samedi 9 janvier 2010

Loosechangeguide - Section 2

Avant propos
[page en construction]

Ce document est un miroir du site malheureusement disparu, le nom de domaine n'ayant pas été renouvelé. Elle a été restaurée à partir de est une mine d'informations permettant de décrypter la thèse conspirationniste des attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Il répond point par point aux arguments exposés par Loose Change 2. La reproduction de ce site a pour objectif d'en assurer la pérennité.

Les textes surlignés en jaune, et parfois précédées du repère temporel MM:SS, sont la transcription de l'audio de Loose Change 2, à laquelle contre-argumente l'auteur de

Les textes surlignés en bleu sont des extraits de documents cités par l'auteur.

9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide

And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories

Sections of this document :


9:38. Arlington, Virginia.

Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH

The 9/11 Commission says it was 330 degrees, most other sources I've seen say it was 270. Hanjour first overflew the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. The turnaround may have been due, not to great skill, but to inexperience.

A note on aircraft speeds . I don't have a reliable source for this, so I'm citing speeds that are commonly seen on the internet. Take these estimates of speed at time of impact with a grain of salt:

Flight 77 Pentagon: 530 mph (863 kph)

Flight 93 Shanksville: 500+ mph (805 kph)

Flight 175 WTC 2 south tower: 550+ mph (943 kph)

Flight 11 WTC 1 north tower: 430 mph (692 kph)

Descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes to crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash. He also believes that the other 3 flights were not piloted by Arabs, because they wouldn't have the skills. I believe that Russ Wittenburg wouldn't have the skills to be an investigator.

Its final approach took it directly across Interstate-395, knocking light poles out of the ground and bouncing off of the lawn before impact.

Bouncing off the lawn? Hardly.


First, let's meet Hani Hanjour. Hanjour came to Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August he had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172.

Who says this? It's not in the video. Hanjour did have a commercial instrument-rated pilot license. Had he flown a 172 before? How about a little research, guys? Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if takeoffs and landings were what he practiced the least on the ol' flight simulator.


"Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft."

"Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?"

"This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor, so, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.

A minute and 8 seconds to hear that Hanjour was a nice guy who was instrument-rated but who wasn't a great Cessna pilot? How about at least telling us that Hanjour wasn't able to rent the Cessna?

From the Greenbelt (Maryland) Gazette:

The standard evaluation consists of one-to-one-and-a-half-hour flights east over the Chesapeake Bay area. Hanjour paid $400 cash and provided a valid pilot's license from Arizona, Bernard said. He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him, Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. "There's no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
Well, that's also an oversimplification.


Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport that were tracking Flight 77. All thought that it was a military plane.

15:15 The on-screen quote from Danielle O'Brien, Dulles ATC, is not complete. Here's the whole quote:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."  Source

Second. The light poles. On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport.

If you really mean a minute, that's a long way away from the runway: sounds like the plane had other problems if it hit a light pole 2 miles away.

The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over 100 yards.

Impact with what, the light pole or the ground? What kind of pole was it? Where was it hit? Was the wing hit near the wingtip or root? Did anyone see the wing being torn off by the light pole? How big was the jet: probably a lot smaller than a 757 if it was private. I assume it was traveling at landing speed, not at 530 mph, correct? You need to know all this in order to make your point.


And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.

How do you know the wings weren't damaged?

Here's a still from the video of one of the "undamaged" light poles. Honest.

Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground.

They have breakaway bases for the safety of auto occupants, as do most highway light poles in the U.S. Nothing popped out of the ground. (Thanks Mark)

Another photo of an "undamaged" pole, not from "LC"


Third. You only have to look at the photos from that day to realize that whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn.

Who said anything "bounced off" the lawn?

Here's the still photo introduced that's supposed to prove that assertion.

If Flight 77 had crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon, it would have looked like this.

"Crash landed and skidded?" What in the world are you talking about?

Instead, it looked like this, without a single scratch on the lawn.

This stuff would be hilarious if the subject wasn't so serious.

If flight 77 had crashed like this, it would have slid across several lanes of highway that was filled with bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Funny, none of the dozens of witnesses reported that happening.


Fourth. Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?

