The Twin Flights of United 175

An Independent Investigation

Introduction

The “official” Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) data pertaining to United 175 (UAL 175), is indisputable evidence that UAL 175 was still airborne at the time the official narrative claims UAL 175 had crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.

In addition “official” radar data from the Dulles Control Center (DCC), which was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), also proves that UAL 175 had a duplicate twin flight, which captured UAL 175’s precise flight path Lat-Long coordinates, revealing that UAL 175 flew past the South Tower, at 31,000ft, and was still airborne over Connecticut at 9:07 a.m., proving that UAL 175 never descended and crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Also, the “official” ACARS data shows UAL 175 was flying Westbound, away from New York City.

In this article, I am going to breakdown the official evidence data which completely calls into question, what we have been told about UAL 175.

United 175: Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS)

UAL 175’s ACARS messages were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and astonishingly, they reveal that UAL 175 received ACARS messages routed through ground stations located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (MDT) at 8:59 a.m. and 9:03 a.m., and also later a message routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PIT) at 9:23 a.m., which was 20 minutes after UAL 175 “allegedly” impacted the South Tower in New York at 9:03 a.m.

In the two images below, it shows where UAL 175 was located at the time of the two ACARS messages routed from Harrisburg (MDT) at 8:59 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. UAL 175 is observed “allegedly” flying towards the South Tower in New York.

[Image courtesy of 9/11 Maps]

Below shows Google Earth, locating Harrisburg (MDT), which is 154.36 miles away from where UAL 175 was allegedly located flying towards the South Tower. See below:

It is inconceivable why the ACARS ground station in Harrisburg (MDT) should have routed the ACARS messages to UAL 175, being as Harrisburg was not the nearest ACARS ground station to UAL 175’s location in New York.

Below shows a third ACARS message which was sent to UAL 175 from Pittsburgh (PIT) at 9:23 a.m., 20 minutes after UAL 175 had allegedly crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.

Below shows Google Earth of Pittsburgh, which is 315.36 miles away from where UAL 175 was last located, crashing into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. See below:

Again it is inconceivable why any further ACARS messages should have been sent to UAL 175 at 9:23 a.m. from the ACARS ground station in Pittsburgh, if UAL 175 had crashed in New York. This indicates that UAL 175 was still airborne. The 9/11 Commission choose to omit this vital information about the ACARS messages being sent and routed through both stations in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. WHY?

The ACARS messages reveal UAL 175 travelling Westbound in the opposite direction away from New York. This is the only valid explanation why the ACARS ground stations in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh would have been routing the ACARS messages from those ground stations, and not from ACARS ground stations located nearer to, or in the New York area.

ACARS Central Processing System

Based on Flight Tracking protocols, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at Harrisburg (MDT), and then later Pittsburgh (PIT), over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of Harrisburg (MDT), and then later, Pittsburgh (PIT). This means the aircraft observed to strike the South Tower at 9:03a.m., was not UAL 175.

Further corroboration comes when an Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC) expert was contacted in San Francisco. When told about the ACARS message being routed through Pittsburgh (PIT) after the aircraft had already crashed into the South Tower, this is what she had to say:

"There is no way that message would be routed through Pittsburgh if the airplane crashed in New York City."

The 9/11 Commission did not confirm, or mention in their report if the 9:23 a.m. ACARS message to the aircraft was received or not. The 9/11 Commission ostensibly omitted, and avoided this specific point because it would be seriously damaging for the official narrative of UAL 175, if they revealed an ACARS message was received after UAL 175 had already crashed. If the ACARS message had not been received, the Commission would have produced the ACARS evidence, and proved it, the fact they completely avoided it, indicating obfuscation.

Dulles Control Center Radar (DCC)

In official DCC radar evidence data which was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it reveals the precise time and location of UAL 175 flight path. According to the withheld radar data, it gives a precise Lat-Long coordinates that UAL 175 was flying over Connecticut at 13:07, which is 9:07 a.m. EST, which is 4 minutes after UAL 175 had allegedly crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. See below:

UAL 175 - (d) Radar - 4 DCC 1737 Radar Track Data UAL175 Radar Track.pdf
Source: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7598281

Below, shows Google Earth of UAL 175’s official DCC radar Lat-Long coordinates, which places UAL 175 over Connecticut at 9:07 a.m., showing UAL 175 was 33.57 miles past the South Tower.

