Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: ingognito Oct 1 2004, 07:43 AM

UAL Refuses to View Proof Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC

Christopher Bollyn | October 1 2004

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press offered United Air Lines (UAL) to view the video "911: In Plane Site" by Dave von Kleist of The Power Hour, and discuss the images of what is allegedly UAL Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at the World Trade Center.

It is not possible that United Air Lines used a windowless plane with a missile pod on its underside for UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, therefore, the plane seen in the videos cannot be UAL Flight 175.

Below, UAL categorically refuses to view the video evidence.

Bollyn-United Air Lines Correspondence follows.

From Christopher Bollyn (AFP) to Jeff Green, UAL spokesman:

Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications
Elk Grove, Illinois

Dear Mr. Green,

Thank you for responding to my inquiries. I write for American Free Press (http://www.americanfreepress.net/) an independent weekly newspaper based on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

With all due respect, I'd like to respond to your comments in today's email and phone conversation.

I was surprised to hear you say that any suggestion that it was not UAL Flight 175 that hit the South Tower was "offensive." I am also surprised that you are not interested in viewing the video images from "911: In Plane Site."

The video images in Dave von Kleist's video come from mainstream news coverage of the events. They are simply the images that have been shown countless times on television sets around the world. In the video, however, they are slowed down and examined frame by frame. What they reveal when viewed in slow motion is nothing short of astounding.

You said, "Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video." Do you speak for all of the employees at UAL?

Does that mean that there is a corporate diktat ordering employees not to view the video, or has a consensus been reached through a democratic-type process in which all of the executives and your colleagues voted or expressed their own opinions personally and told you that they are not interested in seeing the video?

You said it is offensive to suggest that it was not UAL 175 that hit the South Tower at about 9:03 a.m. on 9/11. If it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower, then it must be that UAL 175 had an object attached to the underside of the fuselage that looked and acted like a missile pod when it fired a missile at the South Tower just before it entered the building.

To maintain that position means that all four videos, taken by four different cameras in different positions and by four different networks, are all showing falsified images.

What the video appears to show is a modified Boeing military tanker plane that has a missile pod attached to the underside. The video images of the underside of the plane also show what appears to be the boom port of such a tanker. Witnesses also reported the plane that hit the second tower had no windows nor markings like a commercial jet.

In the face of the video evidence and eyewitness testimony that it was NOT a commercial jet that hit the South Tower, I would like to ask this question to UAL: What evidence can you provide that it was UAL 175 that hit the tower?

The evidence available to the public simply does not support this claim.

The government has made that claim, the media has repeated it, and you say it is offensive to challenge it. But what can you tell the American public to convince them that it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower? What proof can you offer?

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

Jeff Green's earlier e-mail follows:

"Green, Jeffrey [WHQPR]" <Jeff.Green@united.com> wrote:

Mr. Bollyn,

I know that you’ve been trying to reach me for a few weeks now regarding questions you have related to flights 93 and 175. My colleagues inform me that you have a video you would like to show us regarding Flight 175. I have looked at the site you suggested, as well as the UK-based site, The Truth Seeker, that features your writing. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video.

I would suggest that you contact the FBI, who is leading the criminal investigation into the crash of each flight, and arrange to show them the tape. You may reach their public affairs group by calling 202-324-3691.

I also know that you’ve had some other questions, which I think I can generally answer for you. If you have very specific questions about the events of 9/11, I’m afraid I have to once again direct you to the federal authorities as they are the group responsible for the continuing criminal investigation.

1) The wreckage of Flight 93 recovered from Pennsylvania has been preserved in a storage facility as it will likely be used as evidence in pending civil litigation.

2) Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was painted in United’s standard blue and gray livery.

3) Yes, United is certain that Flight 175, a Boeing 767, was hi-jacked by terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. The flight carried 54 passengers and 11 employees.

Regards,

Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications


http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/300904refusestoview.htm

Posted by: Tony Clifton Oct 1 2004, 07:53 AM

Behhhr!

I doubt very much about this... the plane freshly loaded with fuel is one giant missile itself...

