The Truth Behind United 175 and the South Tower Impact: Debunking the Myths

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, witnessed the shocking and unprecedented attack on the World Trade Center. Among the many unanswered questions surrounding the United 175 impact on the South Tower is the belief that it struck perfectly horizontal and normal to the wall. This article aims to clarify the facts and debunk common myths surrounding this aspect of the 9/11 incident.

Common Myths and Evidence Against 9/11 Hijackers

One persistent myth is that the 19 so-called "hijackers" who carried out the attacks were skilled pilots capable of executing highly precise maneuvers. This belief is based on two key assumptions: (1) each hijacker had legitimate credentials, and (2) they would have performed coordinated and expertly executed maneuvers to bring down the planes. However, extensive research and analysis reveal that this is far from the truth.

Facts About the Hijackers

None of the 19 "hijackers" had proper flight training or experience, particularly with jet airliners. Some had piloted small single-engine planes, but their skill levels were low. Instructed to stay on the ground, at least one of the alleged "hijacker pilots," Hani Hanjour, was deemed too unskilled to fly a Cessna-type plane alone shortly before the attacks. Notably, his flight training was so inadequate that he struggled with fundamental piloting skills. His performance in the cockpit was so erratic that the impact on the Pentagon at extremely low altitude with a 330-degree spiral only scratches the surface of his incompetence.

No credible evidence supports that any of these "hijackers" managed to board the planes or were near the airports on 9/11. Authorities have yet to release cockpit voice recordings, flight data recorders (black boxes), or images that could provide any substantiation of their presence or actions. This lack of evidence contradicts the assumption that the flight paths could be flown precisely by human pilots.

The Impact on the South Tower

The claim that United 175 struck the South Tower perfectly horizontal and normal to the wall is disregarded by both experts and detailed evidence. The tower was hit at a sharp angle, contrary to the myth. Such an angle of impact suggests that the plane was not flown in a precise and controlled manner, likely requiring less skilled and less experienced pilots.

Even if the flight had been flown horizontally, it would not be considered evidence that it was not "hand flown" due to the relatively basic skill required to achieve such a trajectory. Pilots undergo extensive training, and flying a jet airliner straight and level is one of the earliest and most fundamental skills taught. The ease with which such a maneuver can be achieved by a trained pilot highlights the flaw in the assumption that untrained "hijackers" could perform such precise and complex maneuvers.

Official Story and Alternative Theories

Many believe in the official story of 9/11 because they are unaware of the detailed evidence against it. The events are widely reported and documented, yet questions and doubts persist, often fueled by alternative theories and misinformation.

The factual analysis of United 175's impact on the South Tower and the actions of the alleged "hijackers" reveal a complex and often contradictory narrative. The angelic portrayal of the 9/11 hijackers masks an actual group of unqualified and unprepared individuals who would lack the necessary skills to carry out such a sophisticated and precisely executed attack.

Conclusion

The final seconds of United 175's flight reveal a significant lack of control, indicating the use of automation, likely the autopilot. This supports the idea that the plane was not hand flown, challenging the common belief that it required expert human piloting.

The multitude of unanswered questions and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the hijacker narrative foster ongoing discussions and alternative theories. As we continue to examine the evidence, we must remain open to new insights while critically evaluating existing claims.