United Airlines REFUSES to View Proof that their Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC2
author: Christopher Bollyn
Below, UAL categorically refuses to view the video evidence.
Bollyn-United Air Lines Correspondence follows.
"To maintain [UAL's] position means that all four videos, taken by four different cameras in different positions and by four different networks, are all showing falsified images."
|
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.
[even though their flight roster fails to show ANY of the names of the 'hijackers' the FBI later stated to the world were on the plane...]
Regards,
Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/300904refusestoview.htm
related:
repost 15.08.2004 11:10
NEW 9-11 video '911 in Plane Site' screened in Sacramento, CA; left audience stunned
'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center buildings.
By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from what most people saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured up close by the media. Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building [the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I feel sick." '911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions (866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked, "If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed, this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration. Others just walked out the door in silence.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294773.shtml
web 03.08.2004 01:19
DOV ZEKEIM: 9-11, the WTC2 substitute plane: the technology and its human provider
both suspects fit very well. .. .
DOV ZEKEIM: It's his multiple connections--to [1] writing for the Project for the New American Century, to [2] the 1993 investigation whitewash of the WTC attacks, to [3] retrofitted Boeing tanker leasing and to other interesting [4] drone plane monitoring (and self-destructing) technologies, to his [5] Pentagon job positioning right beore 9-11, and from which he subsequently leaves later after 9-11---all of that is the interest here. Like so much if you follow out the 'state terror' thesis, it all fits depressingly well. Dov had the Boeing substitutes. Dov had the Flight Termination System as well. Follow back to human networks from the materials involved and you have your people. Who else would have substitutable retrofittable Boeings available for 9-11 unless it was the U.S. miliary? --- His company Systems Planning Corporation (SPC) interestingly enough which was connected to the 1993 WTC terror attack 'investigation' by one of its subsidiaries, Tridata--the investigation of which was of course a whitewash because it ignored that the FBI actually provided the live bombs to their patsy mark in this first attempt to take down the towers and launch a global police state for Clinton. --- By 2001, they were desperate to take it down, and this next attempt, which succeeded, was far more detailed in its cover story. --- AND, BUSH'S OVAL OFFICE WEB-VISITS LETSROLL911.COM IN LATE JULY 2004!~
to look at this information.... to see how actually transparent are the Shrub-emperor's new clothes?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/293938.shtml
|
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article
|
They have already seen the video.
What he is actually saying is that they do not want to be caught
in a situation where they will have to explain what
the video shows.
As long as they can keep away from such questions
the scumbags who are "running" the country will
be happy.