| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| UA175 shown airborne after FAA air traffic hault; MSNBC - 9/11/01 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 5 2008, 01:42 PM (790 Views) | |
| Gideon524 | Sep 5 2008, 01:42 PM Post #1 |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Found this while browsing P4T. Interesting. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14399&pid=10750786&st=0&#entry10750786 If you pause the video at about 3 min., the news anchor brings up the Flight Explorer, commenting on how few blue plane icons could be seen on the screen. As he is clicks around the screen, he stops on a few details on the individual planes. Look closely at one of the boxes that pops up on the screen. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNloyNL88w  Enlarged:  It reads: UAL 175 DIS (illegible) B762 BOS 08:53P LAX 01:48P Now, UA175 crashed into the south tower at 9:03. The FAA ordered a nation wide grounding of all planes around 9:45 and this news broadcast aired just before the north tower collapsed at 10:28. The Flight Explorer shown on the screen could not possibly be from before 9:03 due to the lack of plane icons on the screen. So this begs the question, why in the hell does this live Flight Explorer show UA175 still airborne over an hour after it crashed? Edited by Gideon524, Sep 5 2008, 01:54 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| TheBeatProphet | Jan 14 2009, 05:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Gideon524, That is because flight ua175 didn't hit the south tower. The plane graphic giving off the 175 signal is probably a phantom in a military drill. Someone made a real pigs ear of that didn't they. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Jan 14 2009, 05:56 PM Post #3 |
|
This will probably be the quickest way out of this forum. If you want to stay here for any length of time, I suggest taking my advice here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=176788&t=754846 Edited by BoneZ, Jan 14 2009, 05:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jan 14 2009, 10:20 PM Post #4 |
|
Yes, that is strike two. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Feb 10 2009, 06:15 PM Post #5 |
|
Woody Box Blogspot Woody Box has compiled an interesting line of research indicating that there were at least TWO physical planes flying identified UA175. United Airlines will not confirm or deny that UA 175 struck the South Tower, nor that passengers who boarded UA175 died in Manhattan. That is odd!! Moreover, on 9/11/01< united airlines themselves did not seem to know the actual fate of UA 175-- and at 1141am finally indicated it was 'crashed' but not where! As far as the radar issues and flyte explorer, it is possible that what was shown is real radar return tag on a plane tagged as UA175. I would leave door open to a radar 'spoofing' as well. ------------------------------- Conclusions -- UA 175 did not hit the South Tower. Say it again... this is NOT 'NPT' or holograms or TV fakery. This is a strong line of corroborated evidence that the plane observed in the sky and on TV at 9:03 am plunging into the South Tower was not UA175, loaded with passengers and crew and hijacked. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Feb 25 2009, 04:31 PM Post #6 |
|
In case you are just coming into this discussion, here's the salient points 1) it appears that a plane struck the South Tower (WTC2) at 9:03am 2) Was the WTC2 strike plane United Airlines UA 175, as the Official Story tells us? --- short answer: It is too soon to come to that conclusion. There is evidence that there were more than one plane flying as UA175 on the morning of 9/11/01. Even United Airlines themselves still will not acknowledge formally that UA175 crashed into the South Tower at 903am. If United Airlines, who should know best the location of their equipment, is still covering up the facts, what else remains hidden about UA 175(s)? -what time did it take off from Boston Logan airport? - why are there two take-off times, 8:14AM and 8:23AM for UA 175? - who was Boston ATC communicating with when they told UA175 to watch out for AA11-offcourse (oddly enough the routes of the two planes AA11 & UA175 allegedly cross, nearly colliding, in the vicinity of privatized airbase Stewart) - why did United AIrlines not make statement until 11:50am, saying only "UA175 has crashed"? |
|
|
|
| Mick | Mar 7 2009, 12:45 AM Post #7 |
|
Looks more like UAL 179 to me. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Mar 7 2009, 09:12 AM Post #8 |
Patriotic American
|
No it is 175. Two Flight 175 Took Off From Logan Flight Explorer shows Flight 175 Flying 1hr After Crash On 911 |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 7 2009, 11:23 AM Post #9 |
|
There was no UAL 179 that took off from Boston on 9/11. BTS shows 171, 173, 175, 177 as 170's go. The only one's going to LAX were 175 and 177. I downloaded the video and am running it through VLC media player to slow it down and look at the frames. This is what it looks like to me: UAL 175 318 433 ? B762 BOS 08:15a LAX 01:44p The part that says B762 means it was a Boeing 767-200. The departure time is also very accurate at 8:15a because Jack just mentioned above that one of the departure times was 8:14a. This right here is proof that UAL 175 did not hit the south tower and that it was probably a remote controlled plane that did hit. Edited by BoneZ, Mar 7 2009, 12:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mick | Mar 7 2009, 12:48 PM Post #10 |
|
It could not be human error? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 7 2009, 01:14 PM Post #11 |
|
After looking at this more, the news had posted at the bottom that the south tower had already collapsed. Now notice where the plane is. The plane on that FAA map is only about 200 miles away from Boston. The south tower collapsed at 10:00am. If the plane took off at 8:15am and travelling at only 300mph, it still would be about 500 miles away from Boston. So if that is UAL 175 that took off at 8:15a, it should be much further away than where it is shown on the FAA Live Tracker map. Edit to add - Unless UAL 175 was circling for a landing since the ground-stop had been ordered an hour before. The plane could have been burning off fuel. With that in mind, we may be able to find out which airport UAL 175 landed at. Edited by BoneZ, Mar 7 2009, 02:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JackD | Mar 10 2009, 09:44 PM Post #12 |
|
which UAL 175 was circling ? having two UAL175's in the system was advantageous for 'spoofing' -- and I think the story we got was a blend of both UA175 flights, except that neither of them actually struck WTC2 (they first said it was AA77 that did that, believe it or not!) If 175 didnt set down at PRIVATE airfield former AFB Stewart, it landed at a site where it was easily controlled access. Military base, WrightPatterson AFB, etc. The planners weren't dumb. Plus, the scenario was put forth in Northwoods -- land it at Eglin & repaint to original livery & tail number. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 14 2009, 12:01 PM Post #13 |
|
I've been informed from someone who has been using Flight Explorer (FE) since before 9/11, that FE projects an aircraft's position and path from it's last known position if FE loses data from the FAA. Take a look at the following image:  Notice that UAL175's speed and altitude are constantly changing until it starts turning towards NYC. This is about the point that the FAA lost contact with UAL175 and FE started projecting UAL175's flight path. Notice that once UAL175 started turning towards NYC, it's speed and altitude stop changing and stay exactly the same. This means that FE was projecting UAL175's flight path from that point on to NYC and kept projecting even after UAL175 hit the south tower. For me, this case is closed. Edited by BoneZ, Mar 14 2009, 12:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Mar 17 2009, 01:28 AM Post #14 |
|
for an hour and 25 minutes? well the case isn't closed for me...... p.s. to everyone who thinks this proves a plane didnt hit the tower - its only evidence flight 175 didn't hit the tower which the majority of this movement believes beit in one form or another. 
|
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Mar 17 2009, 03:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Yes, it was a flaw in the programming that has since been corrected. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · United Flight 175 · Next Topic » |
6:04 AM Dec 2
