Compare and Contrast: Flight 77 and Flight 93

Officially:

1) Both planes were 757s

2) Both crashed at high speed on 9/11, killing all the passengers, crew and hijackers

3) Both planes disappeared into smallish holes, and leaving behind very little debris (and very little debris from both crashes was ever presented to the public)

4) Both planes exploded violently

5) Both planes spewed small pieces of plane debris from out of their crash holes for several hundred feet

6) In the case of flight 93, which went into the ground, very very small pieces of passenger remains (mostly pieces of skin) were found sprinkled at a distance all around the crash site; no such human remains outside the crash site were ever reported for flight 77, which officially went into the Pentagon.

With all the similarities in the circumstances, why the difference in human remains between flight 77 and flight 93?

Hi Spoooked911,
I just finished a very detailed analysis of John Doe II of the crash site of UA 93 (I think I'll try to post it here). The coroner didn't find any human remains for one hour and till today he didn't find a drop of blood. So it seems to me these crashs are very comparable.
But the similarity is very odd given the difference that one plane crashed into the Pentwall and the other one in the ground.

found around the crater.

But it seems funny to me how they made such a BIG DEAL about the remains found around the flight 93 crash site, but not so much a big deal about any remains found outside the Pentagon.

Why was this a big deal for flight 93? Why didn't they just say the remains all went into the ground with the plane, similar to what supposedly happened with flight 77?

I'm just confused why there were no human remains outside the Pentagon-- or if there were, why didn't they talk about them like with flight 93?

Was there something special about flight 93 that they wanted to show there were some remains? Again, why didn't they just say the remains all went into the ground with the plane, similar to what supposedly happened with flight 77?

"In the case of flight 93, which went into the ground, very very small pieces of passenger remains (mostly pieces of skin) were found sprinkled at a distance all around the crash site;"
AFAIK they were both inside and outside the crash site.

"no such human remains outside the crash site were ever reported for flight 77, which officially went into the Pentagon."
It guess it depends how you define "outside the crash site" and "reported". This article certainly reports on them:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

Bodies article at 911research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/bodies.html

This is a summary of an article about health care workers who handled human remains at the Pentagon:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed

"Human remains pulled from the Pentagon were being taken to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be identified, a fire official said. Crews began removing victims' remains Wednesday afternoon but there was no word on how many bodies were recovered."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/pentagon.terrorism/

This is a report on the identification process:
http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf

One obvious difference is that most of the people killed at the Pentagon weren't actually on the plane, so there's no reason they should be scattered.

btw, the hole in the Pentagon was 90 feet according to this article:
911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

And 120 feet according to this report:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Hi,
is given size of the hole before or after the collapse?

If I remember rightly, the bit that collapsed was only 60 feet or so.

to the wall of the Pentagon:


http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

remains scattered outside the entry hole, as officially happened with flight 93. Or if the remains were scattered outside, why it wasn't reported like with flight 93.

I don't have any conspiratorial ideas for this, I just think it is an odd discrepency.

The American 77 passengers were (probably) strapped in their seats to the tougher bottom part of the fuselage which continued on into the Pentagon, whereas the United 93 passengers were not strapped to anything and the fuselage disintegrated on impact.

essentially intact-- hence the small crater.

And we certainly don't know that the flight 77 passengers were using their seat belts. Barbara Olson says they were ordered to the back of the plane anmd thus they were likely out of their seats.

Finally, flight 77 apparently blew up upon impact, as seen in the parking lot video-- and the fuselage was apparently blown up as various small pieces were strewn outside the entry hole.

Even if they were strapped in their seats, they still would have been blwon up by the impact and explosion.

So I still don't see the difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Interview with Gerard Holmgren
by David West, June 27, 2005

DW: Hello Gerard, thank you for agreeing to an email interview.

I know that many people, including myself, have read much information and disinformation about the aircraft/no-aircraft used on 11th September 2001, and it is quite confusing.

You appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions.

Q1. — Is it true that the official account of events on 11th September 2001 claims that four planes crashed, one into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre, one into the South Tower, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?

Yes.


North Tower
Q2. — What was the flight number of the plane which reportedly hit the North Tower?

American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan to LA.

Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.

According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.

The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.

No such flight appears in the records.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

Therefore there are three possibilities.

1. No such flight was ever scheduled
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.

In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.

It should be noted that after this information was discovered and published as an article, the BT almost immediately shut down its data base, and when it put it back up it had moved it to a different URL without leaving a forwarding address at the old URL (the one which was given in the published article), strongly indicating consciousness of guilt. Ten months later they doctored the database to try to include the flights, although the doctored data, while now claiming that the flight was scheduled, still has it as never departing.

Thus all the evidence points to options 1 or 2, although option 3 is still a theoretical possibility.

Q4. — Has any aircraft wreckage, or black box been found at the purported crash site?

Nothing which can be identified as from an aircraft.

Q5. — Are there any official records of passengers boarding the flight?

If so, they have never been released. However, many media outlets did publish lists which purported to be official lists, but which were proven on close examination to be fabrications.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html

So while one can never 100% rule out the theoretical possibility that the flight existed and the theoretical possibility that somewhere there are official passenger lists, the fact that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official, leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that no such official lists exist.

Q6. — Are any recorded passengers known to be missing, or have had death certificates issued?

To my knowledge there is no official documentation, but it's certainly possible that such documentation exists. Through local enquiries I have confirmed from personal contacts that at least one person listed by the media as being on that flight is definitely missing and that his family believes that he was on the flight.

While I have seen little to prove the missing/dead status of those allegedly on the flight, I have also seen nothing to disprove it. There is a hole in that area of my knowledge of the subject.

Q7. — Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?

No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.

Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html


South Tower
Q8. — What was the flight number of the plane allegedly involved here?

United Airlines 175 from Logan to LA.

Q9. — What was the tail number of the plane allocated to that flight?

N612UA. The BTS flight logs record the tail number.

Q10. — What is the status of that registered plane today?

Valid, according to the FAA aircraft registry. Search the registry at http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm.

Q11. — So your research indicates that aeroplane N612UA, which was allocated to flight UA175, which is purported to have hit the South Tower is, according to official FAA records, a valid registration today?

Yes.

Q12. — Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?

No wreckage.

The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/
http://911hoax.com/

The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology:

Lying with Pixels, by Ivan Imato, MIT's Technology review, July/August 2000.

http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp

And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis.


Pentagon
Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?

The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.

So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Pentagon was not even scheduled to fly.

Q14. — At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?

No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved.


Pennsylvania
Q15. — What information is available regarding flight UA93, which is purported to have crashed in Pennsylvania?

It was flown by tail number N591UA. The plane is still valid in the FAA aircraft registry. The scene where it is alleged to have crashed shows no evidence of any aircraft wreckage.

It therefore appears that considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that none of the four aircraft mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report actually crashed as stated.

Additionally, there appears to be a total lack of evidence to support the Kean Commission's claim.

Q16. Is this summary correct?

Yes.

Q17. Do you have anything further to add, before we offer this interview for debate?

There's plenty more which could be added on the subject of Sept 11 generally.

Summary article: http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html

Detailed research and documentation: http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html

DW: Thank you, Gerard.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David West may be reached at davidgordonwest@yahoo.co.uk and Gerard Holmgren at holmgren@iinet.net.au.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

passenger planes were indeed used on 9/11. here are some pictures of 757 with "pods" or bulges on their undercarraige










tehre was no "Weapon pod" what you see is a normal buldge on all planes of that type

sheesh

and planes did not hit the pentagon and crash in PA, what did happen to the passengers and crew of those planes? how was a switch made since they never left radar? (their transponders were off but still were visible on radar)


david