United Airlines 175 - The Flight That Hit the WTC, But Kept on Going, PART 2
Source: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/united-airlines-175-the-flight-that
Welcome to Part 2 of my deep dive into UAL175. If you haven’t already I recommend you check out Part 1 which I have linked below, you will see from that article things just don’t make sense. And this article isn’t going to be much different, so I’ll get straight into it.In the document above it shows UAL175 was not formally recognised as a hijacked aircraft until after it had already hit the South Tower. The FAA did not inform the military until after UAL175 hit, so claims of military involvement before show discrepancies. The 9/11 Commission formally accused the FAA and NORAD of providing false timelines, and they issued a public statement saying,FAA and NORAD testimony given in 2003 was inaccurate.The timelines presented were not trueThe Commission concluded the accounts were constructed after the fact and did not reflect what actually happened on the morning of 9/11. Norad and the FAA were compelled to hand over raw timelines, logs and witnesses under oath. From this it emerged thatNORAD changed its story multiple timesEarlier claims about intercepts and notification could not be supportedNEADS personnel testimony conflicted with official summaries.UAL175, hit second, there was more time, there was already awareness of an attack, yet UAL175 is still not formally flagged as a hijack until after impact. That shows a few possibilities,The system was catastrophically blindThe system was receiving fragmented, delayed or filtered informationThe later military timelines were changed to look responsiveFrom my first article we saw there was a lot of contradictions in the ATC, FAA and other paperwork. Even under extreme stress, it is not normal for multiple aircraft impacts to be misidentified, logged as unknown or only recognised after the fact, especially when radar tracking, ACARS data and communications between agencies indicate aircraft activity elsewhere. The volume and consistency of discrepancies at the same time, in the same airspace is itself strange.The official account of UAL175 is, a Boeing 767-200ER struck the south tower at approximately 09.03am EDT. The speed it was travelling was around 540mph descending at high speed and banked as it impacted the building between floors 77 and 85. The plane is described as disintegrating on impact, with jet fuel igniting across multiple floors and structural columns being severed leading to intense fires that ultimately caused the ‘collapse’ of the South Tower 56mins later.The Clip below describes briefly what Newton’s Law of Motion is and how UAL175 should have looked when it impacted the South Tower.This clip below is Dr Morgan Reynolds, discussing what was wrong with UAL175, he actually took NIST’s contractors (the agency responsible for the official investigation) to Court for Fraud, which you can read about here - When you look at the clip above of UAL175’s impact into the South Tower, does it seem right to you?Now I have always believed that there were definitely planes on 9/11 that impacted the towers, however, since deep diving into the evidence of the planes, reading into Dr Morgan Reynolds Qui Tam Fraud Case, looked at the physics and relooked at the videos with fresh eyes, I am no longer confident that a physical aircraft was involved and observed in the footage. That isn’t a conclusion I have arrived at lightly, this is just my personal opinion. Some theories about the planes are they were remote controlled, military drones, cgi or video fakery. However, I have looked into what evidence there is out there and it doesn’t convincingly support them. Independent researchers have repeatedly shown that the footage itself was not digitally fabricated and there is something clearly in the sky. What that something was I can’t say for definite but I can show you what evidence is out there.A theory that actually does stand up when you look at the evidence is the plane was some kind of 3D Volumetric Projection. The videos above shows 3 clips of UAL175’s impact into the south tower. The videos are all from different angles and are synced up. You can see from these videos that the wing of the plane vanishes and reappears at different times.The video below is clips of 9 synced up videos of UAL175’s impact into the south tower, all from the same angle. You will notice that the wing disappears and reappears at the same time on all 9 videos. These 2 videos help to prove that the videos are real and not faked, the cameras actually filmed something in the sky.You can see a more detailed analysis from this article by Mark ConlonAnd you can find out more from Mark Conlon’s article on the evidence of 3D Volumetric Projection on 9/11. In this article Mark does an analysis and explains the evidence behind 3D Volumetric Projection. It is really interesting especially if you have never considered this before.Officially, both planes impacting the WTC are said to have been almost completely destroyed on impact. Passenger and crew identifications were made primarily through DNA analysis, of tiny biological fragments recovered from the site, while personal effects and documents were also reportedly found including a passport attributed to one of the alleged hijackers. These findings are the official narrative but lets look a bit deeper into this.Satam al-Suqami’s passport was reportedly recovered near the WTC not long after the attacks. The passport was said to have been found on the ground several blocks away and was given to the FBI before the collapse of the WTC. Also authorities later stated that other forms of documentation associated with the alleged hijackers were found across the sites. This seems odd that hijackers documents and identification are swiftly found, however, passenger documentation is largely absent. And how did these documents survive the impact, in which we can clearly see disappeared into the building leaving no debris, and we are told it was completely destroyed. How did documents survive when the passengers were identified by DNA trace only?Aviation fuel is designed to burn rapidly and in a high speed impact scenario the majority of the fuel would be expected to ignite almost immediately in a brief fireball. Any remaining fuel would also burn off quickly, typically within seconds. After the initial fire, the fires would no longer be fuel driven but instead sustained by ordinary combustible materials inside the building like the office furniture.This clip from the document 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality, explains