HUNTING THE BOEING! (AND FINDING IT)

TESTING MY PERCEPTIONS AGAINST THE MEYSSANS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
4/21/07

Thierry Meyssan’s use of the new medium of the Internet included a visually based website run by his son Raphaël, called “Hunt the Boeing! And Test Your Perceptions!” First posted in February 2002 as a prelude to the book “The Big Lie,” the site offered curious photos of the crash site that most of the world had never before seen, with some interesting observations tainted with sloppy analysis and unwarranted leaps of logic. It has often been taken as a starting point by American conspiracy theorists, one of whom, the Versailles, Missouri-based Dave Von Kleist, found that HTB “drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon.”

When I finally took a closer look at the site itself, I started getting some questions all right. “Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version.” The website urges. “It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!” I accepted the challenges. Below are the questions posed and my own answers:

Q1) "The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"


A1) No, because while it may seem “clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring,” the damage was actually much deeper, extending all the way through the ground floor of rings E, D, and C – although E was the only one damaged enough to collapse and all the other damage was invisible from above. A fuller explanation here.

Q2) "The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high.
Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"


A2) Yes and no. The tailfin and outer right wing hit and damaged/entered the second floor, and the main fuselage damaged the floor slab but along with the engines fit entirely into the first floor. Entry wound analysis.


Q3) "The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building.
You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
A3) Nope. While all the substantial parts entered the building, there were aluminum fuselage scraps photographed in other shots, some bearing parts of an AA paint job. But at the angle and distance of this photograph, it's true nothing is visible.

Q4) "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"

A4) Not precisely, but there are numerous prosaic reasons he might (like the need for greater vehicle access) and few good conspiratorial ones I can think of - we'd already seen the "telltale" unmarked lawn, so it wouldn't do much good to cover it up after the fact.

Q5) "The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"

A5) Again, yes and no. It would seem they exploded, entered the building partly, and were left on the lawn in small pieces otherwise as we’ve seen. I can’t explain why they caused no damage because I’m too busy documenting the damage they did.

Q6) (Extended quote from the Arlington County Fire Chief shortly after the attack) "Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?"
A6) No, nor do I care what one guy knew at a particular moment, nor how much sleep he'd had, etc. Next Question...

Q7) "The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?"


A7) This is indeed the precise spot, but it’s not visible in either shot due to fire hose spray - in almost any other photograph, the answer is yes.

Conclusion: The site sums up triumphantly by posing to its viewers this false dichotomy of tested perceptions:
"How did you Do?
Did you find the Boeing? Can you still defend the official version of events?
> Well done! Remember to get in touch with master of illusion, David Copperfield. He'll be glad to hear from you!
You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):
> If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!"

Again, the answer is yes and no. The only reason I even took interest in this theory is that I do NOT buy the official story, and I find it lacking much. But despite these initial best efforts and all the elaborations on the theme since early 2002, a Boeing at the Pentagon is not one of them.

THE PENTAGON STRIKERS STRIKE BACK

JOE QUINN: BOOBY TRAP OR JUST A BOOB?
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 17 2007

Here I’d like to pass on a fierce and heartfelt denunciation of Jim Hoffman's meddling with the no-757 theories I just ran across by some of my favorite, newly-identified Frustrating Fraudsters: the website Signs of the Times, producers and prime promoters of the 2004 Pentagon Strike video (previously I'd thought it was done by LetsRoll911). It's a bit old now I understand, but still relevant I think. I'm a historian at heart, so it's always relevant to me.

Anyway, Signs' Joe Quinn wrote up a point-by-point renunciation of Hoffman’s October 2004 piece “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” which appeared soon after on Signs of the Times: “Hoffman seems to believe that the "no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd are disinfo artists. We found Hoffman's arguments […] to be based on anything but facts or reason. In fact, in making his case, Hoffman even resorts to using the same twisted logic employed by the Bush administration to justify the war on terror. […] it seems CoIntelPro is in full swing when it comes to the 9-11 Truth Movement.” Indeed, or something like it anyway, as Quinn's retort clearly illustrates.

"Mr Hoffman is correct in asserting that the idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is the most divisive issue among 9/11 researchers," Quinn concedes. But "the divisiveness is a deliberate ploy by CoIntelPro agents to attempt to rob genuine 9/11 truth seekers of the singularly strongest piece of evidence pointing to US government complicity in the attacks,” that being the hard and provable fact that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon. Feel free to use the handy hyperlinks I've provided to examine some of Quinn's evidence for yourself. Among his most damning evidence, “Donald Rumsfeld himself has corroborated the “missile theory.” Indeed he seemed to do just this, just a month after 9/11 and just as Meyssan started his missile theorizing, and that’s red flag number one in the theory for me.

“For Hoffman to dismiss Meyssan's sterling investigative work in exposing the obvious holes in the official Pentagon story by citing that Meyssan understated the hole in the Pentagon facade is utterly disingenuous of Hoffman,” not to mention both irrelevant and wrong, Quinn asserts. “The fact is that the main impact hole at the Pentagon WAS 16 feet wide, and a close examination of the damage either side of that hole is NOT consistent with aircraft the size of a 757. […] There is nothing sloppy about the analysis of Meyssan or Holmgren. They, like so many others, can see clearly that the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the weakest link in the official version of the events of 9/11.”

While mostly relying on the lack of airplane parts to imply no large plane, when Quinn does admit a plane part, it’s not the telltale landing gear but the wheel found in the A-E Drive. He concludes “the circular rim of the landing gear wheel that is presented as evidence by the US government is too small to be part of the landing gear of a Boeing 757, but bears a startling likeness to the rim of the wheel of the landing gear of a Global Hawk.” He didn't want to gloat or overstate his case by actually illustrating that point, so allow me.


Damn you Disinfo Jim Hoffman, if only you’d let the people see the careful no-757 arguments unhindered! Just look at that “strartling likeness!" Boeing 757 indeed. ANYTHING BUT!

“And here we get to the core of Hoffman's argument,” Quinn writes, “The idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon was seeded by the conspirators themselves in order to confuse the issue and keep conspiracy theorists divided.” Whether or not that’s true, the conspiracy theorists have done plenty good pushing the fraud all on their own. And here we also get to Quinn’s own driving issue. “Yet we notice that rather than refusing to succumb to such manipulation and cutting through the lies and sticking to the facts, Hoffman is adding his voice to the cacophony and loudly arguing against the core evidence which strongly suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.” So he should stand down and quit being divisive; he should stick to the facts, like the Global Hawk wheel at the Pentagon, rather than criticizing others who’ve chosen to do so. By looking for disinfo among his honest compatriots, Hoffman was playing into the government’s game.

