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

ANOTHER SIX BACK? THE 9:32 CASE

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 2: ANOTHER SIX BACK? THE 9:32 CASE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Nov 13 2007, 3pm
Last Updated Nov 17 1am

Now that we’ve established that accepted times associated with the Pentagon attack have previously proven false, let’s turn our attention to the current attempt by some researchers at another shift in the impact/explosion time back again to about 9:32. Most well-known and visually convincing among the evidence backing a 9:32 event at the Pentagon is a pair of stopped wall clocks recovered at there: the one on the left was found in the heliport outside the building but near impact point, stopped at 9:31:30. At right is a clock from an office inside or near the damaged section, stopped at 9:30:40. It would be rather a coincidence for a 9:38 event to find two clocks roughly synched 6-7 minutes behind at the military’s lockstep headquarters. It stretches the imagination, and seems almost certainly significant and worthy of examination.
I’m not sure when the first 9/11 researcher discovered or commented on these clocks, but I would guess they were noticed one at a time almost immediately upon publishing. The earliest mention I’ve seen of both (exactly as pictured above) is by Pentagon no-planer Ralph Olmholt, who had noted back in late 2004 that “two stopped Pentagon clocks point to approximately 9:31, as do a variety of other reports and quotes. The dog didn’t bark on cue.” [1] After apparently simmering a while in obscurity, the 9:31-9:32 meme has amplified since then, trying to write itself a page in history in 2006.

Honegger’s Historic Moment
This timeline revision has been fueled most specifically by its prime champion, Barbara Honegger, a top journalist at the Navy Postgraduate School and oft-cited 9/11 researcher. Her recent works include The Pentagon Attack Papers, written September 2006 and published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy. [PDF link - html link] In this, she argued against a big plane, using the “legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon" provided by clowns like Karl Schwarz, and for a traditional bombing that, she's certain, happened at 9:32.

Anything happening at the official time of 9:37 was some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757,” most likely an A3 Skywarrior as identified by Schwarz. [2] That as I see it serves no purpose but to get the wrong plane parts inside and trick the witnesses with the wrong plane hitting at the wrong time. Too bad the debris and witnesses really agree on a 757 much better than a tiny A3, and that no one has reported any plane flying into an already bombed and smoldering building. Whatever the overall logic of Honegger’s case, the 9:32 evidence stands on its own to some extent and forms the core of her piece, which opens hyperbolically:

“The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Earthquake of 1906 with a series of front-page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment “The Big One” hit. A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that “captures it all.”

Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the “Official Lie” of what happened that terrible morning. The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim.”

The reason Honegger offers for the official timeline lie is shaky; she found that NORAD commander Gen. Larry Arnold sent one of his fighters on a low-level recon mission after the attack (the pilot “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.”) She concludes “this fighter jet—not Flight 77— is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.” The loop would also match the near-circular loop shown in the Flight Data Recorder attributed to Flight 77, in Honegger land probably the fighter’s track set into the context of black box data, as it was copied over elsewhere.

So 9:32 is verboten because lacking a radar track for a 9:32 plane, officials decided at one point “to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.”” Now however they’re caught in a loop from this and “the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.” [3] This doesn’t make much sense, but the clocks do not stand alone; She cited “converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon,” a mixed bag of evidence that does indeed have a compelling correlation of time if not of total logic. She provided four points to directly support the clocks, which I’ll address in the next post.

Gaffney: 35,000 at 9:32?
One more credible mind that bought Honegger’s case and helped elaborate on it is Mark Gaffney, introduced in the previous post. Having previously explained the documented presence of a top-secret E4B doomsday plane over DC, in his follow-up part II, Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Gaffney nods to Honegger and verifies some of her points, though refreshingly, he disagrees with her on the evidence of a 757 strike, citing “the recovery of Boeing 757 parts from within the Pentagon” and that “the flight recorder data shows […] there were no interruptions in its flight path.” Gaffney cited Honegger’s clocks as Compelling physical evidence; “it appears that the powerful shock wave that occurred at the moment of impact knocked the clocks off the wall," stopping their hands "within a minute of the same time. Were they both running 5-6 minutes late? I think not.”