how the beams in the holes don’t look how they should, you can’t see any plane wreckage in the holes, and also points out that there were people standing in the plane shaped hole, holding onto the steel?? If it was supposed to the that hot that the steel failed, how are these people able to stand there??In the above clip, they mentioned the Earths Magnetic Field. Now this is interesting and no one really knows about it. I have covered how the earth reacted in the article below. Basically, instrument data from magnetometers recorded unusual spikes during the events of 9/11.Also discussed in my article above is the seismic data recorded from the impacts of the WTC, however, the data recorded is not consistent with an airplane impacting a building, and also the seismic reading from the impact lasted almost as long as the collapse of WTC1.One of the few large plane components that has been publicly photographed was a jet engine found near Church and Murray Street on 9/11. While often portrayed as evidence of a Boeing 767, questions have been asked about how it ended up in this location, whether it matches the correct engine type and why no clear visual or documented chain of custody has been released confirming its identity. Below is a document confirming that there is no documentation to prove chain of custody.There is also suspicion about an FBI van parked close to where the engine was found as seen in the image below.Again Mark Conlon has done a more in-depth investigation into the engine found you can read his article below.Mark Conlon also covers another piece of debris not being identified as a part of UA175. The image below shows a plane part but has the wrong serial number for the plane. Where it landed is also questionable. In 2013 a landing gear was discovered near the WTC site and was officially attributed to UAL175. The location and again no chain of custody raises questions.Read the full article HERE.As we can see there was very little debris found, and there is no chain of custody and there is evidence suggesting that the parts assigned to UAL175 are not from that plane.Neither the cockpit voice recorder or the Flight Data Recorder were recovered or logged. Statements were collected extensively, there are FAA controller statements, operations centre logs and internal memos and daily facility reports. However, what’s missing is statements from independent crash investigators, technical aviation reconstruction analysis and cross examinations using physical evidence. There appears to be no forensic conclusionsThe Passengers connected to UAL175 had online memorials, and one passenger’s memorial photograph stands out for one uncomfortable reason. The image was uploaded online BEFORE September 11 2001.How could the memorial photo have been uploaded prior to September 11? This isn’t the only one, there are passengers from other planes, whose memorials have been uploaded prior to September 11.An investigation is defined as much by what it examines as by what it excludes. In the case of UAL175, several fundamental questions were never formally tested, despite being directly relevant to the conclusions presented.No Independent Aircraft Reconstruction - in standard aviation accidents, recovered debris is catalogued, photographed in context and reassembled to assess failure modes.No testing of Alternative Impact Mechanisms - the official narrative assumes an intact aircraft impact and did not test, partial aircraft integrity scenarios, energy dissipation inconsistent with mass and velocity or the effects of extreme heat, electromagnetic interference or non kinetic forces on aircraft structure. These were all excluded by assumption alone.No Forensic Testing of Aircraft Residue - Aircraft materials are chemically distinct. Debris was labelled as aircraft, without comprehensive material validation.No Stress Testing of the Timeline - there was no formal attempt to reconcile all timestamps across systems, test for sequence contradictions or model alternative time progressions. Perhaps most importantly there was no independent technical review comparable to a full NTSB accident enquiry. The investigation relied heavily on summaries, assumptions and administrative conclusions. After deep diving into UAL175, I’m left again with more contradictions than confirmations. The plane that struck the south tower was initially logged as an unknown flight, and only later identified as UAL175. It continued to be tracked after the reported impact time. The debris recovered was minimal, fragmented and largely not identified by the serial number, yet we are told passports from alleged hijackers survived intact. Passengers remains were identified from fragments while the aircraft itself effectively vanished.Videos and the physics raise further problems. The plane appears to defy the laws of motions and the visual evidence does not align cleanly with the physical outcome we are asked to accept.There are other anomalies that cannot be ignored. At least one passenger memorial, Timothy Ward’s, was uploaded before September 11 raising questions about timelines and foreknowledge. All of this from my first article and this one makes me question whether a real, intact commercial plane was used in the way we are told, whether duplicate aircrafts were involved or whether the event itself was something fundamentally different from the official description.The same type of contradictions appear in my deep dives about AA77 and UA93, missing evidence, rewritten timelines, confident conclusions built on assumption rather than testing.I’m not claiming to know exactly what happened. I am saying that again, what we have been told does not behave like it really should.Leave a commentShare
🔐 Cryptographic Verification
Archived URL: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/united-airlines-175-the-flight-that
📄 CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: d37b5e04d40c920198ca0abaf44530c7d70ff66be27262f285b3648c5536b46c
BLAKE2b: dee8703d17ac95e6962b37dd98b13e6ac41a30b41c0e99029c70830007e463ee
MD5: c3ace1f7ef486631689554de1b8dcd17
📝 TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: 9fde31ab17acd129647642997bae08a38c0519c2604290329e630f170c734b0d
BLAKE2b: dac1c29d4951597e7a0ca0d761d8d22b269a8d38b52a04b1b51d4725a975c6dd
MD5: 90bb965244e8ffaae39009505778afa2
🔒 INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: d1b81992edaf9e96a6bfca3d8ec361fc69afac3b6e9ca633e9fe4d1fc0175ccb
BLAKE2b: a813da6ceed0a7260ac059613de860164ea56882706a4fc2dd4c74ca4e8f5f63
MD5: c1a87d1c529f34720944353990d579bb
Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system