Karl Schwarz on the engine parts found at Pentagon crash site.

[JohnyCanuck]

In a recent article published at www.onlinejournal.com Karl Schwarz claims the engine parts photographed at the Pentagon crash site on 911 are not from 757 powerplants or the 757 APU (APU = auxiliary power unit, a small turbine engine in the aircraft tail that provides auxiliary power to the aircraft while on the ground and in emergencies etc) rather they are from a much earlier turbojet model eg the P&W JT8D used in early model 737s and the USAF A3 Skywarrior. If there are any A&P mechanics who have worked on the 757s and/or early turbojets like the JT8Ds it would be interesting to hear their comments.


They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.

<snip>

If you have seen the Pentagon photos that have been released regarding the jet engine part inside the Pentagon, the following is also a photo that is not part of a 757 engine that we have found, even in physically inspecting one inside a jet engine maintenance shop.




They are called in the jet industry a "diffuser case" and the UPN content numbers on this particular item have been blocked and otherwise scrubbed on the Internet.

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.




Note the triangular bezels around the openings and then note that the Pentagon diffuser case has no such openings or reinforcing points. The diffuser is built into a much larger component and not a separate component in the newer 757 type jet engines. This is a very large component within the 757 type of jet engine and there are two of them on every 757. Note, not a single one of these was found at the Pentagon and this is not a component that would have melted or evaporated in any manner at all.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html

[librechik]

1. interesting indeed, however, how does Schwarz know

that "not a single one of these was found at the Pentagon?"

my impression is that the NTSB and FBI are simply not releasing most relevant details of the crash site, so "none found" is a pretty big assumption.

BTW, I don't think flt 77 hit the Pentagon. Don't know what did hit it, don't know what happened to the folks on the flight. Just too little corroborating evidence to believe the BushCo spin.

Anybody watching the CNN footage of the New Jersey commuter flight crash this morning? Look at a) the holes made in the building it crashed into and b) how the wings fell off and stayed right next to the fuselage. Very interesting. Nothing like that at the Pentagon. And I do mean Nothing.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. The diffuser case would only be one example

of anomalous wreckage showing up at the Pentagon. There's also the matter of the engine compressor hub assembly and the aircraft wheel also photographed in the Pentagon wreckage, the compressor hub assembly apparently belonging to an earlier model turbojet engine and the aircraft wheel not matching the wheel assemblies on 757. Hmm were there two simultaneous aircraft crashes at the Pentagon on 9/11 or were the black op disinfo agents purposely sewing the crash site with anomalous wreckage to cause confusion among the "conspiracy theorists"?

[Turbineguy]

3. There must be

some statistical correlation between the probability of success of a conspiracy and the number of people involved.

For another airplane to crash into the Pentagon there would have to be a large number of people involved. Then there would be people on the ground. Then there were those who investigated.

How could anybody planning such an escapade account for all the possible eye witnesses who might innocently enough contradict the planned explanation.

In order for such a conspiracy to succeed the number of persons involved would have to be in the thousands.

Clearly the success of the 9/11 attacks was due in a large measure to the security system in place at the airports, the Bush Administrations priorities, lack of preparation and the general incompetence we all show when dealing with a situation entirely outside the realm of our experience.

[Turbineguy]

4. In the one picture

in the article, (the gray borderd one) the part looks like a high pressure stage of the compressor section of a GE engine. You can see the stationary vane rotating mechanism, the compressor stall control system, a giveaway trait of a GE engine.

[thebigidea]

5. why would they even bother to fake this?

nobody gave a shit about the Pentagon being attacked - you always hear about the WTC, the Pentagon attack was almost incidental.

[PsN2Wind]

6. A3s were Navy aircraft, not USAF

and they used J-57 engines. The Air Force had a similar craft, the B-66 Destroyer that used a J-71 engine.
Raytheon still uses a few of the A3s for test beds.
The author needs to get a few of the basics correct if any of the allegation is going to be believed.
Based on my near 3 years as a "Whaler".