9/11 - United 175 - Things That Don't Make Sense Again - Part 1

Source: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/911-united-175-things-that-dont-make

United Airlines 175 and its impact into the second WTC, was the event most people will remember about 9/11. It departed from Boston, it was hijacked and it hit the South Tower of the WTC at 9.03am. That’s basically the official narrative.If you have followed my work, I’ve been deep diving into each of the flights of 9/11. When I started searching for and finding documents relating to UAL175, including FBI interviews, United Airlines Internal Statements, Passenger phone calls and radar etc, I noticed the same pattern I found with UAL93 and AA77, things don’t make sense. This article is just presenting some of the evidence I have come across that doesn’t make sense. So lets have a look at what I have found…There is a passenger manifest for UAL175 however, there are 5 names missing off the document. This is an official document and was provided by the FAA so why were the 5 names missing?Check out a great article by Mark Conlon - Five Passengers Names Missing From UAL175 Manifest, for more details about this.Gail Jawahir a United Airlines Customer Service representative at Boston Longan Airport, is the only airline employee whose statements describe direct interaction with alleged UA175 passengers. In multiple FBI interviews, she stated that she checked in two men booked on UA175, verified identification, issued boarding passes, checked luggage and directed them toward security. Her statements do not indicate that she witnessed the men pass through security, enter the jet bridge, or board the aircraft. Across successive interviews, her level of certainty changes, with later statements showing increased confidence following exposure to passenger manifests and photo line-ups. Ive found no other airline, TSA, gate or boarding personnel statements that corroborate her account.Gail Jawahir Statements about Checking in Passengers to UAL175United Airlines’ internal records for Flight 175 show passenger check in and administrative status codes (above), but not actually confirmed physical boarding. Several passengers were processed in batches rather than individually which is unusual.Document showing the 'no shows' for UAL175There was an unusually large number of ticketed passengers (see above documents) that did not board the flight, prompting FBI follow up.The above image shows handwritten clarifications added later that suggest who was actually on the aircraft had to be reconstructed after the fact, rather than verified at the time of departure. The official narrative for UA175 is simple, it hit the south Tower at around 9.03am and that was the end of it. But again the paperwork is saying something else.When looking at FAA / ATC / NEADS and ACARS records side by side UAL175 appears to be unresolved. It appears across multiple systems still, shows up as missing, messaged, queried and operationally still relevant well after the moment it is supposed to have been destroyed.Dispatch was still talking to UAL175 - ACARS records show United Airlines dispatch were still sending direct messages to UAL175 after the supposed crash. Airlines don’t continue to message airplanes it knows have been destroyed.At 9.20am, the FAA still listed UAL175 as Missing - there were 3 aircraft reported to be missing from radar, and Flight 175 was one of them. The timestamp matters as its 17mins after the aircraft is said to have hit the South Tower. Missing from radar is not how a confirmed crash is logged.UAL175 becomes a ghost target - it appears over North New Jersey during the same post impact window. A ‘ghost target’ can refer to radar returns that don’t match expected outcomes, don’t correlate cleanly with known flights or shouldn’t still be there if it had crashed. The important point is that it was not cleanly removed from the system.Radar and Flight Explorer Data Still Plot UAL175 AFTER 9.03am - these both show actual positions for UAL175 after the official impact time, including timestamps around 9.07am. Radar systems do not continue to generate positional information for an aircraft that is fully accounted for and removed from the airspace,.NEADS Still Flagged UAL175 as a Live Security Issue - NEADS records later provided to commission staff state that at 13.03:20 UTC, there was a report of a possible second hijacking, identifying the aircraft as UA175. This shows flight 175 was still being discussed as an active security concern long after the public narrative says its fate was known.The records above show the aviation and air defense system did not treat UAL175 as resolved when it was supposedly resolved.ACARS is an automated aircraft-ground communications system that depends on aircraft identification and routing through ground stations. The presence of post impact timestamps and regional routing entries raises questions about how UAL175 was still being handled within these systems after it was officially destroyed.ACARS routing data shows messages associated with UA175 (tail number N612UA) being processed through Harrisburg (MDT) and later Pittsburgh (PIT) after the reported time the aircraft should have impacted the South Tower.In the image above it shows that at 8.59am ACARS traffic is routed through MDT, including a message asking to verify whether everything on board is normal following reports of an incident.At 9.03am (above image) ACARS messages again linked to flight 175 are handled through MDT, including a follow up message from dispatch asking how the ride is and whether assistance is needed. This is the time UAL175 was reported to have impacted the South Tower.By 9.23am ACARS routing data shows (above image) UA175 associated messages being processed through Pittsburgh (PIT). These messages include warnings about cockpit intrusion and references to aircraft striking the WTC. This puts activity tied to UA175 well after its supposed impact and not close to the WTC.UAL175 is the third aircraft from 9/11 that I have deep dived into and I have noticed a pattern I thought would be worth mentioning.In the immediate reporting surround the WTC impacts the planes involved are not initially identified by flight number. Instead they are logged as ‘unknown’ aircraft. And this isn’t unique to UAL175. My article on AA77 and the Pentagon pointed out that the airraft was first referred to as unknown or VFR target and again in Shanksville the aircraft that impacted was referred to as unknown.It doesn’t mean that the flights were never identified but it means at the moment of impact the system was following unknown aircrafts, but still tracking the later assigned UAL93, UAL175 and AA77 as still airborne. I just thought this was interesting