Gaffney's mental gymnastics in supporting a 9:32 event are not clumsy, but not enough to pass the hurdle of proof. He cited the 9/11 Commission, reporting that "the first notice to the military that Flight 77 was missing [...] had come by chance" when NEADS made a call TO the FAA's Washington Center at 9:34. The Commission had concluded ‘radar’ contact was lost at 8:56 am when the transponder was switched off – meaning a 38-minute FAA delay getting this information to the military, and even then only when they called for news. But looking at the transcript of this 9:34 call, Gaffney decided that it seemed to indicate contact was just lost, and notes the "Washington staffer [...] mentions, almost in passing, that Flight 77 was at 35,000 feet when it disappeared from radar. Seeing this, the average reader will probably conclude that Flight 77 was still at cruising altitude when Washington Center lost radar contact at 9:34 AM.” [4]

The doomed flight apparently was still airborne, but not this high. If this were true, it would then have to dive from 35,000 feet to basically sea level and impact altitude in less than four minutes, a feat that I hope ‘the average reader’ would discern as implausible. But this hypothetical false impression that no one I know of has ever had, Gaffney notes, would be a ‘misreading’ - therefore the staffer “was merely restating the plane's last known altitude, data that was current some 38 minutes before, […] Yet, the above transcript is ambiguous enough to reinforce the false impression that the plane was still aloft and cruising at 9:34 AM.” [5]

As covered in the previous post, he offers that the original time of 9:43 was set to provide cover for the E4B apparently circling DC at that time, so it could be said to be Flight 77 just before impact, though the un-acknowledgeable craft actually seems to have passed three minutes later than the time they set. Presumably fearing they’d stepped too far from the real time of 9:32 for which evidence might surface, or concerned that 9:43 indicated too slow a response, did they slide on over to the safer time 11 minutes earlier? No, they settled in the middle with 9:38, apparently afraid of straying too far from covering the E4B, though now eight minutes prior to its appearance, and apparently ignorant that conflating 77 and the E4B would lose all meaning once radar and FDR data became known to show 77 never did fly over DC anyway, despite the official over-DC flight path disinformation that some, like Gaffney, believe occurred for this same reason.

Among the Chat Monkeys
For a while there the 9:32 meme was all the rage at the Loose Change Forum; while I’ve been active in recent months, members JackD, SPreston, and others have jointly rallied around the clocks and other clues as evidence of a massive timeline cover-up. Example thread: Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. This revision has been championed there most forcefully by multi-forum ‘thesis monkey’ “Terral.” Using flawed reports, ‘expert’ testimony, ‘well-known’ but un-illustrated ‘facts,’ biblical scripture and deep theology sandwiched between blunt insults, silly rants, over-labeled under-comprehended graphic analyses, and the ‘proven’ time of impact of 9:31:39, he seeks to prove an impact by a cruise missile that crimped off the light poles with its ‘bowed shockwave’ of air, trailed by a decoy flyover, which he seems to believe is exactly what happened at9:31:39, the time proving the event and vice-versa. The graphic below shows the ‘before and after’ from his initial event and a ‘9:36’ follow-up A3 attack ala Honegger, just to get some jet fuel outside and engine parts inside to create the ‘three punch-out holes.’ Terral hammers away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact, based on Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing, and dismisses any Pentagon theory that doesn’t carefully cite this time as the “official Bushie/Rove / DoD 9:38 AM 'First Explosion' Cover Story,” pushed by what he calls “the DoD and their Cover Story Operatives.” Terral also says “LC members running from thread to thread doing DoD dirty work," including myself perhaps foremost, "have the same innocent blood on their hands” as the perpetrators, and are afraid to confront the overwhelming 9:32 evidence, which is exactly what I will wrap my bloody hands around in the next post and we'll see how well it holds up (hint - the clocks are as good as it gets).

Sources:
[1] Olmholt, Ralph. "The Dog Should Have Barked." Pentagon Research.com. Undated (html creation date: Dec 22 2004). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/098.html
[2] Honegger, Barabara. “The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006. html version: http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html PDF link: http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf
[3] See [2].
[4] Gaffney, Mark H. The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II): Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Rense.com. July 5, 2007. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
[5] See [4].
[6] Terral. Posted Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum->9/11 Research->The Pentagon ->Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. Page 1.

