Reply #52: Rebuttal to the A-3 theory

[spooked911]

(Russel Pickering wrote this and sent it to me via e-mail)

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 Pickering