THE GLOBAL HAWK THEORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PENTAGON STRIKERS STRIKE BACK

JOE QUINN: BOOBY TRAP OR JUST A BOOB?
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 17 2007

Here I’d like to pass on a fierce and heartfelt denunciation of Jim Hoffman's meddling with the no-757 theories I just ran across by some of my favorite, newly-identified Frustrating Fraudsters: the website Signs of the Times, producers and prime promoters of the 2004 Pentagon Strike video (previously I'd thought it was done by LetsRoll911). It's a bit old now I understand, but still relevant I think. I'm a historian at heart, so it's always relevant to me.

Anyway, Signs' Joe Quinn wrote up a point-by-point renunciation of Hoffman’s October 2004 piece “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” which appeared soon after on Signs of the Times: “Hoffman seems to believe that the "no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd are disinfo artists. We found Hoffman's arguments […] to be based on anything but facts or reason. In fact, in making his case, Hoffman even resorts to using the same twisted logic employed by the Bush administration to justify the war on terror. […] it seems CoIntelPro is in full swing when it comes to the 9-11 Truth Movement.” Indeed, or something like it anyway, as Quinn's retort clearly illustrates.

"Mr Hoffman is correct in asserting that the idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is the most divisive issue among 9/11 researchers," Quinn concedes. But "the divisiveness is a deliberate ploy by CoIntelPro agents to attempt to rob genuine 9/11 truth seekers of the singularly strongest piece of evidence pointing to US government complicity in the attacks,” that being the hard and provable fact that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon. Feel free to use the handy hyperlinks I've provided to examine some of Quinn's evidence for yourself. Among his most damning evidence, “Donald Rumsfeld himself has corroborated the “missile theory.” Indeed he seemed to do just this, just a month after 9/11 and just as Meyssan started his missile theorizing, and that’s red flag number one in the theory for me.

“For Hoffman to dismiss Meyssan's sterling investigative work in exposing the obvious holes in the official Pentagon story by citing that Meyssan understated the hole in the Pentagon facade is utterly disingenuous of Hoffman,” not to mention both irrelevant and wrong, Quinn asserts. “The fact is that the main impact hole at the Pentagon WAS 16 feet wide, and a close examination of the damage either side of that hole is NOT consistent with aircraft the size of a 757. […] There is nothing sloppy about the analysis of Meyssan or Holmgren. They, like so many others, can see clearly that the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the weakest link in the official version of the events of 9/11.”

While mostly relying on the lack of airplane parts to imply no large plane, when Quinn does admit a plane part, it’s not the telltale landing gear but the wheel found in the A-E Drive. He concludes “the circular rim of the landing gear wheel that is presented as evidence by the US government is too small to be part of the landing gear of a Boeing 757, but bears a startling likeness to the rim of the wheel of the landing gear of a Global Hawk.” He didn't want to gloat or overstate his case by actually illustrating that point, so allow me.


Damn you Disinfo Jim Hoffman, if only you’d let the people see the careful no-757 arguments unhindered! Just look at that “strartling likeness!" Boeing 757 indeed. ANYTHING BUT!

“And here we get to the core of Hoffman's argument,” Quinn writes, “The idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon was seeded by the conspirators themselves in order to confuse the issue and keep conspiracy theorists divided.” Whether or not that’s true, the conspiracy theorists have done plenty good pushing the fraud all on their own. And here we also get to Quinn’s own driving issue. “Yet we notice that rather than refusing to succumb to such manipulation and cutting through the lies and sticking to the facts, Hoffman is adding his voice to the cacophony and loudly arguing against the core evidence which strongly suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.” So he should stand down and quit being divisive; he should stick to the facts, like the Global Hawk wheel at the Pentagon, rather than criticizing others who’ve chosen to do so. By looking for disinfo among his honest compatriots, Hoffman was playing into the government’s game.

Of course the Signs people weren’t doing the same, because their story is different from the government’s and is backed by proof, like the clearly non-757 wheel, and the testimonies of several old military people with weird names. And the lack of airplane parts in the photos and e-mailed eyewitness testimonies they chose to pore over. And like all good truth warriors, they recognized their own importance and the reason they could not be the ones to back down. “The simple fact is that, if it were not for the initiative that we took in creating the "Pentagon Strike" Flash presentation, there would have been NO coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" at all. Thanks to the efforts of Darren Williams, an estimated 300 million people around the world, most of them previously unaware of the truth of 9/11, have been given the opportunity to consider the truth of our reality and the people that control it." They are the only ones keeping the doors of perception open, so please Jim, just admit they're right and quit playing the Bushmob's game.

Source: Quinn, Joe. “Jim Hoffman - Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers.” Response to: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, by Jim Hoffman. November 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm

SUICIDE BY SAM DANNER: PART I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONE RING DAMAGED: EARLY ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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