A PUNCH-OUT FOR CARLSON’S BACKHOE THEORY

A PUNCH-OUT FOR CARLSON’S BACKHOE THEORY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 13 2007

The “punch-out hole” in the C Ring is a true mystery of the Pentagon attack, addressed by an anarchy of theories both in the conspiracy world and in the official story. Official reports fail to clearly explain the near-perfect “wall failure” at the end of the damage path through the building, though they tie it in one way or another to the airliner impact. [location, basics, and official explanations here.]

Some researchers have often seen the possibility that this hole was made on purpose, to some specification for an unknown reason. It’s been wondered if this was related to one of the secondary explosions reported by some. I had wondered on first seeing the hole’s near-perfect form and its size if it wasn’t made by emergency workers [see picture]. It's perfect for human entry, almost a doorway really.

One novel notion to this effect that I feel deserves its own brief post was proposed in 2005 by perennial no-planer clown Jon Carlson.” IT IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR,” he announced at Rense.com, “that this wall opening was made by contruction workers needing to access the inner Pentagon [and] NOT by a landing gear as claimed by Popular Mechanics. “ He presented “the evidence that the WALL OPENING next to the road that runs inside the Pentagon was actually made by a backhoe.” [1]

Carlson noted the symbols that look like upside down anarchy signs, bracketing the spray-painted words “punch out” to the right of the hole. Now, from what I know (a quick internet search) of construction terminology, a “punch list” is “a list of discrepancies that need to be corrected by the contractor,” while a “punch out” is a process of inspecting a site and making a punch-list. [2] In this case, it seems to be a directive to assess the damage inside, or an acknowledgement that the erea had been punched-out. But Carlson gets mixed up and explained “in CONSTRUCTION TERMINOLOGY 'punch-out' refers to making an opening in a wall to access the inside contents of the wall or the inner room.” [3] Oops. Better run a punch-out on Carlson’s wrecked research for any discrepancies to bill him for.

First, let’s look at the Pentagon Renovation press conference from just after the attack that Carlson took as the “FINAL WORD” that this hole was made intentionally. Presenter Terry Mitchell said on September 15:

“this pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever. As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. You can see this is the -- some of the unrenovated areas where the windows have blown out.” [4]

While it’s not clear which photo(s) he’s really referring to here, Carlson joined this quote with the photo below and for good reason. Note the markings, the flat/straight/square metal scraps (building debris), and the clear view through the gutted building to the (unrenovated) outer E Ring wall north of the impact point. It seems likely, as Carlson decided, that this is the photo referred to.


This must not be the case however – according to Russel Pickering of Pentagonresearch.com anyway, this photo was taken by a FEMA photographer on September 20, nine days after the attack, and five days after Mitchell’s presentation. [5]

Whatever he was really talking about, Mitchell’s “FINAL WORD” is not as useful as Carlson pretends; just before this quote he also said “there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there.” [6] There certainly were parts that seem to be from the plane at the punch-out [link coming], so if he’s talking about the same location, it would appear Mitchell got confused – calling it first a punch-out and then a punch-in. Or perhaps he was showing two different areas. Whatever the case, no other official sources I’ve seen mention a manmade punch-in - they all say the plane did it but can’t agree exactly how.

Carlson then looked at the photo above with its “orange circled 'V's [which] directed the backhoe operator to make the opening within the V's.” He also drew attention to “the orange arrow on left edge of the opening,” just beneath the “no-parking” sign. [7] This he seems to take as the “dig here” mark, but it was clearly painted on after the brick damage.

In fact in the first photos showing the hole there on 9/11, the wall bears no spray-painted “directions” at all to guide the operator, thus nullifying Carlson’s evidence here. This was all done after the fact. The purple backhoe directive to “punch out” the area with its bucket did not appear on the wall until September 14, just in time to be misread by Mitchell the next day. [8] The Vs and the arrow appeared earlier, late on the 12th. As for these symbols, they seem to stand for “victim,” as Pickering explained in his rebuttal to Carlson’s piece:

“[T]he markings on the wall to which Jon refers are international rescue symbols, not backhoe directions. The "V" indicates a victim has been located. If there is a line through the V (an upside down "A") that indicates the victim is deceased. If there is a circle around it, that means the victim has been removed.” [9]

Pickering’s chronological study of hole photos shows that the markings were not there by mid-day Tuesday, but the Vs had been placed, crossed, and circled by photos from that night. [10] Given the devastation inside, I’d find it curious that all bodies in that zone were cleared in less than a day before the morning of 9/13. This could be another clue, but I don't understand the procedures and it's a bit of an aside...

Despite Carlson’s transparently silly analysis, Pickering noted in his rebuttal “the exit hole is very important evidence to indicate a government cover-up because it can't be explained by an aircraft hitting the building.” [11] His worthy analyses of the hole can be found compiled here: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html Though I cannot agree with his certainty that this is something intentional, I must admit his theory makes at least as much sense as the vague official stories.

Sources:
[1], [3]. [7], [9], [11] Carlson, Jon. “PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole.” With responses from Russell Pickering. March 9 2005. Rense.com. http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
[2] Home Building Manual. Glossary. http://www.homebuildingmanual.com/Glossary.htm
[4], [6] Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, Deputy Asst. Sec. of Def. for Public Affairs, and Terry Mitchell, chief, Audiovisual Division, Office of ASD PA. The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. September 15, 2001. 11:00 A.M. EDT http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1636
[5], [8], [10] Pickering, Russell. “Exit Hole chronology.” Pentagonresearch.com. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/062.html

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

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].

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