InHis Own Words
OpenAnd Fair Trials
Osama Bin Asset
Bin Laden Confession
Cia Visas For Patsies
Hijackers Alive And Well
Pentagon Attack Damage
Pentagon Attack Debris
Pentagon Attack Fire
Pentagon Attack Legend
Pentagon Plane Rotor
Pentagon Attack Cctv Video
Flight 77 Patsies
Flight 77 Witnesses
Flight 77 Black Boxes
Pentagon Attack Hole
Pentagon Attack Videos
Pentagon Attack WitnessBlast
Sept 11 WebSites
Trusted News Sites
There is one photograph of the debris, from FEMA 1 that may be useful. A rotor (high pressure stage) coming from an jet engine can be seen in left-hand side photo above . On the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine. On the right, the leg of somebody working on the site gives approximately the scale, of less than a meter in diameter.
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins examines this photograph carefully, and notes that:
At the right above, we show the engine from a Britannia Airways Boeing 757 that crashed 14 September 1999 at Gerona, Spain. This aircraft (G-BYAG) had the same engine model as Flight 77 ( N644AA) - Rolls Royce RB211-535E4. Not only is the diameter of the Rolls Royce engine is much larger, the rotor configuration is totally different.
This debris photograph of the engine rotor, if the evidence was not planted, is consistent with a small jet aircraft such as the Navy S-3B, the F-15, the F-16 or the F-18; definitely not from a Boeing 757-223. One witness that reported seeing a 8-10 seat passenger plane, others reported a small rear-engined jet, which would be consistent with the Navy T-39 Sabreliner.
This isn't the only engine from 9/11 that's too small: see our page WTC Plane Engine.
1 'The main entrance to the search and rescue operations at the Pentagon following Tuesday's attack.
Photo by Jocelyn Augustino/ FEMA News Photo. Disaster Type: Terrorist Attack. Event: Pentagon Explosion.
Declaration Number: 1392. Photo Date: 2001-09-13 17:22:06. Photograph ID: 4414.'
appologies for the format problems on this page
www.pentagonresearch.com should have a better copy
COMMENTS ON MYTHOLOGY BUBBLE PART 5
I thrive on all points of view regarding 9/11 and realize that every idea put forward will eventually benefit the discovery of truth.
It is not normally my style to critique anybody else's
My question is, is this article an objective, factual
representation of the 9/11 community to legal officials? Unless the
information presented to Mr. Spitzer is documented significantly
beyond the contents of this article, then we are in trouble.
My name is Russell Pickering and I recently launched a website looking into the incident at the Pentagon.
My hope is to push all of the evidence to the front (no matter what it is) and challenge ALL of our individual personal theories towards a comprehensive factual accounting of how they pulled off 9/11.
I have put my time into matters related to the Pentagon
investigation and care very much about the truth being known
someday. I believe this will happen if we all fairly critique and
support each other. I exchanged many emails with Karl and sent him
photos and ideas regarding his A-3 theory. After many hours of
looking into it I abandoned the theory.
The article to "prove" a physical evidence case starts off with
rhetoric and generalizations about the Bush family.
I strongly dislike our appointed president but don't feel he decided on the details of 9/11 operations although I believe he was aware of it.
I feel this was irrelevant in making an objective case for an
A-3 Skywarrior hitting the Pentagon to legal officials. Worse yet
is that by the time they get to the A-3 theory they may already
have shut their minds.
I don't see three years of research represented in Karl's article in any way. There are no references for even the source of the images. He also says, "Our team had to take steps to go around the content blocks to get at the photos you are seeing regarding these rotor hub components."
I found all of those photos in one night on Google. There is
nothing original there.
We should also keep in mind that an attorney general on the official side of the story might actually find those statements alienating - limiting their response to any facts that might be present. If you sent a plain and well documented case with substantial evidence that an aircraft other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon then you might raise a brow.