Posted by: ingognito Oct 1 2004, 08:01 AM

search a bit on this site, there are plenty of links, video proof and eyewitness accounts..

The plane is in clear view and does not have any windows and a large ? on the undercarriage. They were also in the middle of a military exercise (proven) where planes were going to crash into buildings in New York (simulated) - on the same morning . Norad thought the war games were going on and that is why no alarm was raised as to the "jets" crashing into WTC - they had 22 blips on the radar at the time..... It sounds a little strange to me..

Posted by: bob Oct 1 2004, 09:19 AM

So what happened to flight UAL175?
Bermuda Triangle?
this is a dead horse.

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 1 2004, 09:20 AM

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 1 2004, 09:22 AM

i dunno..

do YOU have any record of what happened to the plane when it dropped out of radar and lost contact? because the government hasnt explained it.


and why would it be a dead horse? none of these questions have been answered.


its not technically beating a dead horse if the horse aint dead yet.

Posted by: bob Oct 1 2004, 09:23 AM

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

moderators! close this thread quick.

Posted by: ustrader Oct 1 2004, 09:59 AM

My god!

Say it an't so Charley Brown

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 1 2004, 10:08 AM

look, this is a legitimate subject to many people who happen to love America and want FULL answers as to what happened on 9/11.

many of us actually want to know what happened so we can prevent it in the future.. we dont simply want to turn a blind eye to any other POSSIBILITIES by buying into the official story that leaves many stones unturned.


we arent like u. we dont want to celebrate "HAPPY 9/11" and use it as some lame excuse to fly our flags and "bomb towel heads".


we actually care about this.

if u dont, thats fine. nobody's making u post here. but complaining to the moderators to close a thread simply because u dont care enough about 9/11 and the victims to discuss these questions is riduclous.

Posted by: mandl Oct 1 2004, 10:58 AM

We'll leave it open for now but I think it would be more at home in the Conspiracy Theories forum so let's continue it there.

mandl

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 1 2004, 12:43 PM

personally, i dont think theres much "theory" involved..

it has been scientifically proven that "foreign objects" exist on the bottom of that plane.. one can view with the naked eye the non-existence of windows on the plane.


speculation as to WHY those things exist would be considered "theory", but simply stating a proven fact is in no way a "theory".

Posted by: mandl Oct 1 2004, 12:59 PM

I chose to view it as a theory because it differs from the official version of events. It really doesn't make that much difference which forum it is in as long as you folks keep it on topic.

mandl

Posted by: bob Oct 1 2004, 04:03 PM

So what happened to ual175? The crew, the passengers, the airplane???

The few grainy photos floating around show diddly squat. This truly one of the more retarded conspiracy theories out there. The main reason Kerry is going to loose is because of his nimrod supporters who believe this unabashed excrement.
I'm incredulous anyone can be so stupid.

Believing strongly in hogwash never will just make it true. You are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy. And clicking your heels together and wishing on a star ain't gonna get it. Wake up and smell the burning cordite and rotting flesh of this battlefield. We are at war. Passing UN resolutions ain't gonna get it.. Do you think the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson were just hollywood fiction?

Posted by: gideon2000uk Oct 1 2004, 04:19 PM

Given the shadow and the tilt of the plane, added to the small size of the windows and the blurryness of the pictures, your evidence is pathetic.

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 1 2004, 05:43 PM

once again, as far as I'M concerned, im not going to theorize.

but IF that is not flight UAL175, as it would appear from pictures AND video its not, wouldnt it be nice to know where that plane went?



its not just "grainy photos".. look at the videos. go find "9/11: In Plane Site" and see the very same CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews video footage off that day played in slow motion.

HEAR eye witnesses on network news the day of 9/11 say "there were no windows. it had different markings. it was not a regular plane"..

there are ALOT of videos and accounts that were only played ONCE on the news.



the rest of this is mindless rhetorical trash that doesnt pertain to the topic.

it is possible for Fundamentalist Terrorists to exist, and 9/11 still be something OTHER than a terrorist attack. they are not mutually exclusive.


looking at history, we can see examples of the United States using staged or allowed attacks in order to justify war.

the Navy bombed the Maine in order to justify the Spanish-American War.

there is significant evidence FDR had already cracked Yamamoto's code months before Pearl Harbor.

the Gulf of Tonkin, which justified our actions in VietNam, never actually happened.


if u knew your history, u wouldnt be attacking people like me and our QUESTIONS (not theories.. theories explain QUESTIONS) so rabidly.

