|
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:
- this is a high pressure rotor element of a jet engine;
- the diameter of the housing is not much bigger than the
diameter of this rotor,
- most of the witnesses heard a sound that they describe as the
sound of a military aircraft (highly pitched and strident), not the
sound of an airliner.
He concludes:
- this piece and the streamlining behind don't come from the
engine of an airliner, which has low pressure fans of much larger
size than the high pressure rotors, so that the streamlines are
much larger than the diameters of the high pressure rotors.
- the engines of this plane had no low pressure fans: they are
military engines, for which noise is not a problem.
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.
Links:
____
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
From...Russell
at
www.pentagonresearch.com
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
theory.
The reason I have chosen to do so resides in this one statement,
"The information in this article has been hand-delivered to New
York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer."
Here is Karl's article for reference:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html
.
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.
If this case gets tossed aside as a representation of the 9/11
community's best work then what happens when solid information has
an opportunity to make it to the top in the future?
It is always best to explain yourself when providing constructive
feedback.
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.
I will point out a few observations on Karl's article and some of
my own opinions on the A-3 theory.
The article to "prove" a physical evidence case starts off with
rhetoric and generalizations about the Bush family.
George Bush in my thinking did not design and carry out 9/11.
It was way beyond his scope and his intelligence level.
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.
Karl says, "That has not been easy and we have had many working on
this night and day for three years to get to the bottom of the
matter."
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.
They are all clipped from various websites. We do not see any new
photos, definitive part numbers or references that Elliot Spitzer
or any of us can verify. There is truth mixed into this article no
doubt.
Some things that we all pretty much agree on are the undisclosed
videos from the Pentagon, the bogus war on terror, and the lack of
credibility regarding the 9/11 Commission. But to alternate from
things that we agree with and that evoke an emotional response back
to a weak theory is not going to convince an attorney general.
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's article.
In three years of research it seems that Karl would have realized
this
http://www.shanaberger.com/engines/JT8D.htm .
Even the diagram further down on this page labels it as a turbofan.
Beside that point, the difference between these two types of
engines is described well here, "A further variation on the
turbojet is the turbofan. Although most components remain the same,
the turbofan introduces a fan section in front of the compressors."
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0033.shtml
Karl says, "There was one credible witness found that saw "a
two-engine jet airplane,
the engines were under the wings."
That is a visual description of a 737, 757, or 767, but it is
also a description of an A-3 Skywarrior."
I didn't know that only one witness was considered "credible".
The eyewitness reports were all over the map, everything from a
turboprop to a commuter plane including a 737, 747, and a 757.
But not one described a fighter type jet that I am aware of
(correct me if I'm wrong).
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
contact.
Let's just say it could have been a fighter jet, but was it an A-3?
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/eye.html
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."
I challenge this.
Just put "jt8d repair" into Google and you will find plenty of
shops certified to do the work.
It doesn't take secret research to find JT8D repair. Karl says,
"For those of you that do not pay attention to such things, 9-11
Commission member Jamie Gorelick sits on the board of directors of
United Technologies and Pratt & Whitney is now owned by United
Technologies. Former Bush EPA secretary Christine Todd Whitman also
sits on the United Technologies board, and that is a company that
is raking in big bucks due to Bush War Policy." What does this have
to do with anything? Because these people were on the board they
had some factor in choosing the A-3? Karl says, "The FEMA photo
shows such a front seal and a rotor hub missing its fan blades. The
key is the cleats on the outer perimeter that the fan blades attach
to and these particular blades are easy to knock off in a collision
such as that at the Pentagon." Those cleats can have any size of
fan blade put in them or none at all.
That component is similar to many engine parts in many various
engines.
See the diagram below of the JT8D turbofan to see the different
size blades in the front..
Karl says, "Some of the team kept digging and they finally found
what might be the actual type of part that was at the Pentagon.
The part that is visible in the left of this photo could well be
the exact part, and I can assure all that what you are looking at
is not the front fan of a 757 jet engine.
That is a 737 type of "turbojet" power plant and might well be in
the "modified A-3 Skywarriors."
I bet that jet mechanic from Evergreen Air (a known CIA affiliated
company) can tell us where that fan blade comes from and do so in
front of a Spitzer or Morganthau grand jury."
Maybe based on this photo from the internet they will subpoena that
mechanic from the "CIA" shop and get him to confess? Karl says,
"What has been interesting is the level of "content blocking" that
there is on the Internet where specific information regarding
certain "jet engine components" such as those shown at the Pentagon
have definitely been blocked.
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."
Again he says, "...it took my team over two years to hammer through
such blocks to find three of these photos (Praxair and Evergreen)
to verify the component."
