RAYTHEON TO THE RESCUE?

RAYTHEON TO THE RESCUE?
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
old undated piece written in 2005, posted late '06, and re-posted January 1 '08

Note 5/4/08: I haven't revised this like I planned to a few months back. See comments below for some important updates I haven't digested yet. Now it's doubly-deserving of updates and soon. Ish.
---
In all the arguments about whether it was a military weapon (missile) or a comandeered civilian transport (Boeing 757) that hit the Pentagon, one point sometimes missed is that a missile and a plane are designed on very similar principles, both are propelled with fuel and streamlined to fly great distances through the air. In fact a plane basically is a missile designed to make soft landings and to blow up as little as possible if it fails in this. But if taken in the wrong hands, as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WWII knew, its fuel becomes explosive, its chassis piercing and in a pinch it can become a missile in a more literal sense, or at least a large flying Molotov cocktail. It’s not the best weapon but one that hijackers have been able to seize before, if previously minus the suicidal imagination to make that leap. The official story is riddled with references to the 9/11 hijackers' use of the planes as guided missiles, yet nitwits argue that in the midst of a suicide hijacking attack, on a clear and bright morning in front of hundreds of drivers stuck in gridlock traffic they break out an actual Cruise missile to strike the Pentagon. This is idiocy, this is why I never wanted to read Meyssan.

So a plane is a missile, and if Boeing jets really were responsible, as nearly all evidence indicates, another key question is not entirely resolved – who was piloting the plane. The bolder revisionists remove the terrorists from the scene and are left with the chilling possibility that remote control was used. But officially, this is impossible. The State Department, refuting conspiracist claims in 2005, stated flatly as an evident fact “Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled.” [1]

A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press via Cooperative Research]

But it is not actually impossible by a long shot - let’s turn to Raytheon, a big player in the military-industrial complex involved in high-tech projects like the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), a landing guidance system for military aircraft. They worked with the Air Force in testing and development for JPALS, carried out at Holloman AFB, New Mexico from June to September 2001. [2] The system was completed just before the 9/11 attack and publicized just after; in an October 1 press release they boasted of their role in “the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military [GPS] landing system.” On August 25, a FedEx Express 727-200 landed using “a Raytheon-developed military ground station.” [3] They explained details, which included a total of six successful pilotless takeoffs and landings of their specially rigged Boeing airliner. This was done just seventeen days before someone helped four Boeing jets jointly and precisely approach and “land” in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a strip mine in Pennsylvania.

JPALS was a military project but designed to be “fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology,” Raytheon explained, and they were also involved with this, under contract with the FAA. [4] For this they worked on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), designed to improve on the GPS guidance system and bring it up to the FAA’s standards for safety and accuracy. [5] By merging JPALS with these GPS-refiners, a nation-wide, extremely precise matrix for automated landings – that is remote-controlled flight – of distressed civilian airliners was a real possibility- if still officially years off.

Raytheon published the fact only on October 1, just four days after President Bush announced at a speech in Chicago “we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe [...] including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.” [6] A company official noted in the release their dedication to providing satellite-guided landing systems for “the flying public,” and their pride in being “part of the success achieved this summer during JPALS testing at Holloman.” [7] And proud they should be, that’s some mighty fine timing.

This series of Raytheon-centered events is only one illustration of the possibility of remote controlled flight, and the curious timing in fact makes the whole thing a little too obvious for my liking, possibly another honeypot set up in advance to distract us from real leads. But even if this angle should ever be conclusively proved unrelated to shadow 9/11, it does help remind us that remote control aircraft has been a reality for the military since the late 1950s at least, and civil airliners have been being remotely landed in foggy weather for over two decades. Most disturbing are the allegations – tentative at best but still possible - of secret FAA/NORAD systems of remote control built in to all (American) civilian Flight Control Systems, allegedly dating back as far as the 1970s. [8] Though if such a system exists - and Raytheon’s work for the FAA proves it was feasible by mid-2001 anyway - it has not been proved and has been kept thoroughly secret.

Sources:
[1] United states of America State Department. Identifying misinformation. Thierry Meyssan: French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon.” Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005 Accessed November 5, 2005 at: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
[2] “Raytheon and Air Force Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Precision Landing System.” Raytheon press release. October 1, 2001. Accessed October 28, 2005 at: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=149999&TICK=RTN&STORY=/www/story/10-01-2001/0001582324&EDATE=Oct+1,+2001
[3] See [2].
[4] See [2].
[5] See [2].
[6] Long, Jeff. “Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots.” Chicago Tribune. September 28, 2001. Accessed January 2, 2005 at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0109280208sep28.story
[7] See [2].
[8] Vialls, Joe. “Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft.” October, 2001. Accessed October 30, 2005 at: http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

THE LIGHT POLES

Clipped or Staged?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated Jan. 7 2008

In denying a 757 impact at the Pentagon on 9/11, Loose Change looked at, among other things, the five light poles said to have been shorn by the wings of Flight 77 just before impact. The video cited previous problems when planes hit light poles - pole left damaged but standing, wing comes off, plane crahes. “And yet Flight 77 managed to tear five light poles completely out of the ground,” Avery continued, “without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.” How precisely he knows that the wings were undamaged on the plane he believes doesn't exists is left unexplained, but to prove the poles were untouched, they had hard proof - actual photographs, including those at left. A look at the very photos they used proves the assertion flat wrong. If these light poles aren’t damaged, why don’t they have lights on them? [at left: pole 1, pol 4, and pole 1 again. below right, pole 5.]

Clearly if a Boeing 757 with its 125 feet of wings came swooping in over the highway, it’d cut some poles – but since they insist on seeing no plane, the Loose Change people summarize that the undamaged poles “seem to have just popped out of the ground.” The only implication I can see in this is of a covert Pentagon system of specially designed poppable light-poles to fake a cruise missile/drone strike out to look like an airliner attack. I guess it’s possible, but the photos show that this system also seems to mangle the tops of the poles on the way down, which they would have to to effectively fake an airliner attack, thereby proving fallacious the whole issue which started by insisting there was no such damage.