Of course the Signs people weren’t doing the same, because their story is different from the government’s and is backed by proof, like the clearly non-757 wheel, and the testimonies of several old military people with weird names. And the lack of airplane parts in the photos and e-mailed eyewitness testimonies they chose to pore over. And like all good truth warriors, they recognized their own importance and the reason they could not be the ones to back down. “The simple fact is that, if it were not for the initiative that we took in creating the "Pentagon Strike" Flash presentation, there would have been NO coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" at all. Thanks to the efforts of Darren Williams, an estimated 300 million people around the world, most of them previously unaware of the truth of 9/11, have been given the opportunity to consider the truth of our reality and the people that control it." They are the only ones keeping the doors of perception open, so please Jim, just admit they're right and quit playing the Bushmob's game.

Source: Quinn, Joe. “Jim Hoffman - Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers.” Response to: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, by Jim Hoffman. November 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm

BEES AROUND HONEY, FLIES AROUND SH*T

IS IT GETTING STICKY IN HERE OR IS IT JUST ME?

Frustrated that so many revisionists should insist on painting themselves into a corner by making the impossibility of a 757 at the Pentagon a cornerstone of the case, I took as my mission vigilantly guarding the truth movement from such self-inflicted wounds. I signed up at Let’s Roll 911 as "Vigilant Guardian" in late January 2005 with an open mind but serious doubts about their approach. Within days of joining, before I’d even seen their beloved 911 In Plane Site, I posted my concerns with their evidence as I was seeing it in a too-long post. Member Heiho 1 admonished me: “please read the threads on these topics before posting blatantly erroneous messages [...] I'm not sure how you missed the entire Pentagon thread but all of your arguments are thoroughly refuted in the main Pentagon thread.” [1] In other words, if I had not agreed to the platform laid out at the party congress I had no right to speak.

Undeterred, I started a new thread of my own, an admittedly obnoxious “cold shower to people who've watched Pentagon Strike one too many times and done their homework one time too few.” In the post I postulated that just maybe “the Pentagon WAS hit by Flight 77 or a large drone similar in size, NOT a small craft, fighter, or missile. The Pentagon's secrecy would then have lured us out to bring in this Trojan Horse seam as a central plank of the revisionist version then - BAM! They plunk down photos of Flight 77 hitting and we're all screwed.” [2]

Responses ranged from the non-answer reference to Rumsfeld’s 2001 missile “admission,” and the demand “if the evidence is available then it must be presented” (oh it must, huh? Or else what? You keep arguing the same stupid point? –I should have said that). Another more validly pointed out “even if the pictures come out bam, there are too many inconclusive facts to THEIR official story that are not valid and defy all reasoning and all physics.” These were the only two responses – everyone else at Let’sRoll ignored my provocative post and their projects, including their hand in Loose Change, rolled on.

“Trojan Horse” was the best metaphor I could think of at the time, but since then I’ve stumbled onto a better phrase to sum up my hunch. The Bumble-Planes Theory, should have been my first clue that the entire planeless Pentagon attack theory – among other of the 9/11 theories - may be what espionage people call a “honeypot.” Some trace the term back to Winnie the Pooh, known to get into great mischief over his hunger for pots of honey, while others trace he etymology back to the slang term for an outhouse, with honey a euphemism for the waste that collects there. Whatever its source, the phrase became an unofficial term during the Cold War for the use of seduction, sexual blackmail, and other such entrapments to gain the upper hand with enemy agents. Depending on the origin one uses, the prey of these setups are the equivalent of bees or flies, drawn by the aroma/stench so they get stuck in the honey/shit.

Beyond espionage, honeypot is also a computer term. In this usage, it’s a trap to attract unauthorized use: a computer, website, residual files or whatever that appears to be part of a network but which is actually isolated or connected to authorities. In other words it’s a baited trap to lure unsuspecting enemies to make compromising moves. This definition is interesting for the case at hand, dealing with internet and information systems. Combining the two, we may get false websites and false networks (Let’sRoll 911?) luring in would-be dissidents, a sponsored and engineered opposition ala Orwell’s 1984. This could well be a Pentagon-controlled system of information, created to seduce conspiracy theorists towards a deceptively perfect seam, offering a honeypot stinking to high heaven of the sewage some people seem to crave… and they get stuck and hopefully drown.

As Judicial Watch or whoever forced the release of new Pentagon videos in May 2006 Alex Jones again went on the record, reminding his listeners and his guest, Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell, of his firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job. But Jones felt the first video to show us anything would show something like a 757 hitting the building (“whether it’s real or manufactured”). Jones called the Pentagon’s secrecy over the attack a “honey pot operation,” one in which “the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77.” [3] Having reached the same conclusion independently, I had been ignorant of Jones’ take, which he says he’s maintained from the time of the attack. Farrell didn’t admit to this interpretation, but didn’t deny it either, chuckling a bit and further elaborating the idea of a honey pot “let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised.” [4]

Jones further noted that the government clearly wanted the tapes released or they’d simply find a way to shut down requests as they had before. He further conveyed suspicions that Judicial Watch “is being used as a conduit for the dissemination of carefully staged government propaganda,” apparently referring to the tapes of actual events. This time the cases were going ahead, and video releases had already started. Thus Judicial Watch, as Jones tried to get Farrell to admit, could become “the water carriers” for this honeypot operation, initiating the final revelation and the inevitable realization of the set-up. [5] As Jones’ Prison Planet summed up again in September after yet one more release of the Citgo gas station video, the release “will once again whip up into a frenzy the no plane theories. If that happens and the next video, or perhaps the one after that, shows a clear impact of flight 77, then the alternative 9/11 theories that are gaining so much attention now will be widely and viciously attacked.” [6] As bad as they are, I believe they should be attacked; it’s only too bad so much of the Truth Movement has allowed itself to be dragged into the crossfire.

Fintan Dunne, a rather enigmatic character I stumbled on late in my research, but apparently an Irish activist of some sort, echoed my thoughts brilliantly in an August 2006 post at his Break For News discussion forum. “The Pentagon is the honey-trap of the Op. And I suppose we suspected that from the way it featured strongly in the “In Plane Shite" movielet. So here's the scenario. Any photos which do come out are deliberately ambiguous. They deliberately release crappy security camera footage. They are behind the Hunt the Boeing hoopla and the Plane Shite stunt. They foster and encourage all questioning of the Pentagon.” [7]

Dunne explains his belief that this is “because the Pentagon is their strongest case. Not just by good fortune. But by design.” But despite their excellently convincing evidence set-up, Rumsfeld and his people “set about making it look as BAD as possible to the conspiracy theorists. […] they wait as the hunt the Boeing and Plane Shite ops are run to establish that conspiracy theorists doubt the hit on the Pentagon.” This is about exactly as I had seen it, if clearer and better-put. His summation of the end goal: “And then they hit us. Bam!” [emphasis in original] [8]

[1], [2] “Warning! Current Pentagon Angle may be a Trojan Horse!” Posted by Vigilant Guardian, January 22 2005, 10:08 pm. Let’s Roll 911 Made Simple –> forums –> 911 & The Pentagon –> Chain of Evidence. http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4947&sid=89f85ff935de57eed04ff5744c9d2bbc
[3], [4], [5] "Judicial Watch Says More Pentagon Tapes To Come: Farrell admits entire issue potential intelligence honey pot operation." Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 18 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506moretapes.htm
[6] "9/11 Gas Station Video Released - Does not show Flight 77." Prisonplanet.com. September 15 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/150906_b_Video.htm
[7], [8] "Pentagon Honeytrap." Posted by Fintan, August 10 2006, 7:25 pm. The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 3i Investigation -> Pentagon - Overview. http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=487&sid=3c6ab74ec2a67d9ffe2208600e6a7afa

OBSCURED BY FOAM

OBSCURED BY FOAM: A TOO-OBVIOUS SIGN OF FRAUD
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 14 2007
Updated 4/11/07

One of my favorite tricks used by the pushers of the Frustrating Fraud is also among the oldest, but still was given its spot in the lineup for Loose Change, second Edition. Point five in their analysis of the Pentagon strike was the assertion that “the damage to the Pentagon [is] completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757,” notably in being far too small. After briefly showing a portion of the 100-foot-wide damaged area on the first floor where the plane entered, they fade to the above picture as Avery intones “the only damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than sixteen feet in diameter.” This is certainly not the only damage, the worst of which is hidden behind the fire spray. While a sixteen foot hole can describe the central portion of that wide swathe of davastation, it also describes the incidental missing wall on the second floor, probably from the lower tailfin (the black hole with no fire inside, dead center and on floor two), which he is talking about and incorrectly cites as the entry point. [segment at 21:39 in video]

Loose Change were far from the first to push this particular technique, which has been mirrored in both Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site, as well as posted for years at the site “did Flight 77 Really Crash Into the Pentagon?” Run by the clandestinely code-named "Killtown," his/her/their page on the entry hole showed the above picture plus the one at left and asked “Is this all the damage that was done to the façade?” This is the classic two-picture set-up Loose Change only hinted at; the duplication helps clarify that the first shot was no fluke - they’re purposefully showing you shots that don’t and wouldn’t show the major damage to illustrate there was none, even though other photos on other Killtown pages show clearly enough the damage hidden here, where the question about finding plane damage is not being directly posed. He/She/They bolstered the case by citing a clearly confused eyewitness: “Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible.” The site sums up by asking triumphantly and rhetorically “Where is the impact hole Flight 77 supposedly made?” Simple answer: behind the foam. This site was Last updated and still not changed on December 4 2006.

The formula Killtown’s page used is exactly the one used on Raphael Meyssan’s original Hunt The Boeing site, first posted in February 2002, even to the point of using precisely the same two photos as seen above. Meyssan had explained "the two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack,” that is in the “mysterious” and “covered-up” pre-collpase period, during which the "telltale" small hole was still visible. “They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?” As do its later imitators, the photos indeed show the precise spot, and I can still locate the damage just from memory, no thanks to the foam.

And yet so many have been unable or unwilling to take this blatant calling card at face value. It says in large enough type “hello, I’m a fraud.” No need to even read the fine print, people, their methods of deception are obvious. And yet the case built on such boldface manipulations is accepted by easy marks, and repeated ad nauseum in all manner of forum by "fraudbots" that dismiss any contrary claim as a "Bush lie." How on earth could this happen in a segment of the population that prides itself on its exceptional intelligence and skepticism?

More Examples of the foam fraud discovered recently:
- Jon Carlson: Closing the coffin on the Pentagon lies, he said: "This photo shows the A3 impact from a different perspective. The A3 knocked out 5 foot long limestone blocks leaving a clear IMPRINT. Clearly two windows frames were knocked out with associated column damage and obviously no Flight 77 Boeing 757 (or the missile some claim) went through those two 5 foot openings." He then shows a photo with a scribbled plane outline, with alleged imprints covered in fire spray.
- Cat Herder: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon (@ Above Top Secret.com) - actually arguing FOR a 757 strike, he left the dor to criticism wide open by ignoring the major impact damage and zooming in on one of the foam shots, implying the whole plane went in that 2nd floor window with n marks on either side. As should be expected, his anallysis has not quelled no-757 theorizing there.
- David Icke: Presenation - video (Youtube) Using the header shot, with the second floor damage highighted, Icke asserted it "must've been a sodding small plane, that's all I can say."
- Peter Meyer, page at Serendipity.li
- Brad May of 911review.org - on his "Batcave" page "no 757 hit the Pentagon you idiot."

PILOT X AND THE 440 FOOT GAP

FLIGHT 77 ALTITUDE QUESTIONS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
April 9 2007
last edited 4/15 @ 9:32 pm

In mid-2006, new doubts about the five-year-old Pentagon attack were found, built right into a government-produced animated flight path of AA Flight 77. The group Pilots For 9/11 Truth (P49T) have been able to capitalize on the inherent contradictions in this CG cartoon - most notably in their January 2007 video Pandora’s Black Box Chapter Two - to somewhat convincingly suggest an entirely new flight path that in different (and often contradictory) ways, disproved the official flight path and, if correct, make the plane’s impact a steep improbability. [I'm working on more detailed posts about both sources and discrepancies]. The latitudinal aspect of the new 757 denial trajectory, the apparent flight well to the north of the official path, is one anomaly in this animation, but will be covered elsewhere. Here we’ll focus on the altitude questions, which are, no pun intended, a little over my head and the heads of others, a fact that at least one side in the debate seems to be using to its advantage.

The animated video file was based on the flight data recorder (FDR) of the doomed 757, rendered by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and released in mid-August 2006 via a FOIA request by a P49T-affiliated researcher. By August 20, P49T co-founder Rob Balsamo (aka John Doe X) had come into possession of the damning flight simulation and wrote about it at the group’s site. The final frame was key: it shows the animation stopping abruptly, as the original data supposedly did, with the plane on-screen still hundreds of feet away from the Pentagon and still far above it. Time at this location: 9:37:44, the second before the plane is supposed to have hit the building. While at that very second the CCTV camera north of the attack path was snapping a plane cruising in about five feet off the ground, the onscreen altimeter reads 180 feet. The plane in this animation could not have hit the Pentagon, at least not at the official time. It would have been several seconds late by the speed and descent rate up to that point. But it cuts there, at about the right time but quite the wrong place, and we were thus prevented a glimpse of the fly-over, the secret landing, and the safe removal of the FDR to be planted back at the Pentagon. (??) These are the gaps we must fill in to reach the "Truth."


Screenshot of the final frame: The time is ajusted to GMT, not EDT, so 13:37:44 should read as 9:37:44. The resolution here is easier to read than in the low-res video of the final maneuver available for free viewing online here

Balsamo explains: “You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level.” [1] This is also 440 feet above the ground. Thus “the 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB.” [2]

As John Doe X, Balsamo has put together several long – and lonely - posts explaining this true altitude conclusion at the Pilots’ site, and apparently has been pretty aggressive in promoting and defending it elsewhere. [3] I haven’t been able to independently verify his 300-foot correction, but initially guessed it was quite possibly correct. Either way, there is a re-set protocol; from what I gather of the reason behind this, FAA regulations mandate pilots use local atmospheric pressure settings when in the lower, more crowded airspace – below 18,000 feet (FL180). Above that point they re-set to a baseline pressure setting of 29.92. On its ascent, we're told, both the animation and the other data show Flight 77’s altimeter re-set from local pressure (30.21) to 29.92 at about 8:28 am). Pandora’s Black Box shows an altitude drop at that point from 18273 to 18058, a difference of 215 feet; so a rise of perhaps 300 feet when switching back to a nearly-same presure setting on the descent seems plausible, but the corresponding, FAA-mandated re-set is not shown in the animation, and hence the cover-up.

This may not seem surprising – why would Balsamo suspect there should be such a re-set despite the change of control from FAA-certified pilot to suicide hijacker? The reason he has a problem here, and really its own problem, is the other P49T data, also obtained separately by FOIA request, indeed did show the re-set from 29.92 to 30.23. Balsamo summed up the non-animated data “show[s] the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through [18,000 feet].” [4] I’ve checked and it does. Taking that as truth, the Pilot(s) asked the government why “the animation altimeter does not show it being set?” The question was rhetorical; the answer they had already decided on was that the omission was to make a strike look somewhat less impossible; “this is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it.” [5]

A member at JREF named “Anti-Sophist” who describes himself as an Air Force trained flight data expert and electrical engineer, summed up of "JDX"s 300-foot correction “if his true altitude number is correct, he is actually on to something, […but…] No one seems to agree with his "true altitude" calculation except for him.” [6] To see what effect the "cover-up" had, and to help clear up which impossible altitude seemed more likely, I looked into the Pilots’ comparative data, a CSV file for Excel, called AAL77_Tabular, where the pressure re-sets at 18,000 feet are recorded each way. This document forms the basis of my FL018 research (thread coming), but I have yet not been able to independently verify its authenticity. Oddly enough, the recorded altitude does not change at all with the adjustment and there is no meaningful discrepancy!

Ascent:
time - Hg - alt
8:27:58 30.21 17938
------------------------------ FL180
8:28:00 - 29.91 - 18015
8:28:02 - 30.21 - 18093
8:28:04 - 29.91 - 18170
8:28:06 - 29.94 - 18247
8:28:08 - 29.91 - 18324
8:28:10 - 29.92 - 18402
8:28:12 - 29.91 - 18483

Descent:
time - Hg - alt
9:24:12 - 29.91 - 18205
9:24:14 - 29.92 - 18126
9:24:16 - 30.23 - 18049
------------------------------ FL180
9:24:18 - 30.01 - 17972
9:24:20 - 30.23 - 17895

The pressure was reset at 8:28, with no 300-foot drop in altitude, and re-set on descent, again with no effect. Yet it shows essentially what the "altered" animation shows at termination: 173 feet compared to its 180. [7] So the data here shows two pressure re-sets, 302 feet at takeoff, 173 at the end. The animation shows 300 at takeoff, ONE reset, and 180 at the end. The pilots insist the data and animation match except for "the blatant cover-up" of neglecting the second re-set, turning the data's real alt of 480-ish to 180. But in reality, the animation and this CSV file match from A to Z despite the alleged cover-up and that extra 300 feet is looking like a red herring.

But even without Pilot X’s "correction," a Pentagon attack could not have occurred by a plane that far from the building, and that high, by either the CSV file or the animation. Considering this animation also shows the northern flight path that rules out this plane reaching either the Pentagon or the light poles before it, a whole slew of glitches, or perhaps some other explanation, would be required to debunk this damning NTSB-supplied animation.

One interesting tack is to compare all available sources, check their degrees of authenticity/verifiability, and then compare which comport with which and, as Sesame Street used to urge us, find “which one of these things just doesn’t belong.” There is an investigation of this underway, going very slow so far but it should be up soon.


Sources:
[1], [2] Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44 08/20/06 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
[3] John Doe X. Fdr Vertical Speed, Altimeter lag issues addressed as well. Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum: Flight Number: American 77. Posted October 15 2006, 08:41 AM http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=106&st=0&
[4], [5] Questions for the US Govt regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder. Posting date unlisted
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
[6] “AA77 FDR Data, Explained.” Posted by: Anti-Sophist. October 13 2006at 9:10 pm. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047
[7] AAL77_Tab - Excel document - downloaded from: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&st=0&

THE FRENCH REVELATIONS (besides Meyssan)

The Frustrating Fraud
Last Edited 4/19/07

Whatever the Truth, those who would challenge the official story in the early days after 9/11 saw a weak spot in the military’s façade and were soon focused on the collapsed section of the Pentagon, hoping for another, metaphorical, collapse. Much of the skepticism would come from overseas, and notably from France, and Thierry Meyssan was just the beginning. Okay, the main event really, but he had helpers.

