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.

 

UA175 May Have Been Flight N175F, or Been Switched With It

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
So I stumbled upon this youtube video, which is backed up by some other external links, and an interesting possibility starts to emerge:



At the following link the author provides this information:

femr2.ucoz.com...


The video shows the "Flight Explorer" aircraft tracking software being used by MSNBC within a live broadcast aired at ~10:26am on 9/11 2001. The broadcast time is known, as the descent of WTC 1 is initiated during the 5 minute source clip (video). WTC 1 descended at ~10:28am.

The FlightExplorer software displays pop-up aircraft information when the mouse hovers over each aircraft position icon.

During the clip, TWO 'Flight 175' aircraft are seen.

UAL175, the flight the Official Theory states crashed into WTC 2, is positioned far beyond the WTC complex, traveling AWAY from the Twin Towers, at a time AFTER it should already be embedded within WTC 2.

It should be made clear that the position of UAL175 corresponds exactly with the final position of UAL175 on the globally released FlightExplorer flight-path animations. It may indicate the final 'tracked' position of the aircraft, rather than a specific real-time position. FlightExplorer simply displays positional data sent by the FAA. It is clear however, that the position is not a predicted or estimated position, but a physical position as fed to FlightExplorer by the FAA.


It is important you visit this above link to understand the full scope of this theory.


UAL175 Flight: UAL 175
318 438 Altitude: 31800 feet, Speed: 438 knots
B762 Aircraft: Boeing 767-200 series
BOS 08:15a Departing Boston 08:15am
LAX 01:44p Arriving LA 01:44pm

Position: ~50 miles NE of WTC

N175F Flight: N175F
007 136 Altitude: 700 feet
Speed: 136 knots
????
???? ?? ??

Position: WTC


Then in the following link an interesting case is made for the possibility of a swap-

Mail-archive.com


Mechanics of 'switching' commercial flights for drone aircraft revealed
By Total

Very interesting study from Team 8plus on the mechanics of how real commercial flights opn 9/11 could have been "switched" with drone aircraft under the noses of radar operators.

From Team 8plus 01 December 2005:

" There is a network of military bases and airports on the East Coast laid out in triangles with a side of roughly 100 miles

This becomes particularly interesting when we look at the flght paths for AA Flight 11 and UAL Flights 175 and 93. The yellow triangles in this diagram are equilateral with 100 miles sides. They act as a template to show that many of the key points in the flight paths are 100 miles apart.

# Note the locations of the air bases, especially Otis and Dover.
# Note the MD80 is a McDonald Douglas plane mentioned in the air traffic control transcript for Flight 11.


This "Chinese Checkerboard" pattern would be useful for timing rendezvous points for planes that are otherwise unable to communicate.

Lets look at the bizarre events that occurred:

Meeting point 1: Flight 11 is issued a "merging target procedure" at 8.12. This is a warning to look out for another plane at similar altitude who is on a converging path. Both planes will appear as one spot on the radar. Just after these planes pass, Flight 11 stops responding to radio.

Meeting point 2: Flight 175 takes off at almost exactly the same time as Flight 11 is being hijacked. Due to the strange triangular path that Flight 11 follows, both planes end up very close together near Stewart Airport. The Controller turns Flight 175 to the right so he goes behind Flight 11 and avoids a collision.

Meeting point 3: Flight 93 (no transcript available) appears to have been turned to the right at take-off to avoid flight 175. Both these planes end up close together in the sky and for a brief period Flight 93 is following Flight 175

Meeting point 4: Delta Flight 1989, another LA flight from Boston that took off shortly after Flight 175 passes very close to Flight 93 just after it makes its U-turn over Cleveland airport. Delta 1989 was being watched carefully for signs of a hijack and was (at this time) poiting towards Chicago, home of the Seers Tower.

What makes these meeting points even less likely to be a coincidence is the fact that meeting points one to three are in a straight line with exactly 100 miles between each point.

Here is a very simplified diagram of the flight paths with the lines straightened a bit to emphasise the shape

1. Take-off point Logan airport
2. Flight 11 stops responding
3. Flight 11 starts to turn South
4. Flight 11 and Flight 175 paths cross
5. Flight 175 starts to turn, Flight 93 very close in sky
6. WTC

The gaps between 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all 100 miles

Observe the timings
1. Flight 11 take-off a few seconds before 8:00
2. Flight 175 take-off 8:14 - Flight 11 hijack 8:14
3. Flight 11 turns south 8:27 (Flight Explorer)
4. Flight 11 and Flight 175 meet around 8:40
5. Flight 175 is turning over Allentown at around 8:53

In light of the fact that Flight 175 was supposed to depart from Boston at 8:00 am, perhaps the purpose of Flight 11's huge detour away from its target was to allow Flight 175 to catch up with it. Or perhaps the delays of both Flight 175 and Flight 93 were arranged on purpose to allow these meetings. This would seem less likely, but what if delays were caused by carefully planted passengers causing issues on the ground?