pattern.An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) is a crash activated aircraft beacn that broadcasts a distress signal to satellites to help locate a downed aircraft and cannot be set off by a piolet, it is automatic.Mark Conlon of 911 Planes Research, has done it again, and located a document that confirms that no ELT was activated within a 50mile radius of JFK Airport, which would include the south tower site - (see the full document here) Please check out Mark’s article for a more detailed explanation on this -The official narrative states that only 2 passengers, Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeny on UAL175 made phone calls, a total of 4 calls were made and they were made while the aircraft was still in flight during the hijacking and were onboard airphones. During my deep dive, guess what? Yes I found that the paper trail doesn’t match with the official narrative.This FBI FD-302 confirms that Peter Hanson contacted his father twice during the hijacking of UA175. This shows that there were 2 separate calls, not a single conversation.In this interview, Lee Hanson describes his son speaking calmly in a low tone and states that he believed the call was from his cellular phoneThe FBI record notes that the second call ended suddenly with Hansoon’s son saying ‘my God, my God…’ and that the reason for disconnection was unknown.This FBI information form documents a report attributed to Hanson stating that eight planes were being hijacked. The Significance here is not the claim itself, but that it appears formally recorded and repeated in official records.Brain Sweeny left a voicemail message for his wife at approximately 8.58am, you can hear the voicemail below, where Sweeny is calm in tone, there is no audible background disturbance and includes forward looking language that aren’t pointed out in the official summaries of the call. Brian Sweeny’s mother also states that she received a phone call from her son at around 8.58am where she spoke to him and he told her the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers were considering storming the cockpit. In a later interview Sweeny’s mother described her son’s voice as quiet and calm with no loud background noise or commotion audible during the call. Sweeny also estimates that the plane is over OHIO, which would confirm the eairlier ACARS data putting the aircraft over Pittsburgh Mark Polcastro 1st and 2nd StatementsUnited Airlines technician Mark Polcastro reported receiveing a phone call from a male flight attendant aboard Flight 175 at approximately 8.55am, stating the flight had been hijacked and that the pilots had been killed. Polcastro stated that the call lasted less than one minute and ended before he could ask further questions. He noted no discussion of bombs or weapons beyond knives. This call is not mentioned in the official narrative.The FBI interview notes also stated that Garnet Bailey’s wife received a short call before 9am that contained only static, followed by a second incoming call that could not be answered and resulted in a dial tone. Neither this or the call from the Air Hostess are in the official narrative.FB I document showing Airfone CallsAbove are documents showing UA175’s calls were all made via airphones, while later summaries described cell phone use without technical support,. showing another contradiction.FBI documents showing cell callsThe call from the flight attendant isn’t reported in the official narrative. I showed the statement of Mark Polcastro above.Records show that not all communications linked to UA175 can be confidently placed onboard an aircraft in flight. A UA technition reported receiveing a brief, and again unrecorded, call via the airline’s FIX system, which is unknown to members of the public, and stated he did not know whether the aircraft was still airborne at the time. The thing no one seems to be talking about is FBI documentation that includes a call by Peter Hanson that is noted as occurring whilst he was still on the ground!!! Internal records (see image below) show that at least one call attribuedted to UA175 was explicitly reported as originating from the ground. UA states that Peter Hanson made a cell call while still on the ground. This isn’t the only document stating this, there are other documents including fbi statements saying Hanson called from the ground and other documents that show uncertainty as to whether the flight was in the air or not. Without even going into the impact (which I will cover in Part 2) the records for UA175 are already messy. At the airport the flight was never fully accounted for. The original manifest changed, five names were removed, and there is no clear, complete record showing who physically boarded. The Check-in evidence just leads to uncertainty. In the air, FAA, ATC, NEADS and ACARS data do not treat UA175 as resolved at the time it was supposed to have hit the South Tower, and the impacting aircraft was initially logged as unknown. ACARS activity appears after the reported impact time over Harrisbury and Pittsburg, no ELT was recorded and passenger phone calls conflict on timing, method and even whether they were made from the ground or the air.UAL175 is not cleanly established as a resolved flight prior to impact, which matters before we dive into the physical evidence.I’m not here to state what really did happen, I’m just showing the evidence I have found again, and let you see it for yourselves and make your own mind up no what is happening here.In my next article about UAL175, I will cover other contradictions about the impact, impact dynamics and any evidence that was collected afterwards.For more information on each of the pieces of evidence I have covered briefly in this article, please check out Mark Conlon’s 911 Planes Research Substack which covers everything to do with the 9/11 planes.911 Planes ResearchLeave a commentShare

🔐 Cryptographic Verification

Archived URL: https://mysticbazaar.substack.com/p/911-united-175-things-that-dont-make

�� CONTENT HASHES:
  SHA-256:  66508c075489f30b958cd7e62e6c9cfb6eee4b1e8fea96fe6bd291a435281c7b
  BLAKE2b:  629670f999769711ace7ac8a17759c2f8428aaa1fbb626472504bd1ddfcf6144
  MD5:      8ff5e1d664866119e0826574c7d02616

�� TITLE HASHES:
  SHA-256:  7fb0843d1e5100b268a4d183c8377b22c33cfc0b4116bb697cf181877ac1035b
  BLAKE2b:  9066f73a0a6a733f776a2e9d545abacd388b667325eefb8884703f28c48b1e05
  MD5:      7a69f06c5a03b53bea5f60ce336d9578

�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
  SHA-256:  77d3b57228eaa95320d3d4574f84525ae84922b2819a8a48b44f3f4e260b6d2f
  BLAKE2b:  989d35ed9c13befc0966171386747ee22d550b23443f7697f974e637656983f8
  MD5:      79d2708f3b94626ea3e77499d5386e30

Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system