BARBARA HONEGGER

THE PSYCHIC MUNCHKIN BEHIND THE HOLY GRAIL
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 15 2006

Perhaps the oddest case in the small but fertile world of government functionary-9/11 Truth crossover is that of Barbara Honegger, a dedicated but elusive and little seen 9/11 warrior with murky roots (apparently military and intelligence). She was allegedly into weird parapsychic stuff, channeling voices of supercomputers from the future and whatnot, [1] before she went to work in the late 1970s for a rising star named Martin Anderson at the Hoover Institute (where he remains as a Senior Fellow). She then followed Anderson to the White House as an assistant to join the Reagan-Bush transition team in 1980. Anderson advised Reagan on everything from foreign intelligence to education, finance, and arms control, probably worked for Bush sr., and during the Clinton Years focused on teaching classes at Stanford (home of the Hoover Institute and where Condi Rice was briefly provost). Anderson was later an advisor to George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign, [2] and eventually became a member of Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Policy Board in 2001. [3]

Muchkin Honegger smiling with Reagan and Bush in the White House.

Honegger herself had split off from her Republican benefactors early; she only served the Reagan White House as a researcher and policy analyst until she resigned in 1983 under unclear circumstances – either over sexual discrimination or something else. In May 1985 Newsweek ran a piece on Honegger titled “The Munchkin's Musical” that stated “White House aides began whispering that Honegger was a believer in ESP who claimed she'd ridden on Halley's comet.” [4]

At the time she was also among the first to have leaked details of the “October Surprise” scandal, much of which was later verified by numerous involved parties. The deal was allegedly made by George Bush and William Casey to delay the release of the hostages in Iran - a delay that cost Carter the White House and gained it for Reagan and Bush. [5] Her charges culminated with the 1989 book “October Surprise,” predating Gary Sick’s work of the same name (which does not mention her) by two years. In the end, the scandal cost Reagan nothing, covered up by an investigation headed by a certain Lee Hamilton, who would go on later to 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group fame. Honegger later left a small mark on the Iran-Contra scandal, carried out as it was by largely the same networks responsible for the October Surprise, continuing to weave a picture of Bush-centered intrigue.

Despite all this, she not only remained alive but went on to tie Bush's son and former Defense Secretary in with carrying out 9/11, her works on which carry the disclaimer "all of Honegger’s research and publications on September 11 are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement." This is because in 1995 she was given a cushy job as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, which she holds till the present, writing about such things as a cyber-defense exercise in 2002: “all the National Security Agency’s Trojan horses and Air Force and Army’s info-warriors couldn’t break through the cyber walls erected by the Naval Postgraduate School’s ace “Blue” Team,” she wrote. [6] How ironic then that what some suspect of being NSA Trojan horse 9/11 arguments should have eventually broken through her psychic shields and into her research.

Honegger’s role in the 9/11 Truth movement is huge and will perhaps go down as her crowning achievement, for good or ill. Her legacy here is centered on revealing to Mike Ruppert inside info on the War Games of 9/11 which scrambled the defense and were probably co-ordinated by a Maestro working for Dick Cheney. These revelations formed what Ruppert called “in my opinion – the holy grail of 9/11 research,” and a key point for the smarter edge of the movement at large. [7] Her credentials thus seem solid, but her later works I’ve seen are sloppy and full of holes and leaps. In October 2004 she reportedly told a forum in Los Angeles that “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was really Osama bin Laden, who apparently dyed his hair, trimmed his beard, removed a few wrinkles and turned himself in as it were by trying to ignite his shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight. [8]

Honegger’s later works include "The Pentagon Attack Papers," published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ “The Terror Conspiracy,” 2006, taking her squarely into this blog's turf. In her Pentagon analysis, she argued against a big plane and for a traditional bombing. This, she's certain, happened at 9:32, with anything happening at the official time of 9:37 being some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757.” She cites a mixed bag of evidence, from hard fact like a stopped clock to repeated government “slips” to irrelevant coincidences, and has cited war games at the Pentagon that morning, which are unverifiable but likely incorrect. [9] (I will post on this theory in more detail sometime soon).

She has also tied the alleged original pilot of Flight 77 before it was hijacked, Captain Charles Burlingame, to “a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” She appears to be the source of the similar charge laid out in Loose Change, second edition’s opening segment. It’s an intriguing possibility, but it doesn’t help her tentative case that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that […] Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [10] Maybe that parapsychic training is helping her to fill in the gaps with right-brain impulses or insights from the future that make it all make sense…

No more promising is her citation of “the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:" “the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width," "no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building," "wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757.” [11] Of course my debunkings are legion as well, or getting there. "The small hole" - the unmarked lawn - the plane parts - The A3 Sky Warrior Theory.

While her reputation in the movement is generally sterling and I don’t know enough to cast large stones, these aspects of Honegger’s works – her unexplained leaps, need to tie Cheney in personally, and especially disagreeing with me over the Pentagon evidence - are deeply flawed. Whatever her intentions, she has served as a useful and strangely credible-seeming source, and also a comet-riding psychic moonbat in the employ of the US military pushing among the worst 9/11 theories. That doesn't prove anything but it's worth considering.

Sources:
[1] http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn202b.htm
[2] “2001: Mr. Hoover Goes to Washington?” Myszewski, David. Stanford Review. Volume XXV, Issue 6: January 2001
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXVII/Issue_7/2001/
[3] Martin Anderson: Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow. http://www.hoover.org/bios/anderson
[4] Source lost... I'll check at the library and get back...
[5] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhonegger.htm
[6] Honegger, Barbara. “NPS Aces Second Annual DoD Cyber Defense Exercise.” http://www.nps.navy.mil/PAO/Internal/Cyber_Defense.htm
[7] Ruppert, page 336.
[8] Propaganda Patterns: Official Stories, Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Distracting Disinformation
a political map of political collapse and possibilities. http://www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html
[9] Honegger, Barbara. “THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to THE TERROR CONSPIRACY by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006 http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html
[10] "War Games" by the US military on 9/11: paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?” http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[11] See [9].

THE BLUE TARP SMUGGLING OP EXPOSED

The Blue Tarp Smuggling Op Exposed
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
December 18 2006
(title repair and slight update 1/21/07)

The 'movers' with their box shrouded in blue mystery

I recall near the end of my days at LetsRoll 911 Made Simple running across the story of what I’ll call the “blue tarp smuggling op” – A member at LetsRoll 911 posted in December 2004 a thread titled “coffin with Blue Tarp Takin Away from Pentagon,” with a link that alerted me to the above picture. [1] After I left, others there looked to recent “news reports” to clarify that this was indeed a Pentagon team removing a large crate filled with some evidence – perhaps the chassis of the attack craft. I missed a later LetsRoll thread started by member “Sinister Dick Cheney” in September 2005: “What's Under the Blue Tarp in Crate?” SDC showed the picture and offered some guesses: “A cruise missile that turned out to be a dud? An engine from an F-16 or an A-3 Skyhawk?” [2]

The “news reports” leading to this conclusion seem to have been from Karl Schwarz, Jon Carlson, and Tom Flocco, all of whom have their history with controversial and downright boneheaded theories. In April 2005, Karl Schwarz told radio listeners that "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." The following month Flocco in weighed in with an implausible narrowing of the case to: “a group of military personnel and federal officials in suits tightly covered the piece of wreckage with a blue tarp and carried it away to a waiting truck. No reporters or independent aircraft experts have been permitted to examine any of the recovered aircraft parts and no subpoenas have been issued to hear public grand jury testimony from the ‘movers.’” [3]

Jon Carlson had been running pieces on Rense.com arguing along with Schwarz for an A3 Sky Warrior as the Pentagon attack vehicle. On April 24 2006 he too mentioned the photo that “was first posted on a military server but NOW even it is gone as the link to it is dead.” Carlson wondered “can this small group of men, some middle-aged and paunchy, carry the entire wing end of an A-3 over their shoulders like this? Or, could they be carrying something else entirely...perhaps some debris with human remains or blood all over it? Or some piece of classified material? We may never know the truth.” [4]

I didn’t look into the issue at all, although I passed it on in largely the LetsRoll context on my early blog in 2005. But the mystery was resolved to my standards at least by a certain Russell Pickering at the Pentagon Research website, whose work deserves a post of its own here soon. On a page created in late 2004 but that I just recently discovered, he summed up a refreshingly verifiable and amusingly simple explanation.

“The first clue" Pickering cited that the photo would prove irrelevant to any conspiracy theory "is that the photo was taken by the military, reviewed and then "RELEASED" to the public.” Looking at it now, I see it's by Tech Sgt. Jim Varhegyi, USAF, taken at an unknown time on September 11. By the sun I'd say AM, probably about 11:00. How on earth could they have dug the plane/missile out of the wreckage within two hours, while fire was still raging inside, boxed it up, and hauled it across the lawn to the moving truck? Referring to the picture above, Pickering broke his analysis down into points:

“1) Notice that there is no significant weight on their arms.
2) Look carefully inside to see that it is hollow.
3) They are inside the guardrail carrying towards the grass.
4) There are only two trees on the Pentagon grounds. You can see one of them in the background which helps locate this shot.
5) The grass, lamp pole, guardrail and the concrete divider also provide clues to locating this shot."

Here I represent with full respects Pickering’s photo analysis:

"1) See that the grass, tree, lamp pole, guardrail and the concrete divider are in the exact positions they would be in photo 1.
2) See that other tents are being used on the grounds.
3) The tent right next to the guardrail may be the one they are placing in photo 1.” [5]

He re-argued his case again in April 2006 at Rense.com - the day after Carlson’s piece was run - explaining the mysterious blue box was merely a service tent, this one used for decontamination of rescue and cleanup workers. [6] Also note that The two-layer blue-gray tarp is there, the white top, the right size, the right location. Only an idiot or a fool could not see - after looking at hese two pictures - that the photo that started the ruckus is of the team ten feet and one second away from setting down that tent at lower left. Any other conclusion is laughable, and all this was known and available on the internet well before 2006 when Dylan Avery ignored the facts to note vaguely in Loose Change Second Edition “employees of the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box shrouded in blue tarp. Why the mystery?”

This was also available before the September 2005 thread at LetsRoll started by Sinister Dick Cheney. One sharp poster “Hybrid EB” responded “unless everyone is walking backwards, the blue tarp is being carried TO the Pentagon, not away from it. […] the tarp could be a makeshift tent or covering of some sort that's completely hollow inside. So responding to your question, if all I'm given is this picture, my money goes on absolutely nothing.” SDC responded: “No sorry news reports clearly said they were taking wreckage away from the Pentagon. […] I was thinking it's something that would clearly be from a vehicle other than Flight 77. It'll remain a mystery forever we'll never know for sure.” member Vodalus weighed in “whatever it is, it is very lightweight, from the way they are carrying it, so I doubt it's an engine. […] I'd speculate on it being the remnants of the fuselage of some kind of UAV made out of a lightweight composite instead of metal. I'd also suppose that we're never going to know what it was.” [7]

Hybrid responded with a brief, well-put post featuring photos like Pickering’s and summarizing his explanation to show his precisely correct case. SDC was totally convinced: “Well done HybridEB! You seem to have solved a mystery just one of many mind you. Now please find for us the actual surveillance video!” Vodalus changed course as well. “the tents in the overhead shot in Hybrid's post have got to be what the guys are carrying.” But luckily site administrator and grand poobah Phil Jayhan stepped in, unmoved and unconvinced. He'd been happy with the one photo and the news reports, but now that more pictures had been added, he wanted more yet. “Not enough photos to prove your point Hybrid! Good enough for Dickboy cheney, not good enough for me or us; More photo proof please!” [8]

Sources:
[1] "Coffin with Blue Tarp Takin Away from Pentagon." Posted by Snidley Whiplash, December 19 2004. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4399
[2] "What's Under the Blue Tarp in Crate?" Posted by "Sinister Dick Cheney," September 4 2005. LetsRoll Forum. Pentagon. http://letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10112
[3] Flocco, Tom. "Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon." May 26, 2005 http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
[4] Carlson, Jon. "Pentagon 911 Blue Tarp Photo Uncovered." Rense.com. April 24 2006. http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm
[5] http://www.pentagonresearch.com/090.html
[6] Pickering, Russell. "The Blue "Tarp" Is A Service Tent." April 27 2006 http://www.rense.com/general70/bluett.htm
[7], [8] See [2]. Various responses.

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 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