This is perhaps the most-widely-cited graphic analysis of the light pole arrangement, which of course aso coincides with the 'official' flight path. This graphic was made in 2002 or so by UK 'debunker' Ron Harvey. Another researcher, Dick Eastman, first doubted the poles' existence: "Ron Harvey says that 5 poles were downed. Ever hear that from any other source? I saw eye witness testimony that one pole was "clipped."" [link] Later he admitted their existence; "The poles not a question that is in dispute. I have long acknowledged the existence of the poles as soon as I finally got my hands on an actual picture of one (Ron Harvey was not forthcoming with me at the time) -- in fact it was the pole data in contrast to the witness accounts that first suggested the presense of two converging aircraft paths." [link.] One had a swooping 125 foot wingspan backed by 100 tons of force - and flew well above the poles, which were knocked down by air vortices off the wingtips of his F-16 killer jet.


Russel Pickering's analysis at PentagonResearch.com found that they were 27.66 feet high, made of .188 inch-thick aluminum, 8 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches at the top and topped with 70 pound lampheads. The reason the wings wouldn't be damaged is because the use of a "breakaway style" pole design. As Pickering explains: "this limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft." He cited the FAA's rules: "any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."

I have done my own anlysis now on poles 1 and 2 (pole 1 being the one that allegedly speared Lloyd England's windshield). I deduced a slightly different pole height than Pickering, although he's probably right and, along with tree damage and a slight mark high on a camera pole, have mapped out a rough outline of the plane's apparent bank at that moment - right-high, like the witnesses all have said.


If these were faked, they were faked well, The PentaCon video in 2007 made the case that the light poles were staged to fake the official attack path, and poorly so at that, bearing dozens of effects errors. Largely a rehash of Eastman's early theory sans the killer jet and beefed up with better witness pool, the video and its makers propose the poles were cut down, crimped, and in one case curved, some point perhaps weeks in advance, hidden in the bushes unnoticed, and dragged out for the attack in the morning. Or something to that effect. The one that hit Lloyd England's taxi was trickier, and they go to great length to explain the conspiracy behind this, or at least to argue there must be one. As PentaCon producer Craig Ranke (aka Jack Tripper) explained:

"If you accept that the plane flew on the north of the station you MUST accept that ALL the physical damage was staged/simulated/fabricated. Therefore, because the light poles line up perfectly with all the physical damage to the building there is no reason to suggest that any natural force [...] or projectile at all brought them down. They were simply removed and planted BEFORE the event."

That's of course one of the many reasons I do not accept the north side flight theory.

PLANE PARTS part II: LANDING GEAR

WHERE 757 MEETS GROUND, EVIDENCE MATCHES OFFICIAL PLANE
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 8 2007
last updated 12/9/07

The TLC Wheel
The picture at left was taken by an unknown photographer on September 12 and shown in a The Learning Channel documentary. The location is in the Pentagon’s A-E Drive, at the far end of the plane’s trajectory between rinds B and C, just outside the curious 'punch-out' exit hole. It’s of a wheel rim generally thought to be from Flight 77. No missile I know of uses landing gear with wheels, but smaller planes do, and debate has raged over whether or not this is the precisely and verifiably a 757’s wheel or from something smaller.

Karl Schwarz, among his information that was “hand-delivered to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,” decided the wheel is “the type made by B.F. Goodrich in their aerospace division. They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter will easily show that the below photo is not of a wheel hub from a 757 [...] This radius being about the same as the width of the wheel hub is also another clue that the 757 story is a Bush Lie." To clue us in on the truth, he noted that this looks like an A3 Skywarrior wheel - if it had the wrong wheels. "This is the type of wheel hub one would expect to find as one of the two rear wheels on an A-3 refitted with current equipment rather than equipment that is no longer being manufactured." [source]

Schwarz’s radius/width wheel analysis was apparently passed on by Dylan Avery in Loose Change first edition and then misinterpreted by the debunkers at “Internet Detectives” as radius/diameter: “I'm not sure what [Avery] means by this, as all circular objects have a diameter twice their radius.” [2] Anyway, in comparing the same images Avery used, which the Detectives considered good enough, we see clearly that the rim width/hub radius at left (red/blue) is about exactly the tire width/hub radius at right - the radius/width of the C Ring rim matches that of a 757.

Another point I recall seeing made at LetsRoll 911 was the difference in the holes placed radially around the center mount. Both seem to have a symmetrical arrangement but a differing number – the Pentagon rim with eight, the intact gear sporting ten, it seems. This is not so odd though, as Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series (which Flight 77 was) uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8." It's hard to say which type FLight 77 was equipped with, since, as Pickering found, "airlines are not obligated to use the same rim and gear manufacturer on a particular aircraft.” [source] My guess is it had eight holes. In fact the debunkers at Aerospaceweb.org found a photo showing the very craft in question - tail number N644AA - sporting main gear wheels with eight slots, just like the one that wound up in the drive. If it was planted, it was done right. But where are the other seven main gear wheels? Or the two nose gear wheels?

More Wheels

Above is a photo first published back in September. I first found it at the Loose Change Forum (halfway down page), posted by LCF member Digest, who had just re-deployed, to Iraq I would guess. Additional details remain hazy, but it would seem to be in the A-E Drive as well, and shows some apparent engine parts as well as a glimpse of the main gear strut (which I'll discuss in a moment) and a main gear wheel assembly with two battered wheels attached that seem to match the TLC wheel. Compare this with the main gear seen on a 757 (left).





The Strut(s)

Then we can see what had once attached this wheel to the plane, a massive hydraullic leg found in the C Ring just inside the exit hole – not far from the wheel. This appears to be one of two main landing gear struts. Pickering wasn’t at first sure of the size of this clearly hydraulic artifact. He speculated it might be something from inside the building, like “the cylinder from a trash compactor,” but noted “if it could be proven that it was from an aircraft other than a 757 [that] would obviously be significant.” The inset is from the photo above - it bears the same hallmarks, and could be either the same strut or its counterpart.
Then he located another photo that clarified the scale of the thing, filling much of a room, as seen above, and compared this shot with a photo of a 757 landing gear in the shop, which Pickering obtained and I’ve superimposed for human scale. Taken together, these led Pickering to conclude “it must be a landing gear,” and its trunion link layout and other clues strongly suggesting a 757's. [source] Some scientists interviewed for the Dutch TV program Zembla were shown these photos [video link - 1:50 mark] and decided it was likely from a 757.

Whatever the merits of the too-small wheel analysis, after reviewing this massive, fundamental, and highly likely 757 part buried in the wreckage, any further discussion of the precise type of wheel at the end of it would now seem doubly ludicrous. All the HTB people have left now is the contention that these photos were stage-managed, the parts planted, or complete CGI forgeries. And they probably will make that case, if they bother acknowledging this evidence at all, as well as that the wheel in the forgeries is far too small. But for those who rely exclusively on evidence like Loose Change, Pentagon Strike, In Plane Site, or Painful Deceptions, the solution is simple - they will never be confronted with the landing gear photo, which was excluded from all these in-depth videos for some reason.

The Tire/Gear At Impact

Additionally, a single large tire - or at least half of one - was seen in the A-E Drive, in close proximity to the wheel found there. It is not pristine, but relatively intact for having passed through 300 feet of building. Perhaps this has to with being shielded by the rest of the plane. Of all eyewitness reports, only Noel Sepulveda recalls the landing gear down before the plane impacted. Other witnesses specifically report the landig gear was NOT extended at impact. William Lagasse: "The 757’s flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted." [fifteen corroborating accounts compiled by Arabesque], and so remained safely tucked within the plane's underside, presumably until the fusealge came apart around it.

What We've Seen

What we've seen is actuall a decent percentage of the landing gear, mostly just inside and outside the 'punch-out' hole which was semi-officially caused by some unspecified part of the Landing gear. One massive main strut apparently came to rest inside this opening, perhaps the same one was later photographed outside in the drive, along with the two wheel segment, which may well have been pulled out from inside. All of the gear we can identify as likely exiting the building on its own is that lone piddly wheel and tire, photographed from the beginning on the pile of rubble fanning out from the hole. The rest of the gear not shown on this page, if it was there at all, was buried somewhere inside that high-security installation and not publicly shown yet to my knowledge. One sobering possibility that should be considered is whether perhaps the smaller, unseen nose gear had detached early on, in its folded and dense postion, and buried itself nearly intact in a victim's torso. Would this photo be released if so? I actually hope not.


Sources:
[1] Schwarz, Karl W. B. “Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble Part 5: Exploding the myth of the Bushes as an all-American family.” Online Journal, via www.karlschwarz.com/02-02-05_Schwarz.pdf
[2] “Loose Change, section two: The Wheel Hub.” Internet Detectives. http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-2#the-wheel-hub

100 TON JETLINER FOUND AT PENTAGON!

100 TON JETLINER FOUND AT PENTAGON!
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
September 26 2007

I finally joined the Loose Change forum, hoping to take part in some of the brilliant discussions I'd read there in the past. I tried signing up as Caustic Logic, but that account wouldn't work, so I re-signed up as member “Pentagon Reality Check,” an arrogant name I instantly regretted. But ah well. It's weird times there in the Pentagon forum, with onetime moderator Craig Ranke and his cohort Aldo Marquis just banned, but their followers remain and do battle with no-planers and missile theorists apparently unmoderated but constantly badgered from the sides by those who seem to have it figured out enough to not even bother. It feels transitional.

Ayway, one ridiculous fellow member “Terral” - who is currently pushing a missile strike AND small drone strike possibly coupled with a 757 flyover - badgered me into providing some photo evidence for a 757 impact. Like a sucker faced with an aggressive panhandler, I dug into my pockets for some change and posted a few photos with a line of text for each. That's like a buck fifty right there. Time is money. The clown dismissed and ripped them apart with comically overdone no-planer brutality. In these greasy hands, anything plane-looking was planted, the photos indicated things they really did not indicate, etc. But edited to its essence, Terral said:
“Oh, the bad guys could not fit the 100-ton Jetliner in the back of their pickup truck. :0) [...] How many readers see a crashed 100-ton Jetliner in PentagonRC’s “Foundation” picture? Anybody? :0) This is nonsense . . .[...] Where did the 100-ton Jetliner go? [...] “100-Ton Jetliner” Disinformation [...] Where is your 100-ton PLANE? [...] his 100-ton Jetliner supposedly vaporized into thin air. :0) [...] little tikes do not leave 100-tons of debris [...] which proves beyond all doubt that no 100-Ton Jetliner crashed here [...] a real 100-Ton Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is [...] his 100-ton PIG [...] They are not a 100-ton Jetliner either. [...] Show us a picture of your crashed 100-ton Jetliner. :0)
Thread link

Alright no more change for this one at any rate. I did drop a final slug though with the following “photo” and caption:
“It looks like we're both right in a way... I'm not sure where this photo is from or if its legit, but it looks like an attempted flyover, from a path well north of the Citgo, but unrelated to either the 9:32 missile attack or the small craft attack at 9:37, which caused the damage below, as you have brillinatly demonstrated. It looks here like the 757-200 jetliner is being lifted off the building with a crane, which luckily has a scale attached. I zoomed in and it says 200,000, pounds I presume. That's 100 tons on the nose. Please be at peace now Terral. Mystery solved.”

However, as my new pal had started out, “anyone in possession of these pictures, as if they prove anything, is definitely pushing the Official “Loyal Bushie” Government Cover Story.” So now I am exposed by Terral and its giant-font wielding sidekick SPreston as a 100-ton PIG hugging Bushie loyal operative with Bush goggles and accomplice to coverup and thus to mass murder. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for these meddling no planers, who also seem to take a bizarre pleasure in "exposing" my photo fakery and real identity! (see link above) Whatever GOP-funded computer place these guys are working at, they're brewing the coffee a wee too strong. If I were the people behind the scenes at the LC forum, I'd be checking some IPs about now. but hey, what's new?

Otherwise there is absolutely no point in this little episode. I just wanted to see a new post, and it just made me chuckle, which is kind of sad in itself.

SUPPORT COLUMNS {Masterlist}

Update on the Pentagon's Support Columns thought by some to disqualify a 757
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated 9/10/07 mid-day

According to the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, “the original structural system" of the Pentagon "was entirely cast-in-place reinforced concrete using normal-weight aggregate." [2] This means the frame, comprised of columns supporting and connected to beams, girders, and floor slabs. The report illustrated "the typical members" in the impact area (left). The reinforcements in these columns are vertical bars, typically six, wrapped with a welded rebar that spirals from top to bottom. This cage is filled and covered with concrete, all told measuring 21” square. [3] These were evenly spaced at intervals of roughly ten feet (I'm not sure exactly).

As seen above, many impacted columns inside the building exhibited a pronounced inward bend, what seems to be a bowing by Boeing. At least one column on the outer wall seems to bear this mark: Column 9aa - warped by the left wing"

Assessing initial, pre-collapse damage to support columns is problematic; after the impacted section collapsed about twenty minutes after the 757 attack, the initial plane imprint was invisible beneath a heap of masonry, with only a few published photographs taken of the in that window of time. There was little if any video of the elusive original wound, and of course no up-close studies conducted. While most of the photos are of the best quality, it was still a violent and chaotic scene and a little hard to read, but often all investigators, even official ones, had to go on.

In assessing a “hole,” we can talk about superficial damage like removal of the building’s limestone façade and windows, and structural damage to the building’s frame and support columns. Missing outer wall and windows are generally agreed on when addressed on both sides of the debate – this is all evident. But not everybody agrees on the state of the columns in the 757’s alleged flight path.
For example, take the roughly 16 foot wide "hole" apparent on the second floor; the ASCE reported "on the second floor, the facade was missing between column lines 11 and 15. However, windows and their reinforcing frames were still in place between column lines 11 and 13," thus leaving the impression of less damage there. [1] One photo I've seen shows what seems to be a column running down the middle of that hole where 14 would be - but all other shots show no column in that spot. Through the magic of selectivity, many 9/11 Truthers have found this pillar intact and sound and concluded no plane fuselage entered there.
- Why they're wrong. Columna 14AA: The Smoking Gun That Fell Away?

But the main question with the state of the supports is on the first floor; above is one of the few shots of the first floor showing clearly the impact point and the right (south) half of the damaged area where the plane hit. Note the orange of fires is here prevalent on the second floor and almost absent from the first. This is consistent with the high impact of the fuselage breaching the floor slab and sending exploding jet fuel into both floors, and the reported banking angle of the plane, with starboard wing tipped high and cutting across the second floor slab. Just beneath that and just to the right of main impact, is what would have to be the entry “hole” for the 757’s right engine and wing root. In that spot, most all sources on both sides agree, there are three exterior columns there, 15-17AA, that are badly damaged and warped (the picture above is from the ASCE’s Performance Report). Opinions differ as to whether or not that’s odd, and what it means for the 757 impact story.
- I disagree with nearly everyone here, and this post explains why. This graphic sums it up somewhat:


One clue there’s a problem with identifying just what was a column in this area is the discrepancy even between official reports, explained in this Split-off sub-post:
Confusion in Reports: 15-18 missing, present, or a bit of both?

If these three mystery slants are indeed something other than columns 15-17, then we are left with a roughly 90 foot-wide area in which all supports were obliterated on the ground floor, front line - leaving plenty of room for the engine-fuselage-engine penetrating core of a 757, whose deeper but less even damage further in would explain the collapse of everything above that twenty minutes later.

Additional column damage deeper in the building will be covered in another forthcoming post, and will also be touched on briefly in an upcoming post on the “Punch-out” hole.

NINE FEET OF STEEL REINFORCED IDIOCY

PLANE PENETRATES 155', FRAUD LOGIC PENETRATES NOTHING
Adam Larson/The Frustrating Fraud
December 2006
Last updated 7/22/07

In another post I eplained the suspected depth of penetration of the attack craft as explained by Holmgren, Hufschmid, and Raphael Meyssan. Initially they and others had believed only the outer "E" ring was damaged, leaving not nearly enough space to fit a 757. But this was soon shown as false evidence. The Pentagon is indeed comprised of five concentric rings, from the innermost “A” ring to the outermost “E” ring, the outer wall of which is of course where the plane - or whatever - first hit. Each ring is about fifty feet wide in the cross-section below, and comprised of five floors. There is an open, ground-level roadway between the B and C Rings called the “A-E drive.”

But... while the upper floors of each ring are separated by spaces for light and air, floors one and two are completely roofed over and the ring distiction is meaningless. The attack plane is alleged to have penetrated three rings (E,D,C), all at the first-floor level, a single, enormous, open area with support provided by spaced columns, and variously divided by weaker internal walls. The plane and all its damage would be within the gray area in the cross-section below, concealed beneath the building’s roof and at least one more ceiling beneath that - clearly invisible from above.


Eventually the "punch-out hole" on the inside of ring C became the focus, indicating a deep burial of the plane through three rings (or at least fakery indicating such). Eventually the one-ring-damaged construct and its 757-couldn't-do-it implication faded and were replaced with the line put forth in 911 In Plane Site, where host Dave Von Kleist looked at the damage to three rings, where such a plane could fit, and again decided a 757 couldn't do it. "Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall," he said. "Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches or 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete [...] Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage?" Likewise, Loose Change cites "another sixteen-foot hole on the inside of the "C" Ring" (the punch-out hole, which is actually more like eight feet by ten). Narrator Dylan Avery concludes "for that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete." While disregarding the exact math, no-planer Killtown also doubted that "the fragile nose of Flight 77" could "penetrate all the way through 3 reinforced concrete/steel hardened rings and punched out a hole through the inside wall of Ring C.”

