THE GLOBAL HAWK THEORY

RQ4? RQ SERIOUS?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 6 2007

Northop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk (R= reconnaissance, Q = unmanned). Specifications:
Wingspan: 116 feet
Fuselage length: 44 feet
Tailfin height: 15 feet
Top speed: 454 mph.
Engine: one, Rolls Royce AE3007H turbofan
Empty weight: 8,490 pounds
Maximum loaded weight: 22,900 pounds

Still under development at the time of 9/11, the Global Hawk entered reconnaissance use in the Afghanistan War, and has been used widely over Iraq. Clearly its timing of production just in time for the War on Terror is rather interesting to skeptics; it had just made the news in April 2001 by being the first drone to fly unaided across the Pacific, from Edwards AFB in California to a base in Australia and back in just under a day. [1] In 2003, as Pentagon questions were taking off after Meyssan’s lead, the RQ4 made news again, being the first UAV given FAA certification to fly unannounced in civilian air corridors. [2] Understandably, when people didn’t see the airliner fly into the building as they did in New York, imaginations run wild, and once a 757 had been discredited in some minds, the RQ4 had a certain appeal as a replacement.

Quinn’s picturing of the RQ4 decked out with missiles and a partial AA paintjob

Among those who run with their imaginings is “quantum futurist” Joe Quinn, who wrote in late 2004 “imagine that a significant number of people are witness to a drone aircraft like the Global Hawk […] Imagine also that this drone is painted with the colors and logo of a well-known airline that are only ever seen on large commercial aircraft. Imagine that there are even “windows” painted on the side to make the illusion all the more convincing. Imagine that, not long after witnessing the incident, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by authorities and the media that what they saw was a large commercial airliner flying into the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case, what are the chances that there would be seriously conflicting reports between eyewitness accounts of the incident? Very good, I would suggest.” [3] Of course, the eyewitness accounts are overwhelmingly either vague on model or cite an “airliner” or specifically a 757 or something of that scale, with no one indicating anything like a Global Hawk.

For five years after the attack, despite its serious shortcomings, many revisionist theories passively mentioned the RQ4 as a possibility, starting with Meyssan’s fingering an unspecified drone, possibly a Global Hawk, and picking up steam in 2003. Col Donn De Grand Pre told a listener on the Alex Jones show in early 2004 that he believed “it was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft." More often the craft is mentioned as a mere illustration, and far from the most relevant one, that airliners like the 9/11 attack planes could have been flown remotely. But some specifically and consistently pushed the theory that this very bug-brained drone was responsible for the damage at the Pentagon. Besides Quinn is French Researcher “Silent but Deadly” felt that it was the best explanation. Laura Knigh Jadczyk decided “there's no reason why [Osama bin Laden] couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk," and then wondered "again, and again, and again: why can't the American People SEE WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?” [4]

Among those who've most explicitly fingered this new spy drone as the culprit, Israeli-obsessed, borderline anti-Semitic 9/11 Truth clowns Christopher Bollyn and Eric Hufschmid stand out. Hufschmid is especially prolific, from his mixed-quality 2002 book Painful Questions to his much worse 2003 video Painful Deceptions and beyond, his Global Hawk arguments make his theorizing look more like a parody of sorts than an actual attempt at truth. It was to Hufschmid that self-described Pentagon attack witness Sam Danner turned in 2006 with his incredible tale of the Global Hawk strike. Before he admitted he had fabricated the whole incident, Danner’s self-destructing testimony also dragged in Bollyn as well as fellow anti-Zionist conspiratainer Michael Collins Piper.

Luckily the lie wasn’t all they had, as Bollyn hedged slightly in his first Danner piece: “The evidence supporting the theory that a Global Hawk was flown into the Pentagon by remote control has been investigated by this writer in American Free Press.” This is true, as is that “Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft.” but beyond that Bollyn’s analysis has nothing true to offer; Sam's story “is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses," and besides, "while Danner's testimony corroborates this hypothesis, which is supported by evidence, there is not a single piece of evidence, physical or photographic in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.” [5]

Looking at the physical evidence, a Global Hawk would have nearly the wingspan to clip all the light poles that were clipped, but not likely the weight necessary. That this tiny object should have continued after that to hit the building is doubtful, as is its ability, even with missiles, to blast the damage hole into the Pentagon’s west wall. The width of its penetrating core (engine/fuselage) is about six feet, compared the 50-foot core of a 757 and to the 100-foot wide swathe of destroyed columns of the ground floor. As for the airplane scraps found on the lawn, a painted RQ4 could possibly explain these, as could the official 757.

Regarding debris found inside the building, Joe Quinn feels the 757-looking landing wheel actually matches a Global Hawk's, and ignoring that even large engines have small parts, he addressed the famous FEMA rotor photo: “No one has come forward to confirm or deny that the disk seen in photos from outside the Pentagon could have come from a Global Hawk. Given the small size of the disk, it is likely that it did not come from a large 757 engine but rather a smaller-engined aircraft. Like a Global Hawk.” [6] Quinn was drawing on Bollyn, who believed the part was from an RQ4’s Rolls Royce AE3007H engine. Bollyn had contacted a company spokesman, who said of the photo “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE3007H made here in Indy.” Bollyn included this as evidence. (??) [7]

Even after all this lack of correllary evidence and even after the Danner debacle, “Silent But Deadly” still sums up in the eyewitness preamble to his carefully crafted 3-D test of the official story (which the 757 failed), “sam danner said he lied, so statements are removed. Nevertheless, the best version is still the globalhawk one.” [8]

Sources:
[1] Aviation history as Global Hawk completes US-Australia flight Australian Minister of Defence Hon. Dr. Brendan Nelson MP http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Nelsontpl.cfm?CurrentId=628
[2] FAA Clears Global Hawk For Routine Operation In US National Airspace August 18 2003 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-03zl.html
[3], [6] Quinn, Joe. “Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11, and Neither Did a Boeing 757.” Signs of the Times. http://www.kasjo.net/ats/ats.htm
[4] Knight-Jadczyk, Laura. “Comments on the Pentagon Strike.” Signs of the Times. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm
[5] Bollyn, Christopher. "Official Pentagon 9/11 Story Debunked." American Free Press. http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=3741&page=1
[7] http://www.propagandamatrix.com/140903enginepart.html
[8] "Silent But Deadly." Pentagon 3-D Test. Page 2. http://0911.site.voila.fr/index11.htm

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?

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

SUICIDE BY SAM DANNER: PART I

SUICIDE BY SAM DANNER: A TRAGEDY IN FOUR PARTS
Part I: The Interview
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 19 2007

I’m an erratic researcher. I’ll confess that now. Late last year I started looking at this evidence surrounding the Pentagon attack and the various fraudsters pushing various no-757 theories. So why I only just now decided to look into the Sam Danner story I don’t know. For insiders this old news, for anyone else, read on. It’s a telling little episode, which I’ll relate in four parts.

I heard a little about this case, something about an eyewitness admitting he’d lied about seeing something hit the Pentagon, and there was some kind of fallout - Chris Bollyn was involved - something. But I decided to start my search at the beginning and look first at Sam Danner’s first entry into brief stardom. I’m not sure how the hook-up came to be, but this happened via an interview with Eric Hufschmid recorded for his website on June 29 2006. I only actually listened to the first few minutes, but he sounds like he’s still trying to convince himself.. “When I got down uh... close to the Pentagon - well I’m gonna call it the southeast – southeast location of the interstate highway 395 parallel to the Pentagon – parallel to the actual alleged impact that had supposedly taken place…” Listen to it here if you like (mp3 – right-click – new window). My favorite spot: His wife called him just before the impact, at about 9:35 he thinks to tell him about another issue at "Shanksville." !!! There's no reason for anyone to have known about that tiny town before we started hearing about Flight 93 well after it crashed there at about 10:06. Eric apparently didn't catch this minor point - or didn't think his listeners would.

So I just switched over and read Eric’s summation from there. I entered knowing the interviewer’s obsession with the "Zionist criminal network" that owned the media and was behind the attack, his unusual emphasis on the Pentagon cleanup crew – a deputized phalanx of ordinary people scanning the Pentagon’s lawn soon after the attack for any tiny evidence - officially for the investigation, but Hufschmid suspects for the cover-up. I’m also aware of Eric’s obsession with suggesting the tiny, big-brained spy drone Global Hawk was the precise attack craft. Both of these are clear enough to anyone who’s watched his 2005 video Painful Deceptions, as I just did the other day. That said, here’s a summarization of Hufschmid’s summarization, with some of my own thoughts inserted.

Danner saw first plane coming, then a second one with four engines [presumably the C-130 control plane?]. When the first plane passed him, he saw it was a small white craft with no windows. “The front was like a humpback whale,” Eric related. “It was flying very low to the ground. There was only one engine, and it was in the tail” [Wow! Clearly Global Hawk, just like Eric’s always said! What’re the chances this guy could be so perfect?]

“He saw some of the light poles that had been hit by the aircraft,” Eric says, “but they seem to have fallen in the wrong direction, as if explosives knocked them down.” [???] Luckily Danner was an EMT and “walked onto the Pentagon property to help the survivors, but he didn't find any bodies or luggage.” [I’m not sure why he was looking for injured luggage to help]. He was then recruited into the search teams Eric is so fascinated with, and was closely followed and overseen, even “intimidated,” by “a mysterious agent with a name like "Erkstein" who was directing the destruction of evidence.” As for what that was, “He saw tiny bits of aluminum, a few large pieces, and only one engine.” [the engine was outside the building on the lawn?]

Danner knew all the right things to say; as Eric further related, “the people who appeared to be official government agents did not seem interested in rescuing victims.” [wearing their heartlessness on their sleeves – Zionist scum]. “Are you aware that prior to the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center, the people in the area were told to move away because the building might collapse? Well, Danner said that after a while they were told to move away from the Pentagon. Some of the people in the area obviously knew that a portion of the building was about to collapse.” [Almost as if the structural damage had been evaluated and the inevitable foreseen. Or evidence of a controlled demolition at the Pentagon to hide the tiny hole. Whichever fits your theory].

“Danner's testimony shows that there must be thousands of people who know that the official story is a lie, but they don't realize that their information is important, or they are too frightened to talk." Yet despite on-site intimidation, Danner found the gumption to make “a sarcastic remark to a government agent about how there was a tremendous loss of life from the airplane crash but he couldn't see any of it. Danner's final conclusion was that there was no 757; the official story is a lie.” Incredible. In-credible.

Clearly impressed, Eric told Sam something to the effect of “Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and most other "truth seekers" and the media are part of the criminal network! They are deceiving us by covering up the role of Zionists. […] Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened writes that "government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon." Well, that makes me a government shill. Do you trust Rivero? Have you noticed that Rivero promotes Alex Jones and other liars?”

Good thing Eric was there to help Danner pass on the truth – as he’d always said, a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon and finally someone who had seen it happen had the guts to come forward to him. Not just one part but all of it. He saw the craft clearly enough, the light poles, the one and only engine, the “Steins” bossing people around, and the controlled demolition of the embarrassing impacted segment. Man this Danner had some balls, and his life was clearly in danger for his ability to expose the criminal network’s whole scam. He would soon be patched in to two hard truth warriors of the anti-Zionist patriot movement, who would work hard to get Danner on the record just in case anything unfortunate should happen to him.

Source: Hufschmid, Eric. “Sam Danner; An Eyewitness to the Crash at the Pentagon!” Based on an interview Recorded 29 June 2006. http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html
mp3 audio of the interview: http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour1.mp3

ONE RING DAMAGED: EARLY ARGUMENTS

To understand the dry humor with which I take the following arguments, it helps to understand the depth of Flight 77’s penetration of the Pentagon. The world'slargest office building consists of 5 sides with five corners and five concentric rings, labeled A-E; Each ring, when viewed from above, is separated by a space for light and air. The massive Flight 77 hit the outermost E ring, on the southwest-facing side at a 45 degree angle from the south and disappeared inside the building, according to the official account burying itself over 300 feet into the building through rings E, D, and C, terminating between the C and B rings, in a ground-level roadway known as the "A-E Drive." (just about dead center in the picture above)

One evident mistake on the original Meyssan-produced Hunt The Boeing site that has reverberated through the works of others is the contention that since only the E ring showed signs of damage when viewed from above (see right - and 'damage' seems to mean total collapse), “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." The younger Meyssan asked his readers "how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?”

Likewise, Australian 9/11 Truther Gerard Holmgren looked at this building layout and decided less than two months after the attack “I have estimated the depth of the ring itself to be about 32 feet [note his use of the singular “ring”] and the open space behind it, about the same.” I estimated closer to 45-foot rings and 30-foot spaces, but he may be closer. Whatever. The point is, his contention that “the outer ring collapsed, leaving a total depth of about 65 ft that the plane could potentially have fitted into, considering that the second ring of the building was intact.” Indeed, many skeptics, especially early on, saw only one ring collapse and presumed only one ring was damaged. Raphael Meyssan said precisely that, and an intrepid few no-planers pained themselves to look on the ground between the rings and saw no debris or damage there. The ground there is clear, so the attack object never entered the other rings and never left the outer E ring.

Likewise, Zionist-JFK assassination obsessed Eric Hufschmid has made this same exact case (in at least one exception to the Franco-German War construct). This I found in his intensely researched and richly illustrated book Painful Questions, released September 2002. The "Flight 77 Hits the Pentagon?" section of his book also carried headings like "the airplane was larger than one floor," "where is the airplane debris?" "Two pieces of the airplane were discovered," "where is the aircraft debris?" "the terrorists were the world's best pilots," "the CIA drones," and "if it looks and acts like a drone..." He also cites two explosions, one from "the missile," and the other from "a bomb inside the Pentagon." The illustration at right is a scan right from the book, where he too sees only one ring penetrated, clearly nowhere near enough space to fit the missing plane. He did show the punch-out hole inside the C-Ring, but mistakenly cited it as on the inside of the impacted, outer E-Ring. Such a gaffe is noteworthy, in that any place for the plane to hide is "squeezed inside the red area of figure 9-10" and inside the red-flag area of worse-than-worthless 9/11 theories.

This is the punch-out hole Hufschmid cited on the inside of the E-ring. By 2004-05 most people had figured out it was actually on the inside wall of the C Ring, right on the A-E drive (hence the no parking sign next to it). But for the plane to get there, they still saw six walls’ worth of the stuff smashed through in the "E" and "C" rings. But this ignores another key fact – that it only had the two heavy walls to contend with (explained in my “nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy” post). Meyssan, Hufschmid, and Holmgren at that time could not see that the spaces between the rings wasn’t ground but roof over the second floor, and the plane pierced the building at the first-floor level. There is no ground-level exit on the inside of the E-ring. The spot Hufschmid showed does not exist on this building.

But that was 2002 - I checked on the current status of Hufschmid's argument in Painful Deceptions, his video first released in February 2005. He no longer shows his red area of the E-ring, but still says “the passengers and debris from Flight 77 were confined to a very tiny area” and implies neither was present at all, arguing forcibly for a Global Hawk drone strike. At 17:53 his narrator says "it is obvious that whatever hit the Pentagon was not big enough to be a Boeing 757." He showed a location shot described as “the corridor between rings. There is nothing in this rubble that looks like Flight 77 or pieces of luggage.” All that’s there is broken glass and intact (reinforced) windows that fell from their moorings. But that’s to be expected. It’s the back side of the E-ring’s third floor, which was badly shaken but never entered by the plane. What he seemed in 2005 to take as the ground level between rings is actually the roof of the second floor, well above the plane’s massive damage. He seems to think this photo is of a spot near his misplaced punch-out hole, which he then shows and points out again no plane wreckage, but no longer specifies just where it is in the building’s ring structure.

Despite the slight back-off on this embarrassing gaffe, Hufschmid still clearly qualifies as a Frustrating Fraudster of the first order. His case at the Pentagon at least is stupid and flat wrong, and I will cover it more in-depth in an upcoming post reviewing Painful Deceptions' take on that evidence in total. If you'd like the review to seem more relevant, feel free to watch the video yourself first. I haven't looked into Holmgren's current take, but from the way all these guys operate, once they've staked out an argument, it becomes their trademark and their turf, and they never abandon it no matter what. I'd bet money he hasn't modified anything significantly either.