Flight Explorer Shown Live On MSNBC

Additional official telemetry data evidence which supports the DCC radar evidence is Flight Explorer, which was shown live on MS-NBC on 9/11 at 10:25 a.m. Captured in the Flight Explorer coverage was UAL 175 still airborne, and flying over Connecticut.

See video below:

Flight Explorer is a “real-time” software program tracker, whereby during the live news broadcast the cursor hovers-over different planes being displayed on the ‘Flight Explorer’ live screen feed, which displays information about aircrafts which are still in the air-space relayed from the FAA Radar System.

As they hovered-over one of the aircrafts it displayed an information text-box which appears next to the aircraft (which is also known in aviation, as a data-block), displaying identification information which indicates UAL 175 was still flying in the air after it had allegedly meant to have crashed into the South Tower. The “data block” shows the departure - BOS and Arrival LAX, Altitude, Speed and Model of the aircraft, clearly indicating that UAL 175 was still in the air flying after being reported as crashing into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.

UAL 175 appears to be flying away from the New York area and flying over by Connecticut?

In the “data-block” in the above image, is shows UAL 175’s departure from BOS (Boston) is 08:15a and Arrival at LAX (Los Angeles) is 01:44p.

3 pieces of “official” evidence showing UAL 175 still airborne after the crash

So we have three sets of “official” telemetry data information, and all three pieces of evidence show that UAL 175 was still airborne after we were told UAL 175 had crashed.

Moreover, the official evidence reveals that there was two aircrafts identifying as UAL 175 in the system, and both were in two opposing locations.

Discrepancies in the "official" wheels-off time of UAL 175.

Further conflicting discrepancies surrounding UAL 175 are contained in the “official” Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) database, where it reveals the "wheels-off time" for UAL 175 (This is the moment when the aircraft lifts off from the runway).

The BTS records a wheels-off time of 8:23 a.m., which differs from the "official" narrative wheels-off time of 8:14 a.m. The BTS database reveals that the tail number of the aircraft that took-off at 8:23 a.m. was N612UA. Yet in contradiction we have Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications indicating that UAL 175 took-off at 8:14 a.m. This is proof that the aircraft that took-off at 8:14 a.m. was not tail number N612UA.

Some researchers and debunkers have tried to suggest this was an information inputting error which created this discrepancy? The take-off at 8:14 a.m. is also confirmed and supported in the ATC Pilot radio transcripts. This leaves an obvious question to ask. What about the 8:23 a.m. take-off?

To learn more we need to understand how the information was being generated. The wheels-off time is triggered automatically by a mechanical sensor switcher when the aircraft loses contact with the ground. The data is then sent automatically to the airline via the ACARS, and then the airline forwards the data to the BTS on a regular basis. Ostensibly, no human intervention is involved, thus no human failure is possible. The fact that the gate departure of 7:58 a.m. coincides with the "official" narrative suggests that the data is valid.

Interestingly, an eyewitness for the 8:23 a.m. “unofficial” take-off time is a pilot named Steve Miller. He was the First Officer on US Airways 6805, which departed directly after UAL 175. Lynn Spencer, the author of the book “Touching History”, interviewed Miller for her book. Miller meticulously described how he and his Captain Ron Maxwell were waiting for the departure of United Airlines “Flight 175” as they were the next in line. Quoting from the book below:

“On the taxi-out in Boston, they (the pilots of US Airways 6805) waited at the runway's hold-short line, where Miller looked up to watch a United Boeing 767 take off, United Flight 175. The final weight and balance calculations from dispatch came over the ACARS at 8:05, and with that in hand, the crew was ready to fly. Wide-body aircraft produce especially powerful wingtip vortices - horizontal, tornado-like winds off the ends of the wings - which require time to dissipate before other aircraft can take off, so he waited the required three minutes after United 175 departed before he received his take off clearance”.

One must consider, does this suggest that a UAL 175 took-off at 8:14 a.m. and another "UAL 175" took-off at 8:23 a.m. especially when we bear in mind US Airways 6805's First Officer Miller's account, who was next in line behind UAL 175 to take-off from the runway, and also the "official" BTS data with tail number N612UA (which is UAL 175) taking-off at 8:23 a.m.