Looking at what happened it was almost as if something was being passed from plane to plane like a virus or parasite:
1. MD80 passes close to Flight 11
2. Flight 11 is hijacked
3. Hijacked Flight 11 passes close to Flight 175
4. Flight 175 is hijacked
5. Hijacked Flight 175 passes close to Flight 93
6. Flight 93 is hijacked (a bit later on)
7. Hijacked Flight 93 passes close to Delta 1989
8. Was Delta 1989 supposed to hit the Seers Tower?

And then there are the simultaneous events:
1. 8:13 Flight 11 hijacked/ Flight 175 takeoff
2. 8:42 Flight 175 hiajcked/ Flight 93 takeoff
3. 8:46 Flight 175 switches transponder code/ Flight 11 crashes

And there's the strange identical pattern taken by Flight 11 and Flight 175 - see the last frame of the animation above

The absurdity of the flight paths in general can be seen by looking at the distance from the various airports to the various targets and comparing them to the flight paths taken:

1. The distance from Dulles airport to the Pentagon 22 miles. But the distance flight 77 took from Dulles to get to the Pentagon was 627 miles. That’s an extra 600 miles to get intercepted, shot down or for suicide hijackers to reconsider their actions.
2. Assuming Flight 93 was also targeting the Pentagon (as speculated by the media). The distance from Newark to the Pentagon is 200 miles. The distance flight 93 would have taken to reach the Pentagon is 750 miles. That’s 550 unnecessary miles.
3. The distance from Logan to the WTC is 193 miles. Flight 11’s route to the WTC was 328 miles (135 extra). Flight 175 took 368 miles (175 extra).
4. The distance from Newark airport to the WTC is 8 miles. You could see the towers from the runway.

Summary and Conclusions
# A close analysis of the flight paths and ATC transcripts shows bizarre "meetings" between the 9-11 planes and some other planes.
# The distances (almost exactly 100 miles between most major events) and timings (13-14 minutes between each event) involved show that these meetings were carefully planned and co-ordinated
# The fact that these meetings were between hijacked and non-hijacked planes would indicate that they were not planned by any hijackers on board the planes.
# The paths and key events in the paths seem to coincide and line up with a network of air bases and airports laid out in triangles on the East Coast. These bases and airports are separated (with the exception of where terrain prevents it) by roughly 100 miles
# This "Chinese Checkerboard" pattern would be useful for timing rendezvous points for planes that are otherwise unable to communicate.


When trying to visit the original sources for this article, I ran into errors and suspended accounts. So I will ask that the mods here leave the long quotes up for the time being, as this may be lost otherwise.

The possibility of swapped planes has come up time and time again, and here we seem to have some interesting arguments for it. And so in further searches about this Flight N175F, I came upon this thread at P4T:

pilotsfor911truth.org... which references this youtube clip and which appears to be the source clip upon which this further theory is based:



At about 2:40 in this clip, they go the Flight Explorer.

So in addition to this, one thing that I am wondering about is we appear to have the same case of radar picking up these planes after they supposedly crashed at Shanksville too, as was discussed in this ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I am in the process of trying to find out more about this aircraft N175F, and so far it appears it was a 1958 Cessna 175 ??


www.airport-data.com...

[edit on Tue Jul 7th 2009 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I made a thread back in March about some of this information. Flight Explorer was "predicting" FL.175 after it hit the north tower. My thread is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as the Cessna, there were many flying around NYC that day, including this one:

englishrussia.com...

Just FYI.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Jeez, I read through that thread and it seems like there was little discussion on the topic itself, but rather a shootout between you and that other guy who went off arguing a technicality about who discovered what and how you should correct jthomas's reference to the source! :shk: What a waste. I am sorry that happened to you Bonez, you deserve better. So do you think your post contained enough of this info that I'm posting here to warrant shutting down this thread?

I am not sure, but I think I might have some different sources and angles on this in here, but just say. I can request a shutdown if you like.
Maybe we should leave this open for actual discussion, seeing as yours got locked? I dunno, just thought all this was interesting.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
All I'm saying is that since the old Flight Explorer software was "projecting" where FL.175 was because FE lost FAA data, then most of this info would seem to be moot. Jthomas explains it in my thread. Doing a Google search, his story seemed to check out. As much as I'd reallyyyy hate to agree with Jthomas, I couldn't find any evidence to prove him wrong. So I asked for my thread to be closed.

And that "other guy" was Rob from PFT or one of his close admins, but I'm pretty sure it was Rob.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join