Meyssan’s Direct Supporters in France:
- Emmanuel Ratier: Regarded a nationalist, right-wing journalist obsessed with Masonic and Jewish conspiracy theories, Ratier worked for various newspapers (Le Figaro, Valerus, Minute, of which he was a writer in chief in charge of investigations). Since 1996 he’s published semi-monthly “Faits & Documents: confidential Newsletter of Emmanuel Ratier.” [1] It was in this forum that he published Thierry Meyssan’s first piece on the Internet on October 18, just a month after the attacks. “On 21 March,” Desmoulins noted, “it was in fact to him that Le Monde and Actualité juive gave first prize for this incredible news, illustrated with a series of photographs entitled: No plane crashed into the Pentagon.” [2]

- Jean Guisnel: co-author of the Big Lie who helped Meyssan put his theories into words. Guisnel is a well-known journalist, the author of several books in French on the intelligence community (including “Cyberwars”), writer for Le Point and defense specialist for the French daily Liberation. [3]

- Pierre-Henri Bunel: A military expert who wrote a complete chapter of Meyssan's book explaining why the explosion captured in the Pentagon’s CCTV video is from high explosives and not jet fuel. [4] Here is a website @ Globalresearch where he explains this again after the CCTV video release in 2006. Rather silly it seems to me, on seeing his graphics as used for Pentagate.

- Raphaël Meyssan: “9/11 The Big Lie” was widely promoted and widely found by independent skeptics via the Internet. Meyssan’s use of the new medium included a visually based website run by his son Raphaël, called “Hunt the Boeing! And Test Your Perceptions!” First posted in February 2002, the site offered further evidence, including extensive and highly curious photos of the crash site that most of the world had never before seen, with some interesting observations tainted with sloppy analysis and unwarranted leaps of logic.

(Short review of site removed to form into its own post: Hunting the Boeing (and Finding it!))

Three More for the Pentagon Fraud:
- Jean Pierre Desmoulins: Fellow traveler and unofficial historian of the French revelations Jean-Pierre Desmoulins noted of Hunt The Boeing: “This web site has an enormous impact on american internauts. As a matter of fact, the book of Meyssan is not yet translated into english, and this little web site is the first publishing in english which puts a doubt on the official version of this crash.” [5] I once exchanged e-mail with him over his videos of a silver plane near the Pentagon scene, and he seems a nice enough guy. One of his sites describes him as a resigned Christian and non-Muslim Islamophile who settled on the Baha’i faith. “I have no strong political engagement and am not member of any party," he wrote. "I didn't vote for Jacques Chirac […] willing not be party to an african style plebiscite. […] My personal conviction is that a new world order must be settled and rule the relations between the nations.” [6]

His websites have a variety of names, including : “Pentagone le 11/9/01: la fraude!” The English version noted: “the cover-up of what happened in Washington D.C. on 9/11 is obvious. The official thesis of the suicide of an Arab hijacker, Hani Hanjour, flying a Boeing 757 and striking the Pentagon's front in a perfect horizontal flight doesn't stand when all evidence is examined.” As for skills he brings to this Pentagon analysis, Desmoulins cites his engineer’s training, professorship, and hobby of running flight simulations: “for fun, I crashed several times against the World Trade Center towers before Mohamed Atta, just to see the subjective effect.” [7] I’ve looked little at his evidence, but found at least one spot where he seems to be wrong on the Pentagon evidence where he saw a tiny 3-foot wide engine clearly not from a 757.

Later Desmoulins made an about-face on the Pentagon evidence, siding with those who sa plenty of evidence for a 757 there, an admission of error that's all too rare - if not unprecedented - among pushers of the fraud.

- “Silent but Deadly” – Anonymous French researcher, creator of the Pentagon 3d test website, which ultimately and scientific-like deduces that a 757 was quite unlikely. In the selective quotation section, is noted an edit: “sam danner said he lied, so statements are removed. Nevertheless, the best version is still the globalhawk one,” among the dumbest theories, and only reported by ONE eyewitness - Danner.

Alain DeClercq: Perhaps it was an effort to reconcile Mike Walter's accounts of both an A.A. airliner and a cruise missile that led to this art installation: “American Airlines,” a 2003 piece by Paris-based conceptual artist Alain Declercq. The fiberglass missile, about eight feet long and painted with American Airlines stripes and insignia, was part of the exhibition at Palais de Tokyo in Paris. An art review site explained how a video was shown of a workshop in which the missile was being so painted by workers in full-body protective gear and gas masks, interspersed with scenes of the 9-11 attacks. [8] While the Meyssan family’s approach is as hard and fragile fact, when done up in the arena of conceptual art, I take this as semi-literal metaphor, and I appreciate it.

Incidental Frenchmen, non-Pentagon-related, catching rare footage of the WTC:
- The Naudet brothers: They were the only camera crew to capture the first plane’s impact, and they were French. They had been in New York filming a documentary about firefighters and were near to wrapping it up when they happened to be filming a fireman in downtown Manhattan. Their camera captured the impact that everyone first thought was accidental, and it was finally obtained from them and shown on TV on the evening of 9/11. Their footage has been widely used by conspiracy theorists, who the brothers later sued for using the footage without permission and for causing people to think they were conspiracy theorists too.

- Anonymous French cameraman: An unknown Frenchman was alleged in April 2005 by Karl W.B. Schwarz to have captured unambiguous footage of a 737, not a 767 as we all saw, hitting the South Tower. Originally released in the non-9/11 related documentary Barbarians at the Gates, so far I’ve heard no news of its verification as of early 2007. Guess he's saving his "smoking gun" 'till the 2008 election season to blast a path to the White House.

