Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
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?
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.
Jeff Green Media Relations Manager United Airlines World Headquarters Worldwide Communications
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil 350 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]