When cross-referencing the BTS database, it revealed that USA 6805 had a wheels-off time of 8:28 a.m. Miller explicitly described waiting three minutes before getting take-off clearance, adding time for the time span between take-off for clearance and actual wheels-off, indicating UAL 175 must have lifted-off the runway around 8:23-8:24 a.m. which makes it inconceivable that Miller observed UAL 175 aircraft that took-off at 8:14 a.m.

The question that must be considered is; Did Miller see a different United Airlines aircraft? This appears unlikely, after searching the BTS database for other United Boeing 767s, it returned no results for the relevant time. There is a slim possibility that a non-domestic United Boeing 767 took-off then, because the BTS database only lists domestic flights, however Miller himself says it was UAL 175, so either he overheard the flight number when taxiing out, or for someone like Miller who was frequently flying from Boston Logan (as he says) was familiar with the wide-body aircrafts departing at that time.

UAL 175 was pushed back from the gate at 8:01 a.m. and according to the "official" story, and the BTS record log. However the "wheels-off time" (when it lifted-off the runway) is different. The "official" narrative says it was 8:14 a.m., which is backed by the ATC transcripts. The BTS says 8:23 a.m., which makes a huge nine minutes discrepancy.

The FAA's report has UAL 175 at 19,000 feet at 8:23 a.m. and is visually identified by AAL 11's pilot at 8:35 a.m. The 9/11 Commission Report states that "United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Boston Logan Airport at 8:14. By 8:33 it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet. http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

This document states that UAL 175 "departed" at 8:14 a.m. Reference: FAA report, Executive Summary, Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnotes 40, 41] (page 1 of 3)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf

A more detailed FAA document that states that UAL 175 began its take-off roll at 8:14 a.m. and that at 8:23 a.m. UAL 175 established radio contact with Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZBW). "Boston, morning, united one-seventy-five out of one-nine (nineteen thousand feet) for two-three-zero” (twenty-three thousand feet).

The document continues that sometime after 8:23 a.m., UAL 175 was instructed to climb to 31,000 feet, and that at 8:40 a.m. UAL 175 radioed that it was at 31,000 feet.

FAA report, Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, the 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnote 44]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf (Page 12 of 59).

Another reason this time is important and has become more apparent, is from reading the (FAA) Report on the Aircraft Accident about AAL 11 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa6.pdf

On page 3 of 4, the report states that UAL 175 made visual contact with AAL 11 and verified AAL 11's altitude at 8:38 a.m. (12:38 Universal Time). This would not have been possible if UAL 175 left the ground at 8:23 a.m. as the BTS data says, rather than at 8:14 a.m. as the FAA states and the 9/11 Commission say, because UAL 175 would have been 50 miles or more east of AAL 11's reported flight path.

Another interesting note is, New York Center’s air traffic controller, Dave Bottiglia takes over monitoring the flight from Boston Center controller John Hartling. UAL 175 waits nearly 45 seconds to check in with Bottiglia. According to author Lynn Spencer, this is “rather long, and Bottiglia is just about to call the airplane.” But then Captain Victor Saracini, the pilot of UAL 175, makes radio contact, saying, “New York, United 175 heavy.” Spencer, 2008, pp. 36

Also, UAL 175 stopped transmitting its transponder signal. It is currently flying near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border, however the transponder is turned-off for only about 30 seconds and then comes back on as a signal that is not designated for any aircraft on this day. Then, within the space of a minute, it is changed to another new code, however New York Center’s air traffic computers do not correlate either of these new transponder codes with UAL 175. Consequently, according to an early FAA report, “the secondary radar return (transponder) indicating aircraft speed, altitude, and flight information began to coast and was no longer associated with the primary radar return.” Therefore, while controllers are able “to track the intruder easily, they could not identify it.” 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 21
Source: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=484625

Conclusion

The official evidence presented in this article strongly indicates duplicate flights were involved with United 175 on 9/11. Multiple pieces of official evidence supports this hypothesis. The evidence shows two United 175’s in two opposing locations, and still airborne after the alleged crash time. Whether or not this was due to United 175’s involvement with the many war-games and hijacking exercises taking place on 9/11, this would seem increasingly likely based on this evidence, and would go someway to explaining all of the observable telemetry data evidence.

My rational is rather than disqualifying one piece of evidence over the other, it is more rational that we accept both and study as a whole the totality of all the evidence, which undoubtedly supports the twin flights hypothesis.

Thanks for reading & caring.