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

FROM THE BLIND SPOT TO THE EMPTY SIDE

Curiously, among the 266 people on board the attack planes, defense contractor Raytheon lost a remarkable four employees, three of them on Flight 11 alone. But I mention this because of the fourth Raytheon casualty: Stanley Hall, 68-year-old Director of Program Management for Electronic Warfare, perished on Flight 77 on his way to the company's operations in Goleta, California. He had been described by colleagues as “our dean of electronic warfare,” and had been instrumental in their development of anti-radar technology. [1]

Strange then that the plane carrying Raytheon’s anti-radar expert also proved the most effective of the four attack planes at evading radar tracking. As American 77 bore down on Washington, it crossed Ohio and West Virginia unseen by civilian controllers, who thought perhaps it had crashed. For some reason, we’re told, there was no radar at all here, with tracking done only by transponder in a system falsely called “secondary radar.” [2] And the hijacked plane had one of those stupid transponders – as they all seem to – that can be easily disabled by hijackers, as all hijacked flights were on 9/11.

While the other three weaponized airliners were tracked by radar despite the transponder invisibility, Flight 77 was unseen for over half an hour after the hijackers killed its transponder signal. At about 9:25, it entered Washington airspace, which did have radar that picked it up to everyone’s worry. Vice-President Cheney was informed immediately, but twelve minutes later it hit the Pentagon with, allegedly, no warning at all. [3] A spokesman said “the Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way,” and so obviously had implemented no defense and no evacuation. [4] This despite the just-established protocols for an airliner hit on the building that resulted from a series of drills over the year before 9/11.

And then there’s the Pentagon renovation project (PENREN), a years-long program of updating and remodeling the massive building one wedge, or section, at a time. It just happens that of the five sections, Wedge One, the Navy Wing and home of the US Naval Command, was the first up. Work had begun back in 1998, and a few select tenants moved in as early as February 2001. The grand opening for the wedge was held on March 8, and the first Naval tenants were handed their key a week later, eventually running their Naval Command Center in its brand new office space. [5]

Damage to the Pentagon’s West side, penetrating the outermost E, D, and C rings

But six months later as the sixty-year anniversary of the Pentagon’s original ground-breaking approached, work was still underway on at least the telecommunications systems, hence the giant spools of cable out front; the area was still a fenced-off construction zone when it came under air attack on September 11. The wedge had supposedly been upgraded with fire-suppressing sprinklers, blast-resistant windows, and more support columns in the off chance terrorists should strike at the very heart of America’s military. Renovation officials have cited their upgrades as slowing the plane’s impact and minimizing death, though it plowed through roughly 300 feet of these improvements.

Due to the incomplete nature of the work space, only about 800 people were in the entire wedge one, where there would normally have been about 5,000, further minimizing the death that day. [6] In fact the plane struck just south of the dividing line with wedge two, and pushed fires well into that section; Civil Engineering magazine noted "far less damage and loss of life than the terrorists might have anticipated," and for this credited "the facts that renovation of Wedge 1—an undertaking that substantially fortified that segment—was within days of completion, and that Wedge 2, about to undergo renovation, had been vacated." [7]

Russell Pickering aptly noted of these oddities:

“It's the fact that they hit "near the middle" of the only section that had been "renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows" where the "staffing levels were lower than usual" on the "other side" of the building from "the top-level military brass, including U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld" one day before the completion of the renovation on "Wednesday, September 12th, 2001" that has generated some suspicion about the "well-coordinated" attacks.” [8]

For good or ill, this is precisely true.

Sources:
[1] Lecacy.com Tribute: Stan Hall. Tribute submitted by Jane Weiger. Accessed October 9, 2005 at: http://www.legacy.com/Sept11.asp?Page=TributeStory&PersonId=91767
[2] Phillips, Don. “Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap.” Washington Post. November 3, 2001. Page A06. Accessed November 12, 2004 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2
[3] Thompson, Paul. The Terror Timeline. New York Regan Books. 2004. Page 416.
[4] Newsday, 9/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01. Via: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
[5] Pentagon renovation details. Accessed November 12, 2005 at: http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects-W1.htm
[6] See [3]. Page 422
[7] Powell, Ann Elizabeth. “September Eleventh: The days After, the Days Ahead.” Civil Engineering Magazine. November 2001. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html
[8] Pickering, Russell. "The Pentagon." Pentagon research. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/pentagon.html

THE A3 SKYWARRIOR THEORY

Besides the curious lack of video verification, one of the reasons earlier no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theories managed to survive was that they offered few if any concrete assertions, primarily focusing on what they believe DIDN’T happen. But Karl .B. Schwarz saw the writing on the wall by 2005 and dismissed the no-plane theories, linking to Jim Hoffman’s refutation of the one engine (missile) theory.

But he differed from Hoffman on the probable type, and here is where Schwarz’s theory fails; he narrows it down to specific model that can be easily verified or refuted. Between the gear photos, eyewitness accounts, and the damage pattern, he saw clear signs of Pratt & Whitney JT8D model engines, as used on the nearly phased-out A3 Sky Warrior, a largish fighter jet first made in 1962.

His specificity gave his theory a short shelf-life, with his first arguments appearing in December 2004, followed quickly by the February 2005 release of his “Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble, part 5.” Russell Pickering exchanged a few e-mails with Schwarz around this time, offering research indicating it clearly was not an A3, but he never heard a word back as Karl amped up his campaign. On March 2 Schwarz was joined by Jon Carlson’s first A3 piece, which spurred Pickering’s first counter-argument on May 3. The three of them have been at it ever since, into mid-2006 at least, Schwarz and Carlson citing almost nothing but each other, and Pickering offering solid fact and logic. Let’s take a quick look at the case to see who wins.

The A3 Skywarrior is 76 feet long, about half the length of a 757, and has a wing-span of about 72 feet, just over half that of the alleged Flight 77. Of course its engines are also much closer, giving us roughly a 30-foot-wide penetrating core, which does not match the 70-foot-wide entry wounds at the Pentagon nearly as well as a 757 with its fifty-foot-wide core hitting at a 45 degree angle (such destruction from an A3 would be less than 45 feet across [Pythagorean Theorem].

Schwarz never bothered looking at the evidence for a 757 – that was all Bush lies, the official story that had to be wrong. So he started with his WTC attack plane, fingered as the smaller 737, and pitted this against the A3 in a competition for what hit the Pentagon. Since eyewitnesses “said it had two engines hanging under the wing [and] that it was much smaller than a 737 […] The only other [matching] airframe out there that is still operational is an A3 - a process of elimination.”

His case is thus: damage pattern + eyewitness accounts = smaller plane than a 737 + engines beneath wings = A3. The conclusion is obvious; “I defy anyone to find an A3 Skywarrior in the hands of any Arab terrorist on 9-11 or any other day. There are only three sources of those jets,” all in the hands of the US Air Force and/or Raytheon. [2] It’s a remarkable craft in his estimation. Schwarz asked radio host John Stadtmiller “you remember when that picture was taken at the Pentagon of the people carrying the wing out? […] There's a lot you can tell about the shape of that wing even though it is underneath that blue tarp. That wing is a configuration of an A3, not a 757." [3] So he sees an A3 hitting the bunker and plowing itself at least 75 feet deep, its wings just cutting the concrete building in half like butter, and sees one of them later carried away intact enough to tell its original size and shape. What the hell kind of metals does he think that plane is made of? And that he's using the "blue tarp smuggling op" as evidence for his plane is so silly I just peed myself.

But it’s not just the super cutting wings that sealed it for him anyway, but the telltale engine. Small engine parts + eyewitness reports + damage pattern = A3 = JT8D, apparently the official engine of A3 Skywarriors everywhere. But the knowledgable folks at Aerospaceweb were perplexed. “We have not found any source that indicates the JT8D was ever used on the A-3 Skywarrior, so it is unclear why the originators of the A-3 theory are so infatuated with this particular powerplant.” [4] Russell Pickering checked out their claims, and found (and showed) a website that listed all A3's in service and their registration numbers, which could be internet searched to further pages showing just which engine that craft is equipped with. Pickering did so and concluded “you can go through this drill on every single active A3 and there is no JT8D ever mentioned.” [5] So Schwarz gave us his hard proof of the Bush lie, and he put his reputation on the line with a plane and engine model, neither of which fits the crime scene and which have nothing to do with each other. By citing a craft of such limited numbers, in fact, he set this up so it was not only debunkable but swiftly debunkable.

I’m not sure why he chose such a strategy while ratcheting up the revolutionary political rhetoric. His "Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble part 5” piece made a few good points, like about Bush Sr. sending Shiites to the slaughter in the 1990s so his son could use the mass “excuse graves” to justify his “oil on the brain” war. But the meat and potatoes of his short, vague essay is precisely the A3 Skywarrior theory Pickering and others have so easily tossed aside. That was it besides overblown rhetoric. I heard something pop but it wasn’t any Bush mythology, and I'm left wondering if Karl ever stopped working as a Bush sr. Strategist AND why he's being so overly-obvious in his disinfo tomfoolery. He could tell way better lies than these if he wanted to.

Update: Funny picture I found "proving" an A3 at the Pentagon using the CCTV video and ridiculous enhancements. They may as well have drwn in the little needle-nose thing to boot.


Sources:
[1], [3], [4], [5] Pickering, Russell. "The A3 Skywarrior Pentagon Theory: What is it and Where did it Come From?" Rense.com. March 19 2006. http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm
[2] Schwarz, Karl W.B. "9-11 Peantagon." April 19 2006. http://www.theperfectsystem.net/articles/karl_schwarz/ks_41906.htm
[6] 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