portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage united states

9.11 investigation | media criticism

9-11 Pentagon Plane Identified? A3 SkyWarrior with missles (or another mil. plane...?)

The interesting bit--well it's all interesting--is that there is a U.S. government based INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE CONTENT BLOCK against internet searches for this particular part found at the Pentagon crash site. Some of the information that follows thus comes from 9-11 researchers working internationally with U.S. researchers on this issue.
A3 SkyWarrior
A3 SkyWarrior
AFTER LYING they were without footage, Pentagon then ANONYMOUSLY releases this
AFTER LYING they were without footage, Pentagon then ANONYMOUSLY releases this
1.

Pentagon Plane Indentified?
By Leland Lehrman
 leland@33o.com
12-31-4


Esteemed Colleagues - frame one aircraft at Pentagon

I took the animated gif image from the website:
 http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm which shows the five-frame government-released pentagon video zoomed in on the area where the plane went. Looking at it over and over and at 400% zoom, I have finally reached the tentative opinion that it may be a small black military aircraft shooting a missile.

The image appears consistent with a black A3 SkyWarrior or similar aircraft as indicated by Karl Schwarz, both an aircraft specialist and a talented, resourceful investigator.  http://www.karlschwarz.com

To the right in html email [here, above] is an illustrated version of frame one outlining the aircraft in red and the possible white missile trail in orange. Attached is the same file, larger, for those without html email.

In particular, the image is not consistent with a shiny airplane of any sort. The only reflection appears to come from the forward area, near where the cockpit windows or front edge of the wings might be.

Look at this image of an American 757.  http://www.airliners.net/open.file/745215/L/ The plane is almost entirely silver, and the tail is close to white and has clear and large markings on it. Now look at the plane in the image attached [aircraftoutlined.jpg] or on the web [here, above].

Everything is black, and the sun is shining directly on it, as evidenced by the angle of the shadow on the box-shaped thing in the foreground, so there is no way the darkness could be shadow..

In the image attached, aircraftoutlined.jpg, you will see the red outline of the likely airplane and the orange outline of the possible missile trail. If you look at the image directly following this one in the five frame animation  http://physics911.net/e-pentagon_animation.gif, you will be able to compare and contrast the two frames in order to establish other parameters that require a relational view of both frames. It is useful to view the images at 200-400% zoom and frame by frame slowly. Programs like the freeware Irfanview  http://irfanview.com/ can zoom the file adequately.

There is almost no question that there is in fact some sort of white exhaust trail consistent with a missile trail in this image [aircraftoutlined.jpg]. * [and INCONSISTENT with a 757; as well a hundred other facts that belie a 757 at the Pentagon]

Any contention that a 757 hit the Pentagon must deal with what that white cloud-like apparition is and as well how come the tail of the plane in the photograph is black. *

Black ops comes to mind.

I would be interested in going over these two images on the phone (505.982.3609) with anyone interested in order to describe the many difficult-to-put-in-words nuances. If these images do not come through, check them out online:

Pentagon Security Camera Frame 1 zoomed with outlines:
 http://www.physics911.net/aircraftoutlined.jpg

A3 SkyWarrior:
 http://www.physics911.net/a3skywarrior.jpg

If anyone can show me where I am wrong, please do.

Leland


2.

SMOKING GUN ALERT:

U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS PLACED A PHYSICAL BLOCK AGAINST FINDING THIS PART FROM INTERNET SEARCHES WITH U.S. ORIGINS!! IF IT ACTUALLY WAS FROM A 757, THERE WOULD BE NO BLOCK SINCE THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO HIDE.