Sources:
[1] "Emmanuel Ratter" (mis-spellin on original page) Wikepedia, translated from French by Google. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Ratier&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DEmmanuel%2BRatier%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
[2], [4], [5] Desmoulins, Jean-Pierre. “Background of this research.” http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/his-backgnd.html
[3] "About the Author: Jean Guisnel." http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/author_detail.jsp?id=1000015653
[6], [7] Desmoulins, Jean-Pierre “Who is the author.” http://www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/his-whoiam.html
[8] Conrads, Martin. “Dangerous it is not! The Renewed Emergence of Activism in Art - "Hardcore" in the Palais de Tokyo in Paris.” Posting date unlisted. Acc Nov 4 2005. http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1332&lang=en

COLUMN CONFUSION - OFFICIAL REPORT DISCREPANCIES

COLUMN CONFUSION: OFFICIAL REPORT DISCREPANCIES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated September 4 2007

It's not just the conspiracy theorists who have a problem identifying present vs. missing support columns in the Pentagon attack aftermath. The official story as well has two schools of thought regarding first floor column status, neiter one correct by my analysis. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Pentagon Building Performance Report, looking at first floor damage, sees columns 15, 16, and 17 “severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing.” [1] This is what I originally saw as well, as have most others.

But this is likely incorrect, though it requires a separate post to explain the reasons why I believe these columns were removed and replaced by horizontal elements from above (floor slab, facing, masonry) that on fist blush look like columns but are not.

A still from the PBPR, a 3-D model by the ASCE. The three red slants here are the columns 15-17 I have brought into question. The lavender ones are “presumed” to have suffered major or total damage – which means they were in the collapse zone, invisible in early photos, and so unknown. The red pillars are the worst damaged, “missing, broken, disconnected,” elsewhere described as "without remaining function.” Some were entirely knocked loose but found, some were disconnected but standing, and some totally obliterated, here represented by dots on the floor where they were. These red “columns” appear out of place when all those around and behind it are verified or presumed vanished. I suspect this graphic is incorrect by having the three red pillars shown as anything but dots.

Note also that some spaces aren't color-coded at all but left blank. Despite their impressive credentials, no one at ASCE had time to look up close before the collapse, and only so much could be told afterward. In the collapse zone “the team was unable to determine specifically the level and extent of impact damage,” the report notes. Left of the “CL 11/Expansion joint” line such absence was verified by on-site inspection, on the right they probably decided on their assessments by looking at the early photos as seen on this site. The spots left blank were apparently the ones not visible in photos, and so they didn't even venture a guess.

Oddly enough, another, earlier, official report disagrees with these and backs me up on this point. The Pentagon’s own Renovation Program included a slide of “structural damage” for a News Briefing in March 2002. [3] The slide showed columns #15-17, along with the entire outer row between columns 9 and 19 uniformly listed as missing. This graphic is condensed from their original – column numbering was as unreadable on theirs, but the expansion joint on column line 11 was the cut-off line for the collapse area. counting right to left from column 10, we see they have column 18 missing as well, which is odd considering the photos I’ve seen shows that one at least at standing proud even after the collapse.
The same graphic as reproduced in FEMA Urban Search and Rescue's Pentagon Shoring Report.


And another, earlier yet report in the Washington Post (9/23/01) employed the graphic above, likewise showing columns 10-17 on the front line listed as "missing," as well as 18 and in this case column 9 as well. This columns was in fact intact (post forthcoming). It seems they've removed two columns I see as standing. Note the other side of their collapse zone is way over there at about column 23, which is clearly not the case - as we see below, colum 18 both marks the cutoff line of the collapse zone and remained standing afterwards.

Here is a montage centered on the damaged expanse between columns 18A and 19A. The first shots are lined up with the ASCE's report of the non-columns 15-17, as well as their identification of #18. All sources agree that CL 23 represented the edge of the 23 column-wide pronounced facade section, so I measured out the area in question before and after the collapse. Note column 18 is standing at all times, though damaged, and 19 remains in good shape.

So one school of official reports thought insist wrongly that columns 15-17 are present and rightly that 18 and 19 are intact, whie the other rightly asserts that columns 15-17 are gone, but wrongly classes columns 9 and/or 18 as missing too. Should it be that hard for any one source get it all right at the same time?

Sources:
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers. “The Pentagon Building Performance Report.” January 2003. PDF version. www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
[2] http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/official/index.html
[3] “Structural Damage (.JPG 77 KB) (020307-D-6570C-008.jpg)” Graphic used for: DoD News Briefing, Thursday, 07 Mar 2002 - 11:00 am http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/g020307-D-6570C.html
[4] Washington Post. "Rebuilding the Pentagon." Graphic. Publisheed September 23 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

A THIN SHEEN OF CELEBRITY

HOLLYWOOD'S TOP CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRAUD

The most famous figure yet to hop on board the truth train and bring these valid but skewed concerns to America’s attention is the gainfully employed prime time actor Charlie Sheen, then anchoring "Two and a Half Men," and nowhere the pits of obscurity. In his March 20 2006 comments on Alex Jones' radio show, he agreed with Jones that “we're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue […] It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.”

Sheen's concerns sounded by-now-boringly familiar; he related on seeing Flight 175 hit the South Tower “it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life.” On the collapses of the Twin Towers and Tower 7, he said “it sorta look[ed] like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition.” Regarding the Frustrating Fraud over the Pentagon attack, Jones (who elsewhere has called this a honeytrap) incredulously cited it "just disappeared into a fourteen foot hole." Sheen admitted “I don’t know what a Boeing jet is going to do into a reinforced limestone façade,” but questioned the precision of the jet’s attack and was just starting to voice the by-then well known list of doubts when Jones cut him off for a commercial break. [1]

Not that I’m into Hollywood gossip on the integrity of Sheen’s intelligence or clarity of mind, and frankly I'd probably like the guy, but he does have dubious experience in calling attention to the video evidence of crimes and it can't go unnoticed. At a party in 1991 he got his hands on a copy of a horrific Japanese snuff film depicting a samurai in full costume hacking a captive girl to death. Sickened by the cruelty of it, Charlie immediately turned it over to the FBI, but in reality what he’d seen was "Flower of Flesh and Blood," the first installment in the Guinea Pig series of well-produced fake snuff films. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

“The FBI confiscated Sheen's tape and proceeded to investigate all involved […] the Japanese [producers] took this time to release ‘Guinea Pig Two: The Making of Guinea Pig One,’ revealing the technical sleight of hand in all its bone-cracking glory. After viewing this film, the FBI backed off and dropped the investigation.” [2]


Sheen (left) closely analyzed the video evidence (right), and found no sign of airplane debris.