First, the exterior walls of the Pentagon are not 18" of steel reinforced concrete, as these sources imply. The exact construction the plane was up against is not entirely clear, but I'm nearing completion on a post to explain this.

Second, as I explained earlier, the lower floors were undivided, and so the remainder of the six such ring-defining walls pierced simply do not exist, except the last one. Below, see rooflines of the E, D, and C rings superimposed over the inerior layout of the impacted area, as released by the Pentagon. The red zone is the damaged area, and numbers 1-6 represent the six thick ring walls Von Kleist and Avery are looking for (though in reverse order).

They do not seem to play into the layout of the ground floor, which is where the attack happened. With the exception of walls 1 and 6, these heavy walls essentially do not exist at that level, and the plane would only have had support collumns and weak internal walls to deal with. It could bounce and tear between the pillars, like a deadly game of shrapnel ping-pong. The landing gear making the neat hole inside the C-ring is still a little suspicious, but it's a fairly minor point in the big picture, and a failry minor hole compared to the impact. So only the outer wall was pierced by the majority of the attack plane, leaving us with a not-so mysterious situation: Question? How does much of a 757 crash through the outer wall of the Pentagon?

Answer: with a running start.

But the no-757 theorists have laid down their own rings of fatuity, each with their inner and outer walls adding up to nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy that our bullshit detectors must pierce. Many peoples' aren't even switched on of course, and so this blatant misunderstanding has richocheted around within the Truth movement's head and will probably continue to do so for as long as it stumbles along. By the way, many of the little bubbles clustered in and around the red zone represent dead bodies that were recovered near the end of the trajectory and along its edges. Question - how could a cruise missile or Global Hawk plow a pile of corpses like that?

PRE-9/11 PENTAGON PREPAREDNESS

OF FORESIGHT AND ANCHOR CHAINS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 23 2007
Updated 5/3/07

Although most Pentagon workers in the area hit on 9/11 were still sitting at their desks doing their usual work as Flight 77 came crashing through their office doors, there were well-established and practiced procedures for “exactly” such an event. The Washington Post reported shortly after 9/11 the account of a Pentagon medic who was sitting and reading the just-printed emergency response manual for what to do in case the building was struck by a civilian airliner at the precise moment that happened. [1] But unfortunately these procedures don’t seem to have helped much, given no radar track of the incoming plane, no warning, and thus no time given to implement any such measures.

Dennis Ryan's photo of a mock-up used for MASCAL (slightly filtered for artsy effect)

Among the emergency drills they’d held was one in October 2000, less than a year prior as part of what the Military District of Washington News Service called at the time "several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room." Author Dennis Ryan provided photographs as well for one of the scenarios, the "Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise" (MASCAL) the mock passenger plane crashed into the mock Pentagon courtyard appears to be a big one but probably not a 757 as Loose Change claims. One participant explained as far-fetched as the MASCAL scenario may have seemed, “you have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.” [2] Navy Capt. Charles Burlingame was allegedly part of this drill, though the charge is unsubstantiated. If you don't know the significance of that already, check this post.

Whether the MASCAL crash was supposed to be an accident or an attack didn't seem to matter - it was all about the aftermath. But in the next noteworthy drill conducted eight months later, the preparations were getting more specifically 9/11-related. As US Medicine magazine, "the voice of Federal medicine," reported in October 2001:

"Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May. In fact, the tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic here in the Pentagon trained jointly in May to fine-tune their emergency preparedness, afterward making simple equipment changes that would make a difference Sept. 11 when the hypothetical became reality." [3]

This is amazing; according to this article, they were looking at a hijacked 757 strike four months before that happened on 9/11, preparations that "made a difference." Of course the best difference would have been to simply evacuate the building well before the plane arrived (35 minutes after it became clear the nation was under attack), or to have worked out air defense plans, perhaps with NORAD, to stop any such weaponized aircraft short of the building.

A possible third drill may have been planned to that end in conjunction with a proposed mid-2001 NORAD exercise simulating suicide hijacking attacks. USA Today famously reported on April 18, 2004 that "in the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, [NORAD] conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." They had the 9/11 targets in mind; earlier drills had focused on such an attack against the WTC, but when the planning turned to the Pentagon, the story reported, "that drill was not run after defense officials said it was unrealistic.” [4]

The original source for this was an e-mail from a former NORAD official obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, which explained that NORAD "wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group would use an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic." [5] This was in April 2001 POGO reports, a month before they prepared for defense against an unobstructed hijacked plane/missile hitting their building, and five months before 9/11, when they had no capabilities in place "to protect the Pentagon," but at least they had the aftermath covered well enough.

Buth even with just the two drills plus whatever else went in to the process, the Pentagon's bureaucracy had just enough time to get the emergency procedures ironed out and printed before the precise "unrealistic" scenario envisioned four months earlier came crushingly true. But there was apparently not enough time to fully integrate the plan with things like useful warning procedures - a tragically stalled process that would help illustrate Rumsfeld's charges that pre-9/11, the Pentagon was "tangled in its own anchor chain." How conveniently illustrative of his and his colleagues' known desire for a 21st Century "process of transformation" there.

Sources:
[1] Oil Empire. http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[2] Ryan, Dennis. "Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies." Military District of Washington News Service. November 3 2000. Accessed at: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlan.html
[3] Mientka, Matt. Pentagon Medics Trained For Strike. US Medicine. October 2001. http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=31
[4] as passed on by US Rep. Jan Schakowski: http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/press2004a/pr4_20_2004mis.html
Also at 9-11 Research: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/post911/commission/usatoday_noradx.htm
and the original still up at USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
[5] Project on Government Oversight. "Joint Chiefs of Staff Rejected "Airplanes as Missiles" Scenario Five Months prior to 9/11." April 13 2004. http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ha-040401-homelandsecurity.html

JIM HANSON'S DE-VINE REVELATION

Yage-tripping former Republicans for 9/11 Truth?
Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Edited: 4/30/07

[note: I've been getting away from the fun old game of ridiculing fraudsters lately, focusing on solidifying my own case and doing more serious research, but just found this little gem from the Idaho Observer, February 2005, which I had missed before.]

Before he discovered the truth of 9/11, Jim Hanson of Columbus Ohio was a five-decade Republican and "former district campaign manager for Richard Nixon," as conspiratainment radio host Greg Szymanski explained in a February 2005 piece for the Idaho Observer. Szymanski was talking to the retired attorney because of an excellent 1/2 page ad he had taken out in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper "denouncing the Bush administration specifically concerning one photo of the Pentagon crash, which he claims will prove government complicity in 9/11."

The photo refered to by Hanson is the famous shot taken by Mark Faram shown above (cropped on the debris), which Szymanski incorrectly described as “the only piece of wreckage of Flight 77 ever made public.” This also seems to be Hanson’s understanding as well, since he summed up "if it can be proved that this piece didn’t come from Flight 77,” then there would be NO wreckage released of the plane, and this “ would open the door, exposing the rest of the government conspiracy."

This is a serious question then, so Hanson set out two main supports for his conclusion that this did not come from the doomed Flight. Hanson laid out his first charge: While the scrap clearly matches the American Airlines paint scheme, “after blowing up the photo and matching rivets to those of the 757 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, I found there wasn’t a match. This piece of wreckage was from a different plane.” I’ve seen this claim made around by others, but still haven’t looked into it closely. A reasonable match to an AA 757 has been demonstrated well enough in this early piece by Jim Hoffman, but for the moment I’ll ignore the possibility that Hanson is flat wrong that the Faram scrap is not from a 757 as alleged, suspend judgment, and turn to his second corroborating proof.

On close examination of the photo, Hanson found "a curious piece of wood or what I have determined to be a liana vine, imbedded into the aluminum piece of wreckage.” A liana vine! What a revolutionary observation! Did the plane swing into the building on a vine in Tarzan style? A little research shows that lianas are a general type of burly climbing vine, one species of which is used in the Ayahuasca or Yage, a ritual Incan hallucinogen now popular in certain non-traditional circles (though usually not elderly Republicans). Is there more to Hanson’s visionary approach to 9/11 Truth than meets the eye? Is he seeing at the heart of the official lie the very vine he’s tripping on?

Whatever the validity of his observation, it all fell together from there: “I then found out that another 757 went down in the South American jungle in 1995, where liana vines (similar to wicker) grow abundantly.” As Szymanski explained, Hanson phoned the NTSB and was told the mangled remains of that 757 were stored at an undisclosed "military disposal site for investigation.” He then had a serious enough hunch to charge that “I think the military substituted this piece of wreckage in an attempt to deceive the public, in an attempt to make them believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon when it didn’t."

How it is the scrap doesn't match the official 757 plane model but could be from a different 757 he's never seen photos of is unclear to me. I would've guessed all 757s are riveted the same. Furthermore, unless this original flight was AA, it would have had to be re-painted, and it seems odd the special effects guys would miss the woody vines twisted into the metal as they sraped off the paint and stencilled on part of a lower-case "n" to proper scale. Hanson too was aware of the depth of their faux pas: "I think this one mistake regarding the military photo, could bring down the house of cards and expose the entire conspiracy." Hanson himself was putting his Republicanism on hold over the affair; "I am no longer affiliating myself with the Republican Party considering the outrageous acts that have been perpetrated on the American people. This is beyond politics,” he told Szymaski and his readers. “This is outright fascism."

And for the record, here’s the proof of the 21st Century Reichstag Fire that brought Fascism to our own shores: the only non-metal substance I can see with the scrap, the yellow stuff at the bottom, and a couple of ideas as to what it could be:

Don’t scoff! If Hanson is correct, the fate of the free world could be at stake here.

Source: Szymanski, Greg. "Life-long Republican believes only piece of Flight 77 wreckage was planted at Pentagon on 9/11." Idaho Observer. February 2005. http://proliberty.com/observer/20050208.htm

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

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

PLANE PARTS part I

ENGINE PARTS – THE DRIVING ISSUE
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated 5/26/07

In their effort to cast doubt on the official story of the Pentagon attack, Loose Change explained that a 757 is driven by “two Pratt and Whitney Engines made of steel and titanium alloy which are nine feet in diameter, twelve feet long, and weigh six tons each.” Considering government claims that the plane entirely disintegrated in the fire (an explanation I’m certain they’re exaggerating), “it is scientifically impossible that twelve tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene." We’ve seen no intact nine-foot engines, and they couldn't have burned away, so a logical conclusion would be they never existed. “The two engines should have been found relatively intact. Instead, there was a single turbojet engine approximately three feet in diameter found inside the building.” I’m not sure where they got this from, but the only source coming to mind (Desmoulins, whose evidence we'll see below, and his wasn't intact either). But one small engine would mean we’re looking at a missile, not a plane.

Jim Hoffman's 9-11 Review noted of the Loose Change take “perhaps ‘engines should have been found relatively intact’ if the Pentagon were made out of bamboo. Since when has an engine survived a 500-mph impact with a masonry building relatively intact?” [1] Indeed, the engines are not so solid as Dylan made them sound. First off, citing the engines as being nine feet across and solid titanium is deceptive – what we see that’s so big is the engine with its outer housing. The outer shell is strong enough to withstand winds but not concrete walls, against which it would be shredded. I’m not sure what they’re made of but I’m guessing well-formed composite plastic materials in multiple layers with reinforcing fibers and whatnot. They could also be metal, or some mix, but essentially it's just a sturdy aerodynamic shell. The hard titanium alloy stuff is inside the actual engine, which is six feet in diameter at its widest point – the front fan - and considerably narrower otherwise. The variously sized and carefully arranged internal parts – gears, center shaft, burners, housings - would mostly remain intact after the crash and fire, but not necessarily neatly assembled any more.


The engine above is a different model than what we’re looking for here, but the concept and proportions are about the same in all models. This is Turbofan engine, improving on the old turbojet design by adding the larger fan to move a large column on top of what it ignites. The basic idea is the fan pulls in air, passes much through the outer fan duct where it just moves through, while compressing the air in the middle into an inlet where it is passes through several compressor discs to futher pack it with oxygen before passing the fuel burners that ignite the air in the combustion housing. The explosive air is then directed back out the rear nozzle to drive the plane, passing on the way over curved slats on the edges of the turbine discs which in turn spin the shaft that drives the fan and feeds the cycle.

So the point is that even large engines have small parts, radial wheels of differing sizes set along a central shaft. If intact, an engine found would look a bit like the diagram above – if the parts were scattered with the force of penetration, then we should expect views like those below. No whole engines were seen, only parts that may be from an engine, so if there were engines there they broke up and scattered into the building.

The famous photo at left was taken by two days after the attack, showing a gear removed from building and snapped by FEMA photographer Jocelyn Augustino just north of the impact zone. Compared to the worker’s leg, it appears to be 24-32 inches in diameter. French researcher Jean-Pierre Desmoulins identified it as “a rotor (high pressure stage) coming from a jet engine” He also noted “on the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine,” an apparently tubular piece of debris (here outlined in red, along with a piece of what seems sheet metal that appears to have about the same curve. [1] The size looks reasonably close, but it almost seems the gear is in fact larger in diameter than its supposed housing. I don't know what the hell this thing is. It's round, which means likely from an engine.

Eric Hufschmid made the same call as Desmoulins in his video Painful Deceptions, seeing the rotor and its slightly-smaller casing as proof the "engine" here is too small for a 757 and more likely the single engine of a Global Hawk.

If the disc is from an engine it was from a big one. Some have speculated that it was a turbofan hub from a proper Rolls Royce RB 211 engine (the model AA uses for its 757s). The “cleats” on the edge would then be to hold the larger fan blades in place. Compared to the hub of a standard 757 engine in the graphic at right (it would be beneath the “hubcap” in the center) it indeed seems roughly the right size. Russell Pickering agreed it may be a fan hub from a 757, but also noted “that component is similar to many engine parts in many various engines.” [3] He doesn’t seem to know much more than me here. I’m not even sure the notches are cleats to hold fan blades, but could be for other turbine-related spinning activities deeper inside. The knowledgeable folks at Aerospaceweb were uncertain as well but guessed that it “looks like a rotary disk from the interior of the plane's engine.” [4] Jim Hoffman also called it a turbine rotor. [5]

Speculation arose early on that the part was from a 757 but not from its engine. As Loose Change explained “after this photo was published by American Free Press readers wrote in to suggest that the turbine was a piece from the auxiliary power unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of a 757." Others like Jon Carlson have dismissed this as speculation "dropped into the conversation as disinformation.” [6] Chertoff-busting Chris Bollyn implausibly claims he contacted people at Honeywell (makers of the APU), Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, (makers of the engines used on 757s) and was able to get confirmation on all three fronts from someone employed there that the non-descript round part was definitely not from anything any of them built. [7]

Karl Schwarz was able to positively identify it as "a "turbojet" component from an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes." His prime culprit is pf course the JT8D, a tiny engine used in pairs on the tiny A3 Sky Warrior. It seems the A3 doesn't actually use JT8Ds after all, as explained in my "A3 Skywarrior Theory" post.

Another possible engine part was seen later, in the batch of evidence released by the government after the end of the Zaccarias Moussaoui trial in mid-2006. It’s of non-descript debris at the Pentagon, clearly pivotal in Moussaoui’s guilt. The scale here is less clear, but it looks like a rear turbine gear with its curved blades for allowing ignited air to pass, and the base of the contral shaft that drives the fans. Or it could be the other end, the fan hub seen from behind, the ridges would then be the fan-holding cleats.

The photo at right was posted in 2002 on Rense.com by Sarah Roberts, a Pentagon employee seeking to debunk no-planes theories. She says the photo was taken "in either D or C-ring" by rescue workers with Virginia Task Force 1 (VATF-1). "The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain.” [8] Jerry Russel and Richard Stanley at 9-11 Strike, who lean towards no-plane theories, admit this and other parts match those from a 757’s engines but wondered “whether the parts were from a 757, or were they planted as fake evidence, perhaps having been from an earlier 757 crash?" [9]


Finally another VATF-1 photo. A round rim (bottom right): another engine part? Source: Sarah Roberts.

[1] ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757' http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
[2] COMMENTS ON MYTHOLOGY BUBBLE PART 5. http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wr-eng.html
[3] http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonPlaneRotor.shtml
[4] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
[5] See [1].
[6] Carlson, Jon. "Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified? - A 727 JT8D Rense.com. 3-2-2005. http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm
[7] See [6].
[8] Roberts, Sarah. “Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon” Exclusive Photos & Story Remse.com. 12-4-2002 http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
[9] "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island: An analysis of the Pentagon crash on 9-11." version 2.0 (3/12/2004) Page 3 of 5. By Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell. 911 Strike. http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

THE WHITE BLUR

OF SMOKE AND MIRRORED SURFACES
February 7 2007
Last Updated 5/23/07

despite their overall poor quality as evidence (serving better as a Rorshach test for pre-existing 9/11 theories), the surveillance video stills released in 2002 can yield some screts to the patient eye. I admit that's not normally me, but I've taken a crack at it; Prime among the features that stand out is the “white blur” which inhabits the stationary background briefly – for one frame – before it disappears into a brilliant fireball on the building’s façade in the next. Passed off by the official story as proof of a plane, it has most often been interpreted not as the plane but as the vapor or smoke trail behind the plane, which is mostly hidden behind the security box in the center.

For example, “Cat Herder” at Above Top Secret, in an otherwise sterling and pivotal mega-post “9/11: A Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon” (posted mid-2004, up to more than 4,000 responses now) took this tack, seeing an oddly black plane emitting a white vapor trail. To be fair, CH did admit: “this is entirely subjective and the image quality [...] is not good enough to form a factual opinion.”

I'm sure it was addressed somewhere in the thread, but a 757 shouldn’t have a vapor or smoke trail behind it if it crosssed the Pentalawn. The normal contrail seen behind jets in the sky is a result of high altitudes, and does not happen near ground level. I didn’t know this until I learned of it from Karl Schwarz of all people, but it seems to be true anyway. Thus the vapor trail meant a missile, which burns rocket fuel that does leave a trail at sea level (although that doesn’t seem to explain an A3 Skywarrior any better than it does a 757).

Mike Wilson’s animation of the attack helps explain and visualize the source of smoke as consistent with a 757 with engine damage, proably from ingesting a light pole "luminary." But like Cat Herder, I believe he got the plane and this smoke confused in the still analysis. Again as have most others, he identified the plane as hidden behind the security box - what they show as tailfin is the same tall part of the horizon line, and what I believe is the plane is shown as the engine smoke.

Allow me to explain: there are things we can tell from these stills if we look close. The first thing is to look not just at the first still but at all five to get asense of motion. the five frames below are closely cropped on the area in question, slightly enhanced, with the fisheye effect uncorrected. I've looked for movement and stillness, measured by changes in pixels from one frame to the next. Spots that match up in frame after frame I've taken as stationary objects/background and the few that don’t I've taken as things that are moving. The plane/missile was moving, so clearly we look for pixels that change suddenly. for the moment I'm ignoring the black tailfin to simplify this stage of the analysis, but I'll get back to it shortly.

Frame One This is the key frame that supposedly shows the vapor trail - I would note the dark pixels on underside that could well be its shadow on the lawn – if a smoke trail it's pretty dense. If a 757, recall the angle of attack, and that the alleged plane was silver, and NOT in the building’s shadow yet, so it should show up brilliant white with sun beaming right on it, and possibly affected by glare to look larger.

Second frame, one second after the first. Already we can see that where the white pixels were there is now “vapor” or more likely smoke, running evenly gray up to the building. The dark green horizon line is steady in all shots – none of the darkness there is part of the craft, unless it left some black bits of itself floating behind in mid-air, now obscured by suddenly-gray smoke that had been bright white a second earlier.



Frame three:
Again this is about one second after the previous. Note the gray smoke hasn't changed much, even as the fireball evolves, rises slowly, and darkens.







Frame Four:
No significant change in color of smoke, projectiles working their way up through the cloud and emerging.






Frame Five: Same. gray smoke,expanding and darkenin explosion. the little white "nosecone" some have seen peeking out from behind the security box is still there, attached to the box.





So then lets revisit the first frame here in simplified cartoony colors – background, forground, building and shadow, check-point, and the “blur.” Looking also at the color of “smoke” in the red sample area from the five stills, we see a sudden shift from white to gray, which stays gray for the next four seconds. Clearly the white is NOT smoke, most likely the plane itself.

Not that I can't see what people think is a tailfin, and I admit the pixel change here is significant. In fact looking again I've decided I may have been wrong in blending it into the horizon, and so I'm working on clearing this up with more analysis. I'm seeing not only a remarkably sharp vertical aberration, but also a notable blue-shift in the dark horizon area that happens to correspond exactly with it. The color enhanced inset helped reveal at least some of this is apparently in the pixels themselves, appearing over the whole image, and also present in the other frame from this camera, perhaps a digital artifact (orange lines illustrate edges of rectangular areas tinetd blue and orange, respectively). We see the white emerging from the tail end as we would if the right engine were damaged. But again, this would be amazing shadow-casting white-then-gray smoke... and if the tailfin were at that location, at least by my mapping of the scene, it would be sticking out to the left of the box, probably beyond the security box lip's ability to hide it.

I had rebelled against the "black tailfin," insisting on seeing only a slight, irrelevant extension of an already high point on the skyline, but this really does look like a tailfin. When it comes to the chassis, I'd expect sunlit silver glare to dominate, and certainly not the all-black plane Cat Herder saw. But looking on the north side and as the plane was beginning its starboard bank, the visible side would be in shadow. But again, how could the whole plane, including its massive banking right wing stay hidden in that blind spot without peeking over or to the left? Is the high point the banking right wing and engine? No - the wing would catch sunlight at almost any angle but sideways, and the engine would glint at any angle. Only the tailfin can do this darkness trick, which makes the tailfin there seem possible and makes the white again seem like smoke.

In short, I'm confused again. Nonetheless...
In May 2006 the full video the stills were taken from, along with a second video from a different camera that has no such obstruction of view, was released by Judicial Watch. In this new view, besides a horrible glare and what looks like a splat of bird crap, we see the blur alone and unobstructed, if just the tip of it at far right. In this shot at least this is clearly NOT a smoke or vapor trail unless of an invisible craft, and strangely about the same color as the possible smoke recorded by cam 2. Although less of it is visible, we also see more clearly a shape to it. It looks like it's again underpinned by a shadow. Even adjusting for light distortion, this looks much bigger than a Global Hawk or other smaller craft often cited.

But the shapes do seem to fit nicely, giving us something like this, resembling a giant ghost Albatross. I can't tell you how exactly this must be a 757, nor can I see how anything else could be readily identifiable in this ill-defined cluster of optic distortions. But it's of a good size, the largest number of eyewitnesses described an AA liner, and something like a 757 seems to have damaged the building and killed nearly 200 people there within the next couple of seconds. You do the math. My best guess still, after looking at all this, is the "tailfin" is nothing more than some kind of digital "artifact" after all. But I'm still looking at it...