ODD FEMA PHOTOGRAPHED PLANE PART AT PENTAGON IDENTIFIED: A3 Sky Warrior: "Well, the part that is laying there in the FEMA pictures outside the Pentagon is definitely not a 757 component....Somebody has gone through the internet and done content blocking to where if you actually know the part number and you are actually looking for a diagram picture, you know like an auto-cad drawing or looking for a photograph of this particular item to prove that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon. We had to get the help of some people out of Russia and France and Germany and Japan to go around content blocks on the U.S. search engines and we finally found the photograph....It is what is called a front compressor front hub assembly. In fact, there's two types. One of them, they use it on the, what's called an A3 Sky Warrior. And the A3 Sky Warrior has had, at last count, four different types of jets [engines] on them. But some of it is older technology going all the way back to the Allison J33, and Allison J71, which all of those are burned up years ago. It doesn't even pay to try to repair them anymore. And what this is is either a Pratt and Witney 57 or a Pratt and Witney JT8D. Now that is an engine that is primarily used on earlier versions of the 737. But it is also used on an A3 in it's current model, current version. And here is what this says, this is just a little footnote, underneath this picture we gave Spitzer it said your reliable source for turbine engine fan blade repairs is now providing total overhaul capability of JT8D fan hub assembly repair. And I'm not going to say the name of the company. Spitzer's office is looking into this. This is the only approved source to overhaul both blades and hub assemblies an FAA approved shop. JS: So what was it that hit the Pentagon? Any guesses here?; KS: I think it was an A3 Sky Warrior. " [Global Hawk additionally has an Allison though...]
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305698.shtml

3.
FLASH ANIMATION OF NO EVIDENCE FOUND OF 757 AT PENTAGON
author: Messenger
This was produced by North East Illinois University and it is very compelling evidence that a 757 did not strike the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
Click here for an incredible, quick loading video about the attack on the Pentagon. NO EVIDENCE OF 757 AT THE PENTAGON
 http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm
COMMENTS HERE, AND LINK AS WELL:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304152.shtml

4.

ILLEGAL PENTAGON CLEAN UP CREW, DESTROYING, COVERING, AND CARRYING AWAY EVIDENCE (AND PERHAPS LAYING FALSE EVIDENCE)

9-11 Pentagon Photo: what's that 'thing' in the background of this pic?
21:08 Dec-09 (14 comments)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305599.shtml

add a comment on this article

rebuttal, follow the C-130; and much more than simply plane hit at Penta. 01.Jan.2005 11:39

well...

This would have to ignore (or integrate) the C-130 witnessed by many people in connection with the Pentagon hit, and the essence of it guiding the plane into the Pentagon, and the interesting bit that the U.S. military then put all information about this 9-11 participative C-130 under top secret classified status.

good stuff 03.Jul.2004 08:51
Already Published link

that rather interesting C-130:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288464.shtml

now has a card. Kewl!

more cards:
9-11 cards: The full state terror club, from little deuces to major aces
author: version1
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299286.shtml
6 of Hearts C-130
6 of Hearts C-130
King of Hearts Pentagon
King of Hearts Pentagon

sigh 01.Jan.2005 13:49

Teddy Ruxpin (The Lousy Typist)

You people are no longer entertaining. Get a clue and ask yourself WHY the government would bother with such a complicated plan, when actually crashing the 747 would be SOOOOOOOO much easier.

but, "Teddy Ruxpin (The Lousy Typist)" 01.Jan.2005 18:05

they

didn't crash a 747 into the Pentagon...nobody says they did. The point in all this is the FACT
that they didn't crash a 757, as they claim it was, into the Pentagon. It was something else,
and given that they've gotten this part of their "story" wrong, then how much more of their so-
called "story" is wrong? That's the POINT!

Nice spin "Teddy Ruxpin" 01.Jan.2005 19:03

Tony Blair's dog

"...WHY the government would bother with such a complicated plan, when actually crashing the 747 would be SOOOOOOOO much easier."

How would crashing a "747" be "SOOOOOOOO much easier"?

Please explain.

My Dear Mr. Ruxpin 01.Jan.2005 21:18

sparksalot

Your question does nothing to answer the hard evidence.

Which is that you can not shove a 65ton airliner into a 20 foot wide hole at ground level in the side of the Pentagon without leaving the wings, vertical stabilizer, and elevators sheared off and laying on the Pentagon lawn.

It's elementary my dear Mr. Ruxpin. The hole simply was not caused by a passenger airliner.
If the aircraft won't fit, you must aquit!
If the aircraft won't fit, you must aquit!

Explosive 757 02.Jan.2005 02:06

Already Published

Actually - I put together the most comprehensive collection of C-130 witness reports cited above--including Steve O'Brien's testimony -

- and I think Lt. Col. O'Brien flew an American Airlines marked Boeing 757 packed with explosives into the Pentagon.