Posted by: bob Oct 1 2004, 06:55 PM

You should be concerned with this question. It is the elementary question. UAL flight175 didn't just vanish. Without an answer to this the theory crumbles to dust. Surely with your superior IQ you can figure that out.
What do suppose the CIA highjacked the plane and destroyed it along with the crew and passengers?

Posted by: Huey_P Oct 2 2004, 06:53 AM

trust me Bob, i'm VERY concerned with this question.

but what im trying to do here is NOT insert my own hypothesis, theory or guesses as to what happened, because im only trying to stick to what is undeniably evident from what anyone can see with their own eyes.

there are foreign objects on the bottom of that plane. scientists at the Politecnic University of Mataro in Barcelona, Spain (apologize for the spelling, im translating off hand) have analyzed numerous photographs from multiple angles and established that their are objects on the bottom of the plane that are "in relief".. in otherwords protruding out from the bottom of the plane, and not simply a reflection or a flat outline or shadow..

http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

a look at pictures of the plane also shows that the left engine is slightly offcenter, facing outward... which would be necessary to compensate for the added weight of whatever large object is at the base of the opposite wing.





now the factual existence of those "objects" (once again, im not speculating as to what they are) and anomolies with the plane begs some serious questions that in MY OPINION are extremely important to answer..

the most important being: if that IS flight UAL175, how did it leave Boston's Logan Airport with such noticeable alterations?

could a terrorist have been able to attach objects to the bottom of a commercial Boeing 767-200, which has no adaptations for attaching such an object, without being noticed by Logan airport authorities, and without the objects being noticed by maintenance crews before takeoff?

if that did happen, it would mean Logan would be facing some serious lawsuits for negligence.....



now for a little bit of speculative questioning...

if that ISNT flight UAL175, would it be possible that another plane was used without us knowing it?

flight 175 lost transponder and radar contact at 8:42.. it hit the the south tower at 9:02... that's 20 minutes.

could something have happened in that 20 minutes that we dont know about?

would we KNOW if one plane was downed in a remote field, while another was taking off, IF it is indeed not the same plane?

Posted by: Milton Oct 3 2004, 10:57 AM

I think you raised some relevant questions Huey. It amazes me that anyone who asks a good question is supposed to show irrefutable proof even though all the evidence being destroyed, disposed of or classified is in itself not viewed as suspicious.

Posted by: ingognito Oct 7 2004, 10:12 PM

interesting! everyone should read it!

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=858

Posted by: TRIPXCORE Oct 8 2004, 04:00 PM

Does anybody have a link to this video? As a firm believer in the New World Order and as an employee of a major US airline, I would like to further investigate this topic.

Posted by: champino Apr 26 2005, 09:54 AM

ok you people, i can explain this whole flight 175 disappearance. a commercial airliner DID take off from logan airport under the 175 transponder code. however, at approximately 8:46, flight 175's transponder was turned off for 30 seconds. during this time, a drone flight that had until then been flying in the radar shadow of flight 11, assumed flight 175's flight path, and it was this plane that was bearing the unknown transponder code, that ATC believed to still be 175. 175 then flew west in the radar shadow of flight 93, and landed covertly in Cleveland. the drone 175, with the pod etc goes on to hit the south tower.

done

Posted by: SkiGuy Jan 7 2006, 07:44 PM

I admit, I do find conspiracy theories interesting and some of them even plausible. But about this disappearing planes stuff? I want some of those drugs that the person was on who made this one up.

Posted by: Nomad Jan 7 2006, 10:55 PM

Geeze SkiGuy, you're digging into to archives. There's some good stuff back there that could use the paddles. Unfinished arguments and such..............

Posted by: SkiGuy Jan 8 2006, 06:01 AM

Give me time. I'm just starting.