Now after 9/11, Sheen’s legendary video analysis talents were needed again, and his conclusions as aired with Jones earned him the praise of the movement. On March 22, just two days after the interview, CNN’s Showbiz Tonight ran coverage of Sheen’s “9/11 shocker.” The show was remarkably open and uncritical of his astonishing comments, and the self-congratulatory response from the Truth community is telling. 83% of respondents in the show’s poll supported Sheen enthusiastically, despite Free Republic’s efforts to get their readers to vote against it. [3] The show helped bolster the impression that the movement was winning, but of course I’d guess about 75% of the people even viewing this segment were Truthers to begin with, tipped off in advance to tune in and show their support.

The people who run the "Factivism" website were inspired enough to create the tribute site Bravocharlie911.com, giving visitors a chance to praise (or less often curse) the actor. The Factivism website was having technical troubles when I visited on November 5, but clarified that they were also behind Oprah911.com, a website to urge Oprah Winfrey to bring 9/11 Truth to her massively-watched daytime talk show. In September 2006, that venture was dropped after Oprah's lawyers sent “Yossarian” at Factivism “a bunch of really nasty letters demanding that I cease and desist. So much for Oprah.” By this time, Bravocharlie911 had “served its purpose,” or at least ran out of things to say, and had been pulled as well with no word on legal maneuvers. [4] The Factivism site itself went down, set to “return shortly,” by the time I went back to look for more info two days later.

I drew a small measure of conciliation knowing even a comfortably famous person could share my suspicions from the very beginning. But to convey his doubts, Sheen was clearly drawing on the confused arguments of the IPS/Loose Change pedigree, no doubt scored at another Hollywood party. Of all the people to call on in the celebrity world, Mr. Can’t-tell-fact-from-fiction is the one that pops to the top.

(Thanks to fellow "Charlie" and total freak the Bizarre Alien for this "hot street tip")

Sources:
[1] Jones, Alex and Paul Joseph Watson. “Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story.” Prison Planet. March 20 2006.
[2] Mikkelson, Barbara and David P. Snopes.com. “A pinch of Snuff.” Last Updated October 31 2006.
[3] “CNN Poll Ends At 83% In Support Of Charlie Sheen.” Prison Planet March 27 2006
[4] Yossarian. “Bravo Charlie, Exit Stage Left.” Factivism. September 2006. (link still broken? original url: http://www.factivism.com/story.php?title=Bravo-Charlie-Exit-Stage-Left)

LIMITED LIABILITY: KARL SCHWARZ

OF NANOTECH AND 9/11 TRUTH
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
December 12, 2006
(slight edit and re-post: 1/12/07)

Future President Karl Schwarz with the nanotech insight on the 9/11 evidence

Another rebel slingshot from the Republican ranks that has staked a claim in the honeypot minefield of the 9/11 Truth movement is the wealthy Arkansas-based entrepreneur, conservative Republican, and politician Karl W. B. Schwarz. Schwarz describes himself as a “strong supporter and strategist” for President George HW Bush, once asked by the RNC to run against Bill Clinton for Arkansas governor, and one of the “lead orchestrators” of the GOP sweep of Congress during Clinton’s second term. “I designed the strategy that took the House and Senate from Clinton,” he has boasted, but he did so a bare two years before he somehow “realized the Republican "Contract with America" was actually a "Contract on America.”” [1]

He later began "using his inside political and business clout to expose corruption among the neo-cons in the Bush administration,” and by June 2006, Schwarz was showing up, wearing a Bush “international terrorist” t-shirt, in Budapest, Hungary when the president visited. As Free Market News put it, Schwarz was “attracting attention from passersby, and being relatively unhindered in doing so” until just before Bush’s limo arrived, when he was turned back by local police. [2] Since jumping the GOP ship, he’s also authored a book called “One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas - A Conservative Republican Speaks Out on September 11, 2001 (911), Afghanistan, Iraq, Bush Cheney 2004, Imperial Oil 'Strategeries"” It was published in 2004 by a company called “RPC,” on which I can find no information, the same year he signed the 9/11 Truth letter in October, a rite of passage for the more politically-minded Truthers.

Indeed he has political ambitions. His website explains Schwarz has “previously been a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. He quit both when he saw first hand that each had sold out to elite international corporate special interests, and each was corrupt beyond repair.” [3] Therefore, he’s running for President in 2008, explaining “this country is on the brink of financial collapse and world war. I couldn't possibly screw it up any worse than they already have.” He's running on the “unification” third party ticket, an inheritor/usurper of the Reform party tradition. “As crazy as this might sound at first,” wrote campaign adviser Jack Allis, “Schwarz makes a very compelling case, [...] and a rare opportunity indeed exists to have the type of impact Ross Perot had on the election in 1992, and far greater." By uniting the diposessed plurality, Schwarz hoped to "[topple] the Republicans and the Democrats from their stranglehold of power;" as Schwarz is fond of pointing out, “over seventy million eligible voters didn't vote in the 2004 election. That's almost one-third of the total electorate.” [4]

His political strategy seems semi-plausible on the surface, and his pronouncements are often right on-mark, which can be taken either as a sign of sincerity or of demagoguery. Unfortunately his case regarding the central plank of 9/11 is troubling. While his general take on 9/11 Truth includes the compelling circumstantial evidence – who benefited, etc. – and is fairly sound and well-put, his brusque certainty may be off-setting to fence-sitters, and he gets well tangled in the physical wreckage. In fact he's one of the worst purveyors of absolutely fraudulent, slapped-together self-referrential theories I've yet seen (see the links near the end of the post). For example, he cites an article by a "Jon Carlson" posted at Rense.com analyzing photos of engine and landing gear parts found at Ground Zero in Manhattan and positively identifying them as from a Boeing 737, not the 767s that allegedly hit the towers. [5] This was to be a key plank of the presidential campaign, as adviser Jack Allis explained that Schwarz has something better than an anonymous e-mail to back it up: “a piece of obscure video footage which will conclusively show that the government lied about what type of plane struck the South Tower of the WTC.” [6] The flipside to this supposed video revelation is the otherwise total video coverup. Yet this troubling case is to be the final proof of an inside job by “four-star clowns, liars and frauds.” [7]

Regarding the Frustrating Fraud, he touches on the theory of only one jet engine recovered at the Pentagon, good evidence for a missile (as per Loose Change: “there was a single turbojet engine approximately three feet in diameter found inside the building” How can they fit so many errors in such a short sentence?) But Karl actually cites this theory as an error, and links to Jim Hoffman’s quality page on the evidentiary flaws with no-plane at the Pentagon theories. [8] While he’s shown his willingness to reject the missile theory, Schwarz is more famous for his positive identification - he sees evidence for two engines, both JT8D turbojets as used on the A3 SkyWarrior, a nearly-phased out military plane and presumably under remote control. He was prominently cited in Loose Change, second edition, as identifying the engine parts seen at Pentagon as from an A3, presented right after their assertion that it there was only one; apparently their most likely culprit if the missile theory doesn’t pan out.