One more time - I found them and many more in one night on Google.
I sent Karl many JT8D photos and diagrams of internal parts.
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.
I have seen that with my own eyes and that is why I save every
website I find that has information I need.
Karl says, "Yes, Hughes aircraft had a fleet of them and was bought
out by Raytheon.
Hmm, that company is doing well for two reasons that I know of due
to Bush war policy and even the move from Mode 4 to Mode 5
technology since the PRC got its hands on our top secret Mode 4
technology with that little Hainan Island incident and our Navy
EP-3 that was forced down in April of 2001.
As of Sept. 11, 2001, most air traffic controllers and National Air
Guard units were not upgraded after the PRC got their hands on some
of our most sensitive military technology."
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,
"The above photo is a launch of an AIM-54 Phoenix Missile,
air-to-air missile. Making this launch an air-to-surface missile
would not be a great feat and Hughes/Raytheon manufactures several
such missiles that would blow a 16-foot diameter hole in the
Pentagon with ease."
I have two problems with missile theories in general.
One is that there were many motorists right on the scene that did
not report a missile of any sort (they used analogies but that was
it).
One thing we forget is how many people were there that didn't give
a report at all.
They just drove away.
There are certain types of people who make sure they get their
account heard.
These people for various reasons come forward and that is who we
heard from.
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
that case.
Let's remember there were firefighters on the ground, tower
personnel in the helipad tower, and people in all of the fully
occupied offices to the North of the renovation zone with windows
looking right out onto the lawn. We probably didn't hear from the
majority of them.
But if a jet fighter came in and launched a missile I'll bet we
would have. The other problem with the missile theory is what about
the exit hole?
How did a missile blow a near perfect 9' diameter hole as clean as
that 310 feet into the building and then decelerate in the distance
of AE Drive to not even chip the opposing wall?
That is where I tend to side with theories that suggest the use of
secondary explosives in the building.
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
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster2.htm ).
Karl says, "Also note that jet engine fuel burning does not
leave a white trail at sea level, only at higher and much colder
altitudes.
However, AGM type missiles burn solid rocket fuel and it leaves a
white trail at all altitudes."
This is very true. In the 5 video frames released it does have the
white trail.
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.
One common theme in the eyewitness reports is the engines "revving"
up after hitting the poles.
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.
Many eyewitnesses reported a change in the engine sound after
hitting the poles.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/023.html
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.
The part at the Pentagon is very similar to that diagram. It is not
a GE part as in his diagram.
It is also not a "diffuser", it is the combustion chamber.
If Karl would like to post the reference to the "diffuser case"
photos that he shows with a part number or something that we can
verify,
I would like to look into those further.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/081.html
Karl says,
"They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional
check of width versus diameter will easily show that the below
photo is not of a wheel hub from a 757, which has a much larger
radius than width.
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."
The right photo above is not from the Pentagon.
It is from the WTC. I would like to see the proportional "check"
numbers and how that was accomplished from a photo compared to an
A-3. I'm sure the attorney general would too. The idea that a
special wheel was made to "refit" the A-3 for this attack is
doubtful.
I have looked at a ton of A-3 photos (some of them recent) and they
all have the same rim (See below). Rims on aircraft are integral to
the landing gear including brake and hydraulic fixtures.
There are not just interchangeable.
While I was researching Karl's theory, the A-3 did give me one
hope.
I thought maybe its tail wheel bumper was the mystery part in the
Pentagon that was being attributed to a landing gear.
There was only one of them and it had similarities. (See
below)
But after contacting a couple of old A-3 guys and finding some
other photos, I found this to not be the case.
On my website that piece in the Pentagon does turn out to be a 757
main gear.
Go to
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html
and click on the photo of the piece to see another photo of it, the
part numbers and the history.
The thing yet to be proven is the use of the JT8D on the A-3. It is
usually listed as the J-57-P-10
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-3_skywarrior.pl .
Put "skywarrior jt8d" into Google and again the only references to
this are related to Karl's article.
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 provide part numbers or the opportunity for external
verification or even sources for images. Most of all, it will not
produce objective credibility in the minds of those already
skeptical of people questioning the official story.
It does not deal with additional debris at the scene and
numerous other established issues.
I will correct myself if found to be wrong.
Any theory that ends up being very close to the truth will have to
account for all of the witnesses, building anomalies, evidence
(planted or not), and the actual things we know to be true about
the incident.
The 9/11 operation goes so far beyond all of the smaller stuff we
sit around and argue about.
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".
Russell
www.pentagonresearch.com
Air
Defenses Stood Down On 9/11 AFTER ATC Alerts Given
Did NORAD Send The Suicide Jets Part 2
|
