I'm not saying they didn't track something they believed to be flight 175.
FAA controllers were in constant radio contact with UA175 from the moment it rotated off the runway until the aircraft was hijacked. This gives us proof positive that an incident occurred on UA175.
In additiona FAA controllers were in constant radar contact with UA175 from the moment it took off until it hit the WTC.
Don't know what you mean by that. If you mean video it's not proof.
I have no idea how you got "video" from "United Airlines employees". UA employees were on the aircraft. UA employees communicated with the aircraft. UA employees tracked the aircraft. UA employees spoke to people on the aircraft. Their accounts all reflect the accepted account of what happened.
As for your "rebuttal that was not"; video is, and can be, evidence. You saying otherwise does not make it so.
No original transpoder code so not proof.
I don't have a clue what you mean by this. FAA radar data is recorded. The recorded data shows UA175's transponder code being changed twice at 0847EDT. The radar data then tracks UA175 as it deviates from its flightpath and descends rapidly as it approaches New York. The final radar return for UA175 is at 1,000ft in close proximity to the WTC.
This radar data is primary evidence supporting the accepted account of what happened to UA175. In order to disprove this account you will need to refute this evidence. And it is evidence. You claiming otherwise does not make it so.
Doesn't mean they were in contact with what hit the tower.
It means that there was an incident on UA175 between 0842EDT and 0847EDT that incapacitated the pilots.
Doesn't mean they were calling from what hit the tower.
The accounts those on the aircraft provided match the flight profile of UA175. Your argument can only be true if one of the following is true:
1) The crew and passengers on board UA175 are in on the conspiracy
2) By sheer coincidence, Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked UA175, killed the pilots, took over the plane and descended rapidly towards a city to ram it into a building
on the exact same day that some other organisation decided to ram a 767 into WTC2, and managed to do so
without anyone at all noticing.
Both of the above are patently absurd, and you know it.
On which object with which transponder code? No DNA was done of hijackers at the towers and just process of elimination of DNA at the pentagon.
It is a matter of fact that the following five people were passengers on UA175:
Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi
Born in the UAE to a Muslim Cleric. Travelled to Germany to study in February 1996, forming the Hamburg Cell with Mohammed Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh in 1999.
Became increasingly radical and outspoken in his Islamic beliefs before travelling to Kandahar in late 1999 to train with Al Qaeda. In March 2000 he returned to Germany where he began learning to fly an airliner. In April 2000 he arrived in the USA.
He and Mohammed Atta trained at a Venice, Florida flight school and logged hundreds of hours on a Boeing 727 simulator before receiving their licenses in December 2000.
In August 2001 Mossad informs the CIA that he is one of 19 terrorist planning a major operation in the near future.
At approximately 7.25EDT on September 11, 2001, he boarded United Airlines Flight 175 and was in seat 6C.
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan al-Qadi Banihammad
Also from the UAE, and also a licensed pilot, Fayez purchased both his own and Mohand's tickets for UA175. He sat in seat 2A.
Mohand al-Shehri
One of five 9/11 hijackers to come from Asir province in Saudi Arabia, his devotion to Wahhabiism resulted in him failing his studies at Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic University.
In early 2000 he travelled to fight in Chechnya before travelling to the USA in May 2001. He occasionally trained on flight simulators along with other 9/11 hijackers.
On September 10th, 2001 he spent the night in a hotel with three other hijackers. The following day he boarded UA175, sitting in 2B.
Hamza al-Ghamdi
Met up with fellow devout hijackers in Saudi Arabia in 1999 before going to fight in Chechnya in early 2000. He entered the USA in May 2001, and purchased his and Ahmed al-Ghamdi's tickets for UA175. He sat in seat 9C.
Ahmed Salah al-Ghamdi
Met up with fellow devout hijackers in Saudi Arabia in 1999 before going to fight in Chechnya in early 2000. He arrived in the US in May 2001. He sat in 9D on UA175.
The above five individuals were the only persons on UA175 with arabic names. A male flight attendant on UA175 identified some of their seat numbers in a phone call.
The above five people hijacked UA175 and killed the pilots.
Not sure what you mean by that.
The profile for UA175, in terms of the hijacking, the passengers, the transponder change, and the deviation of flight path, all match the profile of the other three flights hijacked on 9/11. Collectively, amongst the four flights there is substantial evidence to account for what happened on board.
Eyewitness that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.
Individually, it is evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 767, in that place at that time, hit WTC2.
Video that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.
Individually, it is evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 767, in that place at that time, hit WTC2.
Photographs that the tower appeared to be hit by something but not proof it was flight 175.
Individually, it is evidence that a United Airlines Boeing 767, in that place at that time, hit WTC2.
Almost certainly.
This is the best offered up evidence but but falls short of being positive proof given the fact that if flight 175 was disposed of so were the passengers and personal items. Only 12 DNA remains were said to be found from flight 175 at ground zero. This would not be hard to accomplish after the fact.
So the FBI was part of the conspiracy? Why?
Irrefutable? No. Circumstantial at best. In fact there is supposedly a video confession of UBL claiming responsibility for 9/11. Still it is not enough to secure an indictment. It's not hard evidence according to the FBI.
Um, no. That's incorrect. A confession is not sufficient evidence for a High Court indictment, especially when the FBI do not have chain of custody for the video.
You don't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is the primary method by which people are successfully prosecuted for crimes. Circumstantial evidence is often much more powerful than direct evidence, specifically because it is far, far harder to fake.
The evidence I listed is circumstantial evidence which irrefutably proves that UA175 was hijacked and hit WTC2.
-Gumboot