For credentials, Avery cites Schwarz’ being President and CEO of something called Patmos Nanotechnologies, a rather scientific-sounding job. The KarlSchwarz.com website explains he is also “Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of The Sassenach Capital Trust, LLC.” LLC, which Patmos also is, means “limited liability company,” which means limited liability to its owners, making it similar to a corporation but more flexible. According to Wikipedia, an LLC is especially suited for “smaller companies with a limited number of owners.” [9] I would guess it's also ideal for dummy companies meant not to turn a profit but to provide cover for other operations.

Many have cited Patmos as a non-existent, but I wouldn’t go so far. They do have a website that says a bit, if curiously incomplete. They are based in Alpharetta , GA, with contact info mentioning Schwarz by name and giving his cell phone number. “Locations” and “press announcements” pages are empty, saying only: “enter content here.” But another page explains the company specializes in “high purity, high morphology, high commercial volume Carbon Nanotubes and Carbon Nanofibers” which seem to be used in high-end electronics. They pursue a “unique blend of private sector financing and business experience coupled with some of the leading scientific minds in the world." The company is also "one of but a few nanotechnology firms that is not aligned with a single university and that is for a good reason. Nanotechnology is a science and no one person or institution has a control over this dynamic new science […] Patmos management prefers to work with multiple universities, government and private labs, and individual scientist.” (singular form in original) [10] Patmos' Carbon Nanostructures can be used for a wide variety of applications, the site explains, including explosive sensors, anti-Terrorism, homeland security, stealth technology, UAV applications, and aerospace – not exactly the kind of company that normally tries to take down the post-9/11 Homeland Security State that has been such a boon to these fields.

Howard Lovy’s blog on nanotechnology noted back in an October 2004 post “Invisible Nanotech CEOs for Truth?” “Trouble is, if there really is such a nanotech company” as Patmos, “it's done its best to stay below the radar. Perhaps corporate invisibility is a new nanotech product?” [11] He was inundated with comments he later described as coming from “an annoying mailing list from some folks who have some kind of agenda against [Schwarz].” These cited several “vaporous companies” Schwarz has headed, and linked him with the Global Crossings corporate fiasco. Lovy summed up “frankly, I don't care about whatever he's peddling, nor do I care too much about those who are trying to expose him. None of the public information about Patmos and Schwarz makes any sense to me. I just wish he had chosen some other trendy mumbo jumbo techno-jabber on which to base his shell company.” [12]

He’s also been attacked by those within the movement who do care: WING TV’s Victor Thorn, Zionist-obsessed Eric Hufschmid, Gerard Holmgren (a 9/11 “no-planes” theorist from Australia also widely believed to be “the Web Fairy”) at least have all attacked Schwarz as a spook infiltrator, liar, and/or cheat. [14] Curiously, Phil Jayhan at LetsRoll 911 suspected that Schwarz and “Jon Carlson” of WTC 737 fame were actually the same person, and asked his fellow members for information to bolster evidence he had of activities that “if proven true, are Criminal in nature.” He wanted to know all about Schwarz – including his Social security number and “the number of freckles on his left butt-cheek.” [13] Other members did the same Google searches Jayhan could have and posted the usual info, with several members dismissing Schwarz/Carlson’s engine evidence in New York, unlike everywhere else, as an aggravating red herring. The thread ended unresolved – apparently Jayhan’s case against Schwarz went nowhere.

I don't really enjoy all this infighting, especially when all sides have such marks against them. I can't divine Schwarz's real motives nor say at this point how sincere he really is in his crusade. As usually I will base my assessment on the quality of his evidence. Though the Manhattan crime scene is outside the normal jurisdiction of this site, I'll have to look closer at the 737 claims before I can say more on that. (update: I did and he's either wrong or else things are WAY weirder than I thought). As for the Pentagon evidence and the A3 Skywarrior theory, that I have a mandate to look at and I promise a post on it soon. (update: it's up, in all its hilarious detail. I didn't even have to look at engine scematics or anything. Schwarz does an excellent job of basically debunking himself.
Sources:
[1] Allis, Jack. “3rd Party Unification Presidential Candidate With a Winning Plan to Take Back America: Stop the War & Bust the 2-Party Criminal Clique.” Undated. Karl Schwarz for President 2008. http://www.karlschwarz.com/
[2] "Bush protestor turned away in Hungary." Staff writer, Free Market News. June 30 2006. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=15955
[3] See [1].
[4] See [1].
[5] Carlson, Jon. "Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?" Rense.com. March 7 2005. http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm
[6] Szymanski, Greg. “Former RNC Insider and Bush Strategist Says He Has 9/11 'Smoking Gun,' Proving Government Complicity.” Arctic Beacon. April 16 2005. http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/24248.htm
[7] "Articles: Pop Goes the Bush mythology bubble, Part 6." KarlSchwarz.com. Undated. http://www.karlschwarz.com/pop-goes-6.html
[8] Limited liability company. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Limited_liability_company
[9] Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC. Homepage. http://www.patmosnanotech.com/
[10] Lovy, Howard. “Invisible Nanotech CEOs for Truth?” Howard Lovy’s Nanobot: Indepndent nanotechnology information and commentary. Posted October 17 2004 http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2004/10/invisible-nanotech-ceos-for-truth.html
[11] Lovy, Howard. “Nano mythos.” Howard Lovy’s Nanobot: Indepndent nanotechnology information and commentary. Posted June 30 2006. http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2006/06/nano-mythos.html
[12] “9/11 -Karl Schwarz -Spook or Strutter?” author: digdeep repost. Portland Independent Media Center. Undated. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316680.shtml
[13] Jayhan, Phil. “Karl Schwartz - Patmos Technology.” LetsRoll 911. Posted Jan 2 2006. 7:44 pm. Original post and various responses. http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11885&highlight=&sid=da06eb1bf2f0ccca3a80ba05b16f1b56