I would have played it the same.

Re-raising (basically your own raise) on the flop is the right play I think. If the 2nd bet instead came from a loose, agressive, and non-all-in player, you might consider calling here to set up a turn raise. I'd still often re-raise the flop anyway. What might be a reckless play in a standard mid-limit game, can be value betting in LPLLHE.

In the actual hand, the all-in player cannot bet into you on the turn of course, so you can't delay pushing your edge until the double bet street.

Folding on the turn is a good play. Everybody and their brother dog's draw just got there. You have no redraw yourself, and the deck still contains a whole lot of cards that help your opponents even in the extremely improbable case where they've still both got nothing. You're now even beat by most of the other plausible draws that didn't get there (e.g. KT). Ouch.

Was the flop 3 bet terrible given that it won't give any hands poor odds to chase and just builds a pot for the best draw...

No. I don't really agree with this line of thinking in LPLLHE. Whether or not your opponents would be given future correct or incorrect pot odds in the future betting rounds isn't really worth considering in LPLLHE, where players are typically not thinking about pot odds themselves. Get the money in when you think your hand is best.

Also, your opponents being correct to call you on later streets does not make your future value bets unprofitable. A correct call (on whatever street) by a drawing opponent is profitable to your opponent due to the dead money in the pot, but your value bet is very very profitable, due to both the dead money in the pot and the slice of the current round's bet that you are winning (on average) from your opponent.

Building the pot early (when you're confident that you probably have the best hand) will help you win even more value bets on later streets. This is an extremely valuable concept in LPLLHE.

This kind of play (i.e. waiting until a later street to offer your opponent poor drawing odds) is stronger when you think you are running a "bluff with the best hand".* This is only going to work against thinking opponents who are capable of (say) making a correct call with (what the opponent thinks is) only a gutshot on the flop whereas they would correctly (from the opponent's point of view) fold on the turn when you bet on that street.

Was folding the turn bad? The pot sure was a monster.

It sure was, but no. If the pot was a monster, then the board on the turn is like the Blair Witch commanding a platoon of Predators being supported by Freddie paratroopers. And a cookie monster.

Would you just toss it in the trash preflop?

I wouldn't. In that family of hands with the same pre-flop action I'd probably take a flop with hand as low as A9o. And I'd raise it most of the time with the AQo.

Nicely played.

ScottyZ

*By this, I mean that you are in a case such as AK vs. 67 on a flop of 25Q. It is a bluff in the sense that you'd like opponent to think that his hand (with 10-outs) is weaker than he thinks (4-outs). In some sense, this is bluffing, because fundamentally a bluff is a bet that is designed to make your opponent think that his hand is weaker than it truly is, and you would prefer that he folds.**

**This may be a more powerful concept in a tournament, rather than a cash game. Are you allowed to put a footnote in another footnote?