Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 5861 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:50 am Post subject:
Is that the one that an airline flight-crew member identified as still flying previously? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 274 Location: North West London
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject:
This is a brilliant confirmation. Let's first get clear that there are three different names or labels that this plane had:
Boeing 767 = UA175 = N612UA = Boston to LA, and ‘supposedly’ hit WTC2
Quoting from my ‘9 keys to 911: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=16180:
'Did the United Airlines Flight 175 plane which took off from Logan airport in Boston at 8.14 am, crash that morning? To answer this, we first go to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which holds the official records of US civilian flights: it cites the United Airlines flight 175 from Boston airport that morning as a Boeing 767 having a tail-number N612UA. Then we turn to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) archives, where all data on US civil aeroplanes is kept: http://18.104.22.168/acdatabase/. Searching for the plane N612UA, it is given as still having a valid status, i.e. as able to fly: http://22.214.171.124/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA Thus, there is no record of it having crashed as far as the FAA is concerned. We find this plane again flying according the UA employee Mr Friedman, who innocuously records how he flew on it on 4th October, 2003 http://friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/.
‘the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration database, keeps a record of functioning passenger planes and of pilots & co-pilots. As we have seen, it rates the planes of the flights UA 93 (a Boeing 757, N591UA) and UA 175 (a Boeing 767, N612 UA) as both still airworthy, i.e. able to fly. … Victor Saracini the captain of flight 175 died on 911 (an Endowed Flight Scholarship is being established by his wife, Ellen, in memory of him), even though the plane, a Boeing 767 (N612 UA) is still registered, i.e. able to fly.
‘The media and airlines tell us that N591UA and N612UA crashed on Sept 11, but FAA records say the planes are still valid and registered. And one UA employee let slip in his private website that he travelled on N591UA after sept 11, apparently not realising the significance of the plane’s ID.
All this confirms that the plane which slammed into the South Tower that morning was a special military plane (without windows? Possibly a fuel tanker).
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2561 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject:
Would tally with the ideas put forward in the US Govts military Chiefs of Staff Northwoods document about a real plane taking off and being substituted for a drone. That was over 40years ago-- given the more sophisticated technology today and the corruption of minds as can be seen in the output from TV and Film industry then one wonders what false flag ideas could have been dreamed up in 2001 _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 5861 Location: East London
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 5:57 am Post subject:
Anyone got the Friedman info on file? _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
The above video has been removed from youtube. However, we are leaving the link to show how evidence is disappearing from the net. This page is still under construction as we are still a relatively new organization and working our way through data. Please see forums for more on United 175. Thank you.
BECAUSE THIS IS SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS ATC FAA computers picking up a flight that moments earlier we are told disapeared into WTC2!!!
You try and find anything in Utube to do with Saddam Hussain, his appointed officials like Tariq Aziz, Gulf War 1 and Iraqi resistance you come back with very little all the downed choppers, alleged security firms running amok and even well known ones like Juba Baghdad sniper are all but gone. And we are led to believe you can't control the net _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
It was Flight 93 that Mr Friedman seems to have flown on. This has been known to 9/11 researchers for five years. Here's my post about this plane that I made on another 9/11 forum in 2004:
"Tue 12/10/2004 01:10
The tail number of Flight UA 93, which was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, is 591UA. Reference: see the beginning of the second paragraph under the header "Background" at:
Frequent United Airlines user Mr Friedman kept a log of all the flights he flew on during 2003, including details about their crews and the tail number (N-number) of the planes. He recorded that on April 10, 2003, he flew on a United Airline Boeing 757 with tail/N-number N591UA. See his flight log at:
and look under the date column 04/10/03 for the row named "Tail" (the tail number).
Moreover, he correctly lists the type of plane he flew on that day with the same tail number as Flight 93 as a Boeing 757. Given that, according to his log, he flew on nine different types of planes between 01/02/03 and 04/10/03, the chance of him flying on a Boeing 757 on April 10 is about 10%. Either:
1. his log is a subtle joke to fool 9/11 conspiracy investigators for whom he has no time. If that is the case, subtle is the word, for not even many such investigators would recognise the tail number of Flight 93 if they read it, whilst the log is a single, obscure webpage and not part of a personal website, so he is not trying very hard to advertise his misinformation;
2. Friedman accidently made a false entry that coincided with BOTH the type of plane that was supposed to have crashed on 9/11 AND with its 3-figure tail number (what are the chances of that?!);
3. Flight 93 did not crash into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 and United Airlines was still using this plane in April, 2003.
I googled the Friedmanfamily + ua2003 and followed up all the links, it's been purged from the INTERNET including the internet archive link for that page!
Anyone got any ideas?
The data feeding to the flight explorer on MSNBC were not "live", as is being assumed. but originated from an earlier time in the morning when Flight 175 was still flying. So it is incorrect to infer that this is a kind of media disinfo that the no-planers would love everyone to believe.
Friedman's now defunct website was taken down by himself, I have been told. It was not purged. He was aware of and disapproved of all the excitement it had been causing. I was e-mailed a few years ago by a 9/11 investigator called Brad
who was the first to discover the Friedman link, that he had contacted Friedman. He asked Brad (and Brad agreed, so he told me) not to publicise his discovery because of its politically sensitive nature. Brad asked me in turn not to spread this discovery around 9/11 forums out of respect for Friedmann's wishes. But I declined, because I regarded the implications far more important that the need of a retired UA employee to have a quiet life.
Screw Loose Change claims that David Friedman made a mistake in his recording the tail number N591UA of Flight 93.
According to the FAA's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the UA flight on 04/10/03 had a tail number of N594UA. i.e., Screw Loose Change claims that Friedman misread the last number. However, I have not been able to confirm that because the statistics you can retrieve for that day and airport, using the link Screw Loose Change gives, do not break down into tail numbers, so where Screw Loose Change got that table of data I don't know. The 9/11 debunkers, of course, did not concoct it, did they, in order to discredit the explosive implications of Friedman story?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum