ON THE 737 WTC ATTACK THEORY

A SMOKING GUN AND THE BULLETS DON'T MATCH

Jon Carlson's Smoking gun, found in the photo record, of the plane that he alleges was wiped from the photo record real-time on 9/11

In his drive to expose the truth about the 9/11 attacks, oddball presidential candidate Karl W.B. Schwarz has cited articles by a "Jon Carlson" (thought by some to be Schwarz himself though Schwarz denies it) posted at Rense.com. Carlson analyzed photos of engine and landing gear parts found at Ground Zero in Manhattan. By looking at undamaged parts, he was able to match some parts to those from a CFM56 engine from a Boeing 737, not the 767s that allegedly hit the towers. [1] Carlson later claimed he received an e-mail from an anonymous “Boeing 767 airliner mechanic” that agreed with his fingering a CFM56 engine, and insisted “THOSE ENGINES ON THE STREET IN NEW YORK DID NOT COME OFF A 767.” [2]

To back up Carlson's charge, Schwarz located “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,” as campaign manager Jack Allis explained. It was pure luck that he ran across video footage proving this in a French film, unrelated to 9/11, called "The Barbarian Invasion." Allis’ piece explained: “Contained in the film […] is a 1:52 second video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a 737 airliner striking the south Tower [...] he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it’s not a fake. "We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.” [3]

Schwarz seems to believe the video “should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9/11 is untrue." [4] If the “Barbarians” video shows a 737, it truly does differ from what we’ve all seen time and again – which is of course the point of tracking down a special unedited video. Just to clarify this point, I did the graphic analysis myself. Here is the famous shot of Flight 175 as it impacted the South Tower, the sides of which are 208 feet wide.

My math is based on my red line, and only approximate. If anything the green numbers are a bit high due to the fact that the plane was slightly closer to the camera and thus would look slightly larger. Wingspan, app. 163 feet. The width of the “penetrating core,” the engines and the chassis between them, looks to be about 61 feet wide.

- 767-200, the plane the “govmint” claims hit the tower: 156 foot wingspan, app. 62 foot penetrating core.
- 737-400, a sample model of 737 (not for sure the same exact make KWS cites): 94 foot wingspan, 40 foot core width.
You do the math - which one fits?

Did they only doctor pictures of the actual impact, of which there were only so many, or of all the aftermath pictures as well? Here again, with a width of 208 feet, I’ve superimposed the (app.) wingspans of a 737 and 767. The analysis here is a little less clear due to the smoke. You be the judge. Is this real evidence of a real 737 strike, doctored evidence for a 767 to cover up for such, or real evidence for a real 767?

The tower fell at just about exactly 10:00 am – so for nearly an hour, Schwarz says, the tower sat naked and exposed, its 737 wound pouring smoke in the single-most watched spectacle that moment – and either the extra damage was blown out by carefully placed charges, or everything from all these hundreds of cameras was doctored before hitting our eyes, as the impact shots obviously were. And recall much of this footage was broadcast live. If the evidence here is doctored then Carlson’s photos and that lone French video are just as suspect and we can trust nothing. A funny thing about Carlson's photo we saw at the top o' the post - if all film was seized to erase the 737, such a job may be tasked to the FBI, but this one magic photo of the telltale engine was snapped just as a uniformed FBI agent was walking by (see uncropped version below) and yet - miraculously? - it escaped the dragnet.


If one is unwiilling to swallow the video erasure theory, we are left with holographics. The cameras saw what the eyes did, but the shield ended with impact and the engine was visible for what it was. Oh, and the extra-wide damage pattern must've been blown out by bombs to make it look like a 767's profile. If one is unwilling to buy either of these, then what hit the South Tower really did have a body matching a 767, NOT a 737. Somehow this makes more sense to me.

I was considering getting ambitious and looking closer at Carlson’s engine, do some manual scouring. But for the time being I’ll let it lie. I’ve not seen anyone argue it was a 767 body equipped for some reason with piddly 737 engines, and so I see I see no need to look into the engine claims. Carlson’s anonymous airliner mechanic in fact insisted “no 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67.” [5] The only way this makes sense is by the holograph theory that the attack plane was masked to look bigger.

But if his partner Schwarz’s video shows a 737 - and IT can be proved undoctored itself – that would disprove the holographics possibility (unless it was shot with a special hologram-proof camera), and indicate again the erasure theory that the government managed to silently drop a net around all imagery of the WTC before it collapsed. Again, they intercepted, seized, altered and doctored all photos and video - all but this magical one - and then had them broadcast, sometimes live – to show a different attack plane all because they were too stupid to simply use the right model in the first place. That possibility, remote as it is, has gotten Schwarz attention and some diehard followers – but it remains an enormous IF. The video has still not been released. He’s apparently waiting for just the right moment because his case hinges on this - well this and the A3 Skywarrior theory. So who feels like voting Schwarz in '08? I can just feel the revolution ready to break. It's... exhilarating.

Sources:
[1] Carlson, Jon. "Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?" Rense.com. March 7 2005. http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm
[2] Carlson, Jon. “WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767.” Rense.com. April 4 2005. http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm
[3] 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
[4] "Articles: Pop Goes the Bush mythology bubble, Part 6." KarlSchwarz.com. Undated. http://www.karlschwarz.com/pop-goes-6.html
[5] See [2].

REYNOLDS AND ROBERTS, REVISIONIST REPUBLICANS

THE PALEOCON REBEL ALLIANCE HERE TO SAVE THE DAY
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frutrating Fraud
December 29 2006

Interestingly enough, among the throngs of those willing to publicly question the official 9/11 story and offer a MIHOP alternative, some are former Republican Party functionaries, or people with suspicious links to same. All have credentials and the ability to cite their GOP affiliations to dodge charges of obvious partisan politics, although at least two fall into the decreasingly subtle rift between the Bush administration “neocons” and disgruntled traditional conservatives. One who shares this view and the most direct Bush-9/11 Truth link is Morgan Reynolds, who had been the chief economist for the Department of Labor in George W’s first term, 2001-02. He explained in an interview and follow-up e-mail with the LibertyForum website:

“I had no idea what the Bush bunch was really like when I went to Washington in 2001. I didn't know then what I know now: neocons, O-I-L, etc. It was one part personal, one part ideological and one part adventure when I showed up for work at DOL on Sept. 4, 2001, exactly one week before 9/11." [1]

"No planes" Reynolds back in his days with team Bush

The circumstances surrounding the end of his tenure at DoL in 2002 is unclear. He later admitted a delayed realization of what was happening; "I must admit that I was slow to catch on to the emerging fascist state.” Reynolds has written for the Lew Rockwell website since late 2003, opposed to the Cheney-led neoconservatives. It wasn't until 2005 that he came out explicitly about his inside job suspicions. In June he published a piece stating that “if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,” which he believes to be the case, “then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.” He also cited the difficulty in getting the science straight, since “explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.” [2]

Reynolds buys the Frustrating fraud whole-heartedly, noting the “absence or near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage” at the Pentagon crash site. Actually he said “at each crash site,” incredibly pointing to evidence that there were no big planes at all involved in the attacks. How we all saw what didn’t actually happen is left unexplained – perhaps holographic illusions or simply computer graphics on the tee-vee and the power of myth retroactively convincing the eyewitnesses. In March 2006 he declared triumphantly “the WTC demolitions are proven and the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash.” [3]

Countering the accounts of those who saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon, he reminded us that “physical facts trump witnesses’ contradictory testimony every time.” This is true, but as I see it, the physical evidence here both trumps and verifies the eyewitness stories, which are really not very contradictory. Yet Reynolds comfortably stakes his reputation on the summation that “what we are left with is an overwhelming case against the Flight 77 theory.”

Soon on Reynolds’ heels came another “paleoconservative” former Republican economist: Paul Craig Roberts, who served as Assistant Treasury Secretary under president Reagan in 1981-82, a noted architect of "Reaganomics," a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of "The New Color Line" (1995) and “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” (2000). A crusader against judicial activism, in the 2000 election he called for the arrest of the Florida Supreme Court that tried to overturn Bush’s “victory” there. [4]

P.C. Roberts: Crusader for stolen elections and 9/11 Truth

But at about this same time Roberts also started writing a daily syndicated column on conservative/libertarian lines that within short order was churning out hundreds of articles flaying the Bush agenda. He said he hasn’t changed his political ideology but “just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth.” The ruling “Jacobin” neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al), their disastrous Iraq policy and their possible role in 9/11 were the basis for his repeated calls for the impeachment of President “Darth Dubyous.” Roberts took a more solid line with 9/11 than Reynolds had, getting less involved overall in the mechanics. But he did at least write in June 2005 “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [5]

Roberts and Reynolds supported Bush in 2000 and worked for him in 2001, respectively. Both later came to blame the people around Bush for not just allowing but carrying out the 9/11 attacks (or at least, apparently, the demolitions that capped them off). Both came to oppose Bush from the Republican right, and neither came out strongly about their 9/11 suspicions before his narrow 2004 election, waiting until after his second inauguration to drop their bombshells. For what it's worth, both broke their stories within two weeks of each other and both via kooky 9/11 conspiratainment reporter Greg Szymanski (see sources below), possibly a sign of some co-ordination.

I can't say all this proves anything, but it is well worth noting, particularly in Reynolds' case. Some take his bold stand in denying not only the official story but even the very planes we saw as a sign that he truly believes his stance and is willing to put it all on the line. Thus he lends credibility to a theory of dubious factual legitimacy. In fact it's possible that back there in the shadows a deal was made, and he feels so free to make incorrect statements becuase he's beeen granted advance immunity - and probably even some reward - so long as he pushes the stupid cases and not the dangerous ones. The possibility can be neither proved nor ignored.

Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Morgan. Interview conducted June 30, 2005. Liberty Forum.
[2] Greg Szymanski. “9/11 INSIDE JOB: Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D” American Patriot Friends Network. Jun 12, 2005.
[3] Reynolds, Morgan, PhD. "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories:: Part II of a reply to Jim Hoffman."
March 5 2006
[4] Roberts, Paul Craig. “Enabling Act for the Judiciary?”LewRockwell.com. November 27, 2000
[5] Szymanski, Greg. “Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story: Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter.'” Prison Planet. June 24 2005.