Mon01042016

Last update07:36:08 PM

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Did Ua175 Crash into WTC at all?

Did Ua175 Crash into WTC at all? 22 Jul 2009 12:48 #168

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
Where was Flight 175 when Peter Hanson called his father?
The video below contains an interview with air traffic controller Dave Bottaglia, who says he tracked Flight 175. Battiglia's account suggests that at about 9:00, UAL175 was in a powerdive of 10,000 feet per minute, which the controller says would be "unbelievable for the passengers in the back, to withstand that kind of force when they're descending."

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-614623...ype=search&plindex=0

Yet the official story is that Peter Hanson began a three-minute phone call at 9:00.

911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/doc...175/HansonFamily.jpg

He never described being in a dive or having come out of a dive. There doesn't seem to be any way he could call during the dive described and it seems unlikely he could even call just after such a dive. If he could, it seems unlikely he would not mention it having just come out of a horrific dive.

Here's what he said:

"At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
'It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.'"

This tells me not that the call is faked, but that the UAL175 is not the plane tracked by the air traffic controller in the above video.

If so, we don't know where the plane was or at what altitude it was at when Hanson called his father. He seemed to think the plane was heading toward Chicago.

The calls could be real, and still inconsistent with the official story. These issues should be explored before claims that they are fake.

ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/where-...en-peter-hanson.html
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Aw: Did Ua175 Crash into WTC at all? 22 Jul 2009 12:54 #169

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
United Airlines reports on Flight 175
I cannot confirm their authenticity, but this archive has United Airlines press releases from throughout the day on 9/11/2001.

web.archive.org/web/20010911230750/www.u.../0,11641,-1_,00.html

It is odd to me that by 11:17 a.m., Flight 93 was reported to have crashed, while United was only "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.

web.archive.org/web/20010911230853/www.u...1,-1__1748_1,00.html

In the press release of 11:53 a.m., United said it was sending a team to Johnstown , PA for Flight 93, to assist in the investigation and help family members, but said nothing about sending a team anywhere for Flight 175. The 11:53 press release said that United had confirmed that both planes had crashed, but did not say where Flight 175 had crashed.

web.archive.org/web/20010911230854/www.u...1,-1__1750_1,00.html

In the press release of 2:09 p.m., United was saying it had "confirmed the loss of [Flight 175]. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA." United also said it was sending a team to New York:

Based on information received from the authorities, United is also sending employees to the New York City area to assist in every way it can with this tragedy.

web.archive.org/web/20010911230854/www.u...1,-1__1752_1,00.html


Even at 5:23 PM, United Airlines was still saying only that it had confirmed the loss of the aircraft and was sending people to New York based on information received from authorities.

web.archive.org/web/20010911230854/www.u...1,-1__1760_1,00.html

It seems almost as if United did not know or did not agree that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, and was sending employees to New York based only on what the authorities were saying.

The 9/11 Commission Report says that United Airlines headquarters knew at 9:20 a.m. that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission Report says a lot of things. Perhaps it is true that United Airlines was told at 9:20 that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, and perhaps United Airlines had some reason for not saying two hours and even eight hours later that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.

ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/united...s-on-flight-175.html




One of Our Aircraft Isn’t Missing
deanjackson60.googlepages.com/oneofouraircraftisn%27tmissing
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Did UA175 Crash into WTC at all? 08 Oct 2014 21:20 #3053

  • Mark
  • Mark's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: -1
Laut den "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" war die Maschine United Airlines 175 noch lange nach dem angeblichen Crash in der Luft. Und zwar bestätigt dies das ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System)

Ich zitiere mal von deren Webseite:
(pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-91...ONG-AFTER-CRASH.html)

"ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents. We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred."

---

Dass die Flugzeuge, die laut Fernsehen da reingeflogen sind, Videofälschungen waren, wurde auch schon durch die Videos "September Clues" und "07 - The Key" nachgewiesen.

Wer die nicht kennt, kann die sich bei Youtube anschauen:

Video von Ace Baker: "07 - The Key" (Länge: ca. 45min)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds
(Hier wird eindrucksvoll und verständlich nachgewiesen, dass die TV-Videos und "Amateur"-Videos von den WTC-Flugzeugen Videomanipulationen waren und auch gezeigt, wie man das gemacht hat, wo und warum Fehler unterlaufen sind. Außerdem kann explodierendes Kerosin Stahl nicht zerstören und Aluminium Stahl nicht durchdringen. Am Ende des Videos werden noch einige Interviews mit Augenzeugen gezeigt, die kein Flugzeug gesehen haben. Dieses Video sollte man sich unbedingt anschauen!!!)


"11. September 2001 - September Clues - Keine Flugzeuge - Komplett"
mit deutschen Untertiteln (Länge: ca. 1h 32min)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3XUgGIOv1Q


Aluminium kann Stahl nicht durchdringen.
Die bestgepanzerten Panzer haben nur wenige Zentimter Stahlpanzerung.
Die Twin-Tower bestanden fast ausschließlich aus Stahl. (nicht Stahlbeton, sondern Stahl! Und sogar ein ganz besonders stabiler japanischer Stahl!) Die Flugzeuge hätten über 30cm Stahl durchdringen müssen.
Um wenige Zentimeter Stahl durchdringen zu können, braucht man aber Geschosse aus Uran oder Wolframcarbid und diese müssen auf ca. dreifache Schallgeschwindigkeit beschleunigt werden. Passagierflugzeuge sind hauptsächlich aus Aluminium und können noch nicht mal einfache Schallgeschwindigkeit erreichen.

---

Auf meiner Facebookseite findet ihr unter Fotos, Alben, ReThink 9/11 viele Infos zu 9/11 und Fotos von den Twin Tower. Auf diesen Fotos kann man sehr gut sehen, wie massiv die Stahlträger waren. Habe ein Bild hier als Anhang hinzufügen wollen, aber funktionierte irgendwie nicht.


Viele Grüße,

Mark
Last Edit: 08 Oct 2014 21:27 by Mark.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Did Ua175 Crash into WTC at all? 03 Nov 2014 18:05 #3054

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
Dass die Flugzeuge, die laut Fernsehen da reingeflogen sind, Videofälschungen waren, wurde auch schon durch die Videos "September Clues" und "07 - The Key" nachgewiesen.


Vieles von dem, was in "September Clues" wurde hier diskutiert und auseinander genommen.

www.911-archiv.net/index.php?option=com_...0&lang=en&view=topic

Dass gar keine Flugzeuge ins WTC geflogen sein sollen halte ich für äußerst unwahrscheinlich.

ich halte aber vereinzelte Manipulationen durchaus für möglich, sei es auch nur, um 9/11-Skeptiker auf falsche fährten zu locken("Keine flugzeuge". "ALLES fake")) und von Manipulationen diesen hier abzulenken.:

www.911-archiv.net/blog/skandal-nist-nau...spur-verfalscht.html
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.160 seconds