Karl says, "It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a
"turbojet" component from an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet
engine technology that was used on just a limited number of
fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes." Here is Pratt &
Whitney's list of what the JT8D was used on
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_mil_jt8d-219.asp . Go to Google
and type in "jt8d turbofan" and then "jt8d turbojet". All experts
say that the JT8D is a turbofan except for Karl (see statement
above). When you enter "jt8d turbojet" it is only references to
Karl says, "There was one credible witness found that saw "a
two-engine jet airplane,
That is a visual description of a 737, 757, or 767, but it is
also a description of an A-3 Skywarrior."
The eyewitness reports were all over the map, everything from a
turboprop to a commuter plane including a 737, 747, and a 757.
There were sounds reported like that of a missile or a fighter
but no visuals. One radar controller commented on the maneuver of
the aircraft being fighter-like, but not with direct visual
Karl says, "It was very difficult to find the exact FAA
certified company that is equipped, tooled or certified to work on
the jet engines that were used in the A-3 Skywarrior."
That component is similar to many engine parts in many various
Our team had to take steps to go around the content blocks to
get at the photos you are seeing regarding these rotor hub
I don't know why he would exaggerate this to sound like the whole internet has been scrubbed of any information regarding these parts.
Now I agree that reference and documentation links are being
removed from the internet regarding 9/11.
More top secret stuff. Is that going to convince an attorney
general on the behalf of the 9/11 community that Flight 77 didn't
hit the Pentagon? Karl says,
I have two problems with missile theories in general.
I'll bet if a missile skimmed over the highway with a fighter
jet right behind it we would have heard from a lot more people in
Also, does the AIM-14 have the ability to travel 310 feet
through a building including and at least 6 feet of concrete inner
walls, 5 feet of steel reinforced concrete exterior walls, 16" of
brick, 6" of limestone, all of the interior pillars and the office
contents (this I don't technically know but it would be interesting
if it could since even the specially designed bunker buster is
rated for only 20' of concrete
Karl says, "Also note that jet engine fuel burning does not
leave a white trail at sea level, only at higher and much colder
Also, if there was nothing to hide then why release the frame where the aircraft is hidden? But if the frames showed a missile trail why release them and expose that? Those are good unanswered questions.
One possibility is that an engine took in a piece of debris from the lamps and stalled the compressor spraying fuel vapor.
I would like to hear somebody address this possibility in detail
since I have not found a good answer.
As somebody who was an aircraft mechanic for 5 years 9 months in
the USAF I do know that engines make funny sounds after ingesting
something from the training films that I watched.
Karl says, "However, the following is the diffuser case design
for the 757 jet engines and it is quite different from that shown
at the Pentagon. That is due to the difference between
"dual-chamber turbojet" versus the newer "high bypass jet fan"
designs found on the 757 and 767 jet airplanes."
He does not show the Boeing RB-211 diagram that is well known on
9/11 research sites and that I sent him personally.
This radius being about the same as the width of the wheel hub is also another clue that the 757 story is a Bush Lie. In fact, if one looks very closely at the diameter versus width of the tire that was found at the Pentagon, this is the type of tire used for carrier based and general rear wheels of smaller military planes, not commercial airliners.
This is the type of wheel hub one would expect to find as one of
the two rear wheels on an A-3 refitted with current equipment
rather than equipment that is no longer being manufactured."
While I was researching Karl's theory, the A-3 did give me one
But after contacting a couple of old A-3 guys and finding some
other photos, I found this to not be the case.
No aircraft experts list the JT8D in use on the A-3.
My conclusion is that Karl's presentation is not an accurate
representation for someone at the level of an attorney general who
may dismiss future 9/11 research based on it.
It does not deal with additional debris at the scene and numerous other established issues.
I will correct myself if found to be wrong.
We have to get past our pride and really start to look for what matters. The option is to sit and watch the History Channel in forty years chatting about it as a possible "conspiracy theory".
Air Defenses Stood Down On 9/11 AFTER ATC Alerts Given
Did NORAD Send The Suicide Jets Part 2