A-3 Skywarrior at the Pentagon?

[k-robjoe]

Very controversial :

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

( Don´t know what to think about it. )

[gbwarming]

1. Top 10 reasons it was not an A-3

#10. No witness describes a high wing airplane like an A-3
#9. No A-3s took off from Dulles that morning.
#8. Carl W. B Swartz is an idiot. He's showing us CF6 pictures.
#7. Not enough seats for all the hijackers.
#6. Damage to the limestone was 120 feet wide. A-3 is too small.
#5. Not enough seats for all the passengers.
#4. Couldn't possibly fit through a 16 foot hole without leaving the wings outside.
#3. Only one engine found. The A-3 has two.
#2. Doesn't have a dark tail, like a fighter.
#1. Too small to carry a double helix of shaped charges.


But wait,, Could it have been a B-66??? :evilgrin:

[k-robjoe]

2. Mixture

of irony and seriousness.

Some critique from my point of view :

He says that the wheel and wheel hub found at the Pentagon doesn´t have the right dimensions for a 757, and then he does NOT show a picture of a 757 wheel (and wheel hub) so that one can see for oneself if there is a difference.

Same thing with the engine (part) found inside the Pentagon. He could have found a pic of the part on a 757 that this is supposed to be, and pointed out the differences.

I don´t suppose anyone has seen any pics of such a part from a 757? All I have seen is the drawing (which doesn´t seem identical).
Ought to be possible to find a pic of that particular part from a 757, and put it next to the pic of the part found in the Pentagon, and show clearly that they are the same.

[gbwarming]

3. Some info for you

I found some 757 wheels a few months ago. I think these match very well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=20583#21144
It's a little silly of Schwartz to suggest that the A-3 would have to have other wheels refitted to match the Pentagon wheel. It might be possible, but you can see from A-3 (or A3D as it used to be designated) photos, the wheel hub is very different, perhaps the brake pack is sticking out to the side. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/518275/L/


Last week I found a couple of Australian safety investigations with lots of photos involving RB211 engines similar, if not identical in all details, to the AAL77 engines. I don't know why Schwartz is showing us drawings of CF6 engine parts.
---
747 engine (RB211-524) with lots of photos including turbine rotors and housings
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/tech-rep/200205895/200205895.pdf

747 engine (RB211-524) with lots of fan detail photos. A fan blade on this engine failed. I was surprised to see how many different airplanes (seven!) that particular blade had flown on throughout it's life. They included 747s and 767s.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/tech-rep/200200646/20-02.pdf

[ScaRBama]

4. Why don't you send Karl....

an email and ask him these questions?

[demodewd]

10. re: top 10 reasons

#10. No witness describes a high wing airplane like an A-3
Your most convincing point. You should have made it #1. Perhaps it was a 737.

#9. No A-3s took off from Dulles that morning.
No shit.

#8. Carl W. B Swartz is an idiot. He's showing us CF6 pictures.
CF6? How are they similar or different to an A-3?

#7. Not enough seats for all the hijackers.
There may not have been any seats at all.

#6. Damage to the limestone was 120 feet wide. A-3 is too small.
Damage to the limestone exterior was partially caused by the blast from inside the building expelling debris outward.

#5. Not enough seats for all the passengers
No passenger seats. Possible shaped charges and additional fuel

#4. Couldn't possibly fit through a 16 foot hole without leaving the wings outside.

If the wings were detached from the plane,they would have gotten caught up in the initial blast and would have disintegrated or blasted into very small pieces

#3. Only one engine found. The A-3 has two.
Only one engine found. The 757 has two.

#2. Doesn't have a dark tail, like a fighter.
All fighters have dark tails??

#1. Too small to carry a double helix of shaped charges.

Its concentric. That's what matters.

[spooked911]

5. FWIW-- I am finally convinced a Boeing 757-like plane hit the Pentagon

but I am not yet convinced it was flight 77.

I do think there is something strange about the plane -- that is why they edited the security camera video so severely.

The plane, especially the wings, seemed to have completely disintegrated upon impact, leaving me to wonder if either it wasn't a normal 757 or it carried some extra explosives.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Fuel laden wings exploded?

why whould'nt they?

Imagine, as the wings impact the facade, both begin to desintegrate, the wings a a much faster rate. they crumple, the wing tanks deform and rupture, but not before the mass of the fuel punches through the facade. The fuel, propelled by the speed of the aircraft, becomes a spray as it exits the ruptured tanks, and is ignited by spark. The outer part of the wings lacking massive structrual supports, or major control surface articulation, desintigrates into aluminum confetti.

[spooked911]

7. I'm not sure about confetti-- you mean even the engines?

The problem is they wings and engines truly exploded, there is just not that much debris in front of the Pentagon. There is lots of debris right in front of the facade around the impact zone, but it is hard to tell what that is. But there is no evidence of large amounts of confetti that would have fallen all over the lawn if the wings truly exploded.

see this picture: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/030.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. Did you read my post?

The outer 25% of the wings are the only part that did not enter the Pentagon. The damage to the facade shows this pretty clearly if you choose to look at the post collapse pics.

The engines ended up deep in the Pentagon, though I think one hit a structural support and ripped itself apart, inside.

A Fuel explosion is a low order explosion. light pieces were deposited at the foot of the Wall, the rest continued into the Pentagon due to the high speed of the airliner when it hit. In the picture you post the majority of the debris is to the left of the fire. If you look at an aerial view of the crash you will see a huge burn mark to the left of the hole. That's because the plane did not hit perpendicular to the wall.

[spooked911]

9. what do you mean "low-order" explosion? The explosion in the security

camera video seems quite large and violent.

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. Sorry

but the big fireball explosions you see in the movies? real high order explosions are not like that at all. There was very little damage done to the Pentagon other than that done by the physical aircraft impact, and then the fire.

[spooked911]

12. so the Pentagon security camera explosion was fake?

Because that explosion was massive, rose 100 feet in the air and went at least 100 feet out horizontally from the Pentagon.

It sure doesn't look "low-order" to me.

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. Man

No offense but you ain't getting it. The explosion in the pentagon has all the qualities of a fuel explosion, while visually very impressive, not very efficient as an explosive.

Note that while initially there is a fireball caused by the explosive, it expands much more violently, causing the block house to be blown apart. The damage to the Pentagon was relatively minimal.

If that was a military warhead that hit the Pentagon there would've been pieces of the facade all over the lawn.

[Blackthorn]

14. I found two articles...

on the website www.physics911.org that as close as you're going to get to proving an airline DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, and it makes a pretty good case for a fighter of some description. Unfortunately, I can't access the site, only the front page. Hopefully you guys can, plenty of good articles trying to explain 9/11 according the facts, not the "facts".

[Sweet Pea]

15. Yep.....*sigh*

Nothing quite builds confidence or exudes professionalism in an alternative line of thinking than a dead and/or inoperative URL.

:)

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. I've pretty much seen it all friend

been going around and around on this issue since...2001.