the entire staff at P4T decided to remove your mod status (not just Rob). They still considered you a valued member...


This post is to inform you all that BoneZ has been removed from mod status in order for members and BoneZ himself to be more objective within debate on topics generated in this section of the forum.

It was not an easy decision to make, and in no way should reflect that BoneZ has not been a valued member of this forum. We value BoneZ' membership and hope he will continue to contribute to this section of the forum.

The forum guidelines are still in place. Please take a moment to review the pinned Forum rules for this section.

Thank you.
Rob


Source

That was a huge blast to your ego so you cried, stomped on the floor, and slammed doors like a child demanding your account be deleted, even after Rob and the others considered you a valued member.

You are now here turning a blind eye to lies being spread regarding P4T and the source of your OP. They perhaps tie in together?

Did you build such a strawman argument/OP so others could blame P4T as the source in an attempt to discredit P4T due to the fact you still hold a grudge?

We'll let the reader decide.

Edit: fixed typo

[edit on 15-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


Way off topic again, I see. The first "source" I know is privledged information from either a private forum or from the admin forum and I know you don't have permission to post it here unless you're Rob and that's why you didn't leave a link.

There was not any written rules at the time about deleting others' posts. As the first source says, I deleted a post that attacked someone and warned that person just as they delete posts here at ATS and just as I did at the original Loose Change forums while being a mod under Rob's admin before we all moved to P4T.

The second source also notes "this section of the forum" which was the no-planer disinfo forum at P4T.

It doesn't matter what public reason why I was demodded for, my demod came right after I suspended a pilot and my decision was overturned and demodded for it. Period.

And because my decision was overturned and the pilot's suspension reversed, I took MY research and left. Plain and simple.

You're starting to sound more and more like Rob.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join