A similar theory (non 757) has been proposed by Eric Bart - who has the second most comprehensive collection of C-130 witness reports, and the most comprehensive collection of Pentagon witness reports.

 http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

 http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

A3 Sky Warrior and Global Hawk both have ALLISON engine 02.Jan.2005 09:27

.

.
Seven of Hearts Global Hawk, (ver.3)
Seven of Hearts Global Hawk, (ver.3)

my god, the photoshop outline makes it all so clear! 02.Jan.2005 13:36

steve

And here I thought I was just looking at a bunch of smudges. That's clearly an A3 Skywarrior crashing into the pentagon, not trees blowing in the wind behind a cardboard box.

Steve the slave 02.Jan.2005 14:08

m

Steve, or whatever your name is: The point of the article is basically everything except the one issue you picked out to waste your time and ours on. Talk about the internet search block instead. Talk about the lack of witnesses for a 757, etc. Talk about how you know your masters are guilty and that is why you are here.

Rorsach's Pixelry Test 03.Jan.2005 04:11

Already Published

Actually, Steve has a point.

a) The Pentagon claimed that it's security cameras did not capture the crash. (Gertzfile, September 19, 2001)

b) two videos were seized and never shown to the public (gas station and Sheraton Hotel)

c) March 2002, Pentagon releases a "seqence of pictures" through its agents at CBS. It is not claimed to be a "video" there is nothing indicative of a plane whatosever, and certainly no C-130 flying immediately through the plume as described by the C-130 pilot and Keith Wheelhouse.


Meanwhile, thousands have ascribed aircraft model numbers to a meaningless blob, while very few have questioned the QUALITY or the AUTHENTICITY of the Pentagon pixelry - accepting it on Pentagon faith!

PENTAGON:
1) "We did not capture the event" (September 19, 2001)
2) "Here's some pictures we captured" (March 2002)

911 RESEARCHERS:
1) "These must be legitimate - what do you see?"

The Case of the Pentagon 757 Plane that Wasn't There 03.Jan.2005 14:00

Sherlock Holmes

On the one hand, I think "Already Published" has a point: the lack of trustworthiness of the anonymously released information from the Pentagon after they lied they were without any evidence (despite having seized two video streams from it, that he mentioned). It has already been shown that this information has manipulated/false timestamps without any explained purpose. So at first they were hiding this information from the public, which means that it did not really support their lie about a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

However, one point going for the accuracy of some parts of the visual aspects of the released 5 frames is that it is hardly the only bit of evidence showing that there is nothing like a 757 at the Pentagon at all. There is plenty of other information, like that Allison engine, or the fear of the U.S. finding out what it was (the internet search block!), that shows that it was hardly a 757.

Another point about this footage is that, after lying the first time, the Pentagon anonymously released it (why anonymously? as if they refuse to stand behind it? or afraid to get caught in cover up?) to shore up cracks in false story of "the 757 at the Pentagon" which wasn't there.

They expected it to be used to support their lie.

However, what has some bit of veracity going for it is that these frames have so many other issues showing 'no 757'--which would be unintentional. And since they would unlikely sabotage themselves in their lie, some information in the film sections can be true. However, it is not necessary to desribe Pentagon complicty using ONLY the film excerpts, there is plenty of other information for that.

Thus, because information in what the Pentagon released failed to support their lie of a "Pentagon 757", I think that at least parts of it like the NON-JET FUEL EXPLOSION IT SHOWS OR THE WHITE TRAIL FROM A MISSLE OR WHATEVER because this has nothing to do with a 757, can be shown to be true.

Why would the Pentagon release 5 frames of information disproving their own 757 story, and why five UNSEQUENCED FRAMES WITH INTENTIONALLY CLEARER VIEWS OF THE PLANE LEFT OUT, unless they are lying that it is not a 757.

Sometimes, Watson, what is missing is the evidence. And sometimes a false alibi is just as important to analyze for inconsistencies that point toward compounded lying.

So... 03.Jan.2005 18:36

Sheepdog

... as if this wasn't always a murder investagation. What happened to the passangers? We have always turned a blind eye to torture, murder, rape and theft under the ideology of war and material gains. We are all guilty to some extent.
It's time to grow up as a species.

add a comment on this article