WHAT??? There is much wreckage outside the Pentagon and a huge amount inside, including the remains of passengers & crew. But here's the image you use to show that there was none:

Unidentified voiceover: "You know, it, it might've appeared that way, but from my closeup inspection there's no evidence"

There's no evidence(see # 185)? How close ARE you? And WHO are you?

"of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

It didn't crash near the Pentagon, it went right into it!

"The only sight is the actual side of the building that's crashed in,"

Sounds significant. I wonder if there could be a plane in there.

"and as I said the only pieces left that you can see"

Oh, so you CAN see pieces, even from a distance.

"are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate,"

Anywhere around where he was standing, that is. Hey, here's a crazy idea: why not include a quote from one of the many people whose job it was to investigate and remove the debris, instead of just quoting people in the confusion of the immediate aftermath of the crash?

"that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon..."

Misleading. It did more than crash into the side, it went right through. The speaker didn't know that the plane was going 500+ mph.


The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.

WHAT? Sorry, that's not the "official" explanation.

Indeed. From these pictures, it seems that there is absolutely no trace of a Boeing 757.

You may think I'm making this stuff up. I'm not. This is the picture that goes with statement 190. It's technically true, of course, but could there be other pictures? Nah. Must not be.

But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet,

No one claims this.

Then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the Pentagon?

Because they're dedicated professionals who care about getting things right.

The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, which was responsible for the task, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville.

In part. Good thing, too, That was another difficult job, and they were able to positively identify all the flight 93 victims.

Keep that in mind for later.

When you'll be making an actual claim that's backed by actual evidence? We'll see.

So what is a Boeing 757 made of? I called Boeing to ask, but...

Hmm - oak? Brick? Corn cobs?

The operator informed me that Boeing refuses to give out any information regarding the construction of their aircraft. Due to the attacks of September 11th.

Yes, it's quite secret stuff, what planes airliners are made of.


But what we do know, is that the 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy

False. Flight 77 had Rolls-Royce engines.

Which are 9 feet in diameter, 12 feet long and weigh 6 tons each. Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius.

Jet fuel, also known as kerosene, is a hydrocarbon, which can retain a constant temperature of 1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel is maintained.

After 40 minutes? Boy, that burning jet fuel takes a long time to warm up! I guess that's why plane crashes never start fires - oh.

The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact.

No, it takes time to burn off.

There's all that non-fuel not burning without black smoke. The fires are spread over 100 yards. Small plane?

Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene.

No one claims it was, straw man.

I call the next section

"Gullibler's Travels"


Likewise, the two engines should have been found relatively intact at the Pentagon.

You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows.

What sort of schooling have you received that's led you to believe that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph isn't going to break into small pieces?

That's a serious question, by the way.


Instead, there was a single turbo-jet engine approximately 3 feet in diameter found inside the building.

No, that's an engine part, not an engine.

It's part of the compression section. 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 the 757. Readers should have checked engine parts first.

The AFP, a biweekly anti-Zionist, conspiracy-promoting opinion paper, is one of the MAIN sources for information in "Loose Change." Here's an excerpt from the AFP's mission statement:

You can see the future clearly if America continues her mad race to oblivion. Thanks to the press, the life-denying values-often called "democratic values"-are in vogue. Kids can't pray in school even as the taxpayers offer huge sums to the theocratic state of Israel. The Boy Scouts are scheduled for the guillotine because they don't want perverts to be scoutmasters and want to restrict membership to normal boys. The family is officially defined now as something other than what it has been since humankind appeared on this globe. The ancient Hippocratic Oath for doctors is trashed to accommodate the profitable business of abortion. Cultural communism-which is called political correctness-dominates all media. Art is literal trash and music is cacophony. Morals and speech are sewage, history as fact is viciously attacked by the media, entertainment is ethical syphilis. One must be blind not to see the direction. Where can it end? Jumping from a cliff brings a light-hearted feeling and the descent is most enjoyable until the inevitable sudden stop. Reality is not fitted with a bungee rope.
Whether you wish to choose or not, you will choose. It's the Global Plantation and Death or Liberty and Life. You will have and your children will have either an international communistic society with the very rich at the top, the bureaucrats in the middle and the rest of mankind at the bottom, or a free and sovereign America.

Okey dokey.

Well, let's regain our composure and see what "industry experts" "Loose Change's" source contacted about that jet engine part.

Chris Bollyn (of the AFP) contacted Honeywell in Phoenix, Arizona, the manufacturer of a 757's APU. An expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity told him that: "There's no way that's an APU wheel."

Phew! At least someone around here knows their arse from their APU.

Bollyn then contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, The two companies that manufacture 757 engines. Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce and John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:

That's right. Want to know why? Because Bollyn had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England that makes them! (Thanks, Orphia Nay) It says so right there in the article.

I swear i'm not making this up. It's all really in the video! But wait, there's - Karl!

KARL! We've finally got an expert source in the house!


In an article written by Karl Schwartz,

(It's Karl W.B. Schwarz, not Schwartz)

Karl W,B. Schwarz speaking at a conference of people who haven't been abducted by aliens, but who plan to be.

And what article did he write? Are you referring to this hilarious piece of wingnut paranoia and very, very tall tales (written by Tom Flocco and featuring Schwarz) in which a 12-foot exit hole made by the landing gear on the INSIDE of the Pentagon is described as the ENTRY hole on the OUTSIDE that the ENTIRE PLANE made?

(Hey, Dylan, hey Korey, hey Jason: with friends like these.)

President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-nets Security Systems

And sole employee? There appears to be no record that these companies have anything to do with aeronautics or engines. Or actual work. Schwarz is an outspoken 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He recently cancelled plans to run for the Presidency of the U.S. in 2008. He wrote a book about how much he dislikes George W. Bush. He has a website.

Dylan, can we talk? This will take a few minutes. I think it's important.


When you rely on someone as a spokesman for your cause or as an expert in a certain field, you should check their credentials to be sure they're legit. If you mention the businesses they are involved in as evidence of their expertise, you should check those also. I'm not saying that Karl W.B. Schwarz a liar and a con-man. Okay, I am absolutely saying that. But I encourage you to examine the evidence and make up your own mind.

Karl's name comes up a lot on the internet. He seems to spend a lot of time defending his good name against people who accuse him of being...difficult. I can say a few things for sure about Karl W.B. Schwarz, because they're a matter of public record.

1) He claimed to be the CEO of a telecommunications giant, COMMAXXESS:

COMMAXXESS, Inc. Offers to Acquire Global Crossing for $815 Million

Washington, DC (PRWEB) June 10, 2003 -- COMMAXXESS, Inc. (COMMAX) today announced that it has made an offer to acquire all of the assets of Global Crossing LTD., and Global Crossing Holdings LTD, collectively (Global Crossing) for consideration of over $800 million cash plus conversion of creditor claims into Newco equity shares. The COMMAXXESS offer increases the proceeds available to creditors by over $300 million above the current bid by Singapore Technologies Telemedia PTE LTD and over $100 million above the Carl Icahn / XO Communications offer announced late Friday, May 30. The offer is being forwarded today to advisors for the Bondholders and Banks and the Company and notice provided to the U.S. Trustee and Court. CONTACT: Karl W.B. Schwarz Phone: 501-[xxx]-4959.

Note how COMMAXXESS is listed as "(COMMAX)," as if it's a publicly-traded stock. I once made an offer to acquire all of the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Fort Knox. My offer was declined, even though I asserted it several times on free websites like PRWEB that distribute anything you send them as a "press release."

From an email by Schwarz:

E*Capbank had raised $1.6 billion to acquire Viatel, Ebone, WCG and GX and that deal died on a conference call between myself, UBS Warburg, and Arab investors from Dubai, Dubai Internet City, Amman, Bahrain and Riyadh. It died when the second plane hit the South Tower of WTC and all parties ended the conf call. GlobalAxxess was the only Global VAR of UUNet, out of the 15 VARs that UUNet had. Not hardly a "shell company" as you suggest - but was OFFSHORE and GLOBAL, if you get that. When WCOM bought the company and the WCOM fraud surfaced, we renamed it to COMMAXXESS to distance ourselves from that fraud, since we have nothing to do with it."

Remember that "E*Capbank." It'll come up later.

2) Schwarz claims to be the President and CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies, formerly of Little Rock, Arkansas, and recently moved to a P.O. box in Georgia. From an email correcting some misconceptions about K.W.B.S.:

"Sorry to burst your BUBBLE, but I am Karl W. B. Schwarz and you are not. Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC is a holding company of over 30 different companies and has no need for a "domain" that you just wasted your money on. Each of those 30 companies is directly involved in nanotechnology that are dependent on highly pure carbon nanotubes, which is a niche heavily dominated by Patmos holdings patents (in other names so don't waste time or money on other domains).

We are installing a $4 billion (product production volume, not costs to build) carbon nanotube manufacturing plant right now and do not advertise even where that is at this time. One of our competitors is CNI of Houston which is in part owned by Kellogg Brown & Root, so figure it out as to not being on the radar. They are having fits trying to figure me out, and if they cannot, neither can you."

Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC Karl WB Schwarz President, Chief Executive Officer 501-xxx-4959

Also on the net:

My companies are affilaited [sic] with 2 government labs and we do only what is right. We have many universities lined up to do collaborative IP R&D with us, again, only what is right.

Wow! That's a lot of business. Nearly a billon-dollar telecom deal, a $4-billion carbon nanotube plant. I'm impressed. (And there's a military contracting business that's just as big...we'll see that soon. Not to mention the banks he owns)

But did you notice something odd? The same phone number is listed for both of those huge companies! A reverse directory check turns up that it belongs to a guy named Ronnie in Little Rock, Arkansas. Ronnie says he gets calls about Schwarz and wishes that number wasn't on the internet. And what about that email address: the telecom CEO is using an AT&T account? The CEO of these huge companies gives his PERSONAL phone and email as the company contact in "press releases"? And the business addresses for these companies turn out to be a lawyer's office in a strip mall in Little Rock?

I emailed Karl to ask about Patmos, the supposed nanotube manufacturer.

"Hello. I'm interested in nanotube technology, and was wondering if you have any products on the market, or if you're at the R&D stage only. Thanks."

His reply:


We are past R&D and working on a major production center for carbonnanotubes.

Those will be used to service customer needs and 12 specificproducts that we will be spinning off over the next two years.We have over 500 PhDs working with us and many other projects in R&D in varying stages.


500 PhD's! Karl should get a second phone line. Oh, brother. Well, just for sh..s and giggles, I emailed again.

"Thank you for the information, Mr. Schwarz. My thesis at Penn (assuming it's accepted) will be on medical applications of carbon nanotube tech, so I'm eager to learn of all new developments. Can you point me to any patents or applications you might have? I searched but wasn't sure what terms to use. My thesis proposal is up for approval at the end of the month, and I'm looking to wow those cantankerous curmudgeons!"

And his reply:

Over 90% of our scientists are non-US citizens and we put our R&D and patents under non-US entities and other names. This field is cut-throat, even more than telecom was and is so we do not tip our hand until we introduce commercial applications. We have 12 that will spin off after the plant is capable of providing them the volume, purity and morphology they need in CNTs. We make SWNT, MWNT and CNF, and in final stages of machine design to mass produce C60, C80 and C120 structures.

We can have show and tell later.


Riiiiiight. I wonder when the "show and tell" will be. And note that I never mentioned "telecom" in my emails? At least he didn't ask me for money.

3) We know that Karl W.B. Schwarz has been in court a lot more than most people have.

4) We know that he could count on one hand the times he had sex with his first wife. I won't give a reference for that, but it's out there, in his own words.

5) We know he thinks George W. Bush is killing Americans with anthrax vaccine. From a letter Schwarz sent to Bush with 30 demands:

"28. I demand to know why your administration keeps injecting our troops with an anthrax vaccine known to be deadly and harmful to the health of our soldiers and now apparently wish to inject that into all Americans under Project BioShield and martial law. Is that why you have no concern whatsoever for the 3 million jobs lost, for between your TMAP lunacy and Project BioShield lunacy, well over 3 million Americans could perish if the same statistical rates hit the general population as has hit our military? Can you explain away Holocaust with "brilliant strategy policy" driven by unmitigated greed?"

Deadly AND harmful, huh?

6) And, he's buddies with 9/11 CTist Jimmy Walter! (More on Jimmy later)

From: Karl W. B. Schwarz

Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM

To: Jimmy Walter

"Hello Jimmy

You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)

The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components -erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.

""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.

Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so."

Disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them? If there WAS a problem with those panels, all that would need to be done is to replace the panel connections. The panels were just costume jewelry, not structural members. Well, Schwarz is no engineer, that's clear, if he thinks the 0.10"-thick copper skin and iron framework of a 100-year-old statue is comparable to the aluminum and steel construction of the WTC, but we can forgive him that one.

Except that we can't, since Karl claims to have been an architect in the past.

Anyway, some conspiracy theorists use this ridiculous corrosion idea to say that Larry Silverstein wanted to destroy the buildings. They are morons.

7) Remember E*Capbank, the one with the $1.6 billion in financing for Karl Schwarz's big telecom takeover, the takeover that was scuttled at the instant flight 175 hit WTC 2? I'll give you one guess who the CEO of E*Capbank was, and what its phone number was. You guessed it! See, we're making progress! And the bank's email address? "" And their website? A free Lycos page. The full website is long gone, but the text is still here. Any other "banks" that Mr. Schwarz was involved in? Sure! There's eCommerzBank and ESBanc (Look at the ES logo with the passenger jet and fireball! We're on to something now!)

8) We know that Schwarz claims to be the CEO of a very large company, I-nets Security Systems, that manufactures military Unmanned Aerial Vehicals (UAVs) that make Lockheed-Martin's Predator UAV look like a child's toy. From the Tom Flocco piece referenced above:

Schwarz is the CEO of a company which designs remote control UAVs for the U.S. Army and had a $392 million dollar Defense Department order for 32 UAVs canceled "because they would see too much over in Iraq, and because we could put in a fleet of them for what our competition was paying for a couple."

Lockheed-Martin's Missiles and Fire Control Systems UAV used in Iraq is called the Predator, which costs $45 million for each unit, has three sensors and requires a crew of 55 individuals to operate one of them, according to Schwarz.

"Our Project Medusa [see also Project Medusa] has 11 high-powered sensors that can all operate simultaneously, can stay aloft at least 24 hours, has the world's most advanced hyper-spectral system augmented by two technologies to speed up pixel analysis and detect minute anomalies in the field of view (FOV) if the operator is paying attention or not, or if his human eyes cannot even see the detail that the software detects and highlights for the operator to zoom in on," said the UAV corporate CEO.

"A crew of 55 is required to operate 5 Medusa Skypods simultaneously. A single pilot operator flies them from a single laptop or personal computer. In short, 55 operators running 55 high powered sensors with far more processing and pixel engine detection power versus 55 operators running a single Predator and only one sensor capable of running at a time. The five Medusas cost about $65 million each but have far more technology capabilities and at any given time cover a far larger area with more visual assets, " said Schwarz.

"In short, they are not toys. They even have AIM 100 lasing devices and can light up targets up to 30 miles in all directions for air strikes, artillery, mortar, or helicopters to dispose of problems...The combined area of coverage, and the number of troops they could possibly protect if all of the pet [Defense Department] aerostats were airborne at the same time, or not riddled full of machine gun holes, is about the area that a single Medusa Skypod covers...we are at least one to two years ahead of Lockheed in HAA technology...To my group it was an honor to have been asked and we proved we could deliver only to get jerked around by for months by bureaucrats protecting pet projects [like the vastly inferior Lockheed Predator]. (One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out, by Karl W. B. Schwarz, Reichenbach Publishing Company, 2004, p. 379 [821 pages])

Those are some known things about your man Karl. There are quite a few things we don't know for sure about Mr. Schwarz from our cursory Googling, such as:

  • Why are the only references to I-nets Security Systems on conspiracy-promoting websites? Why does his name not come up in connection with any Unmanned Aerial Vehicle research or manufacturing?

  • Why does the leading nanotechnology news and information expert say he's never heard of Schwarz or the enormous new Patmos manufacturing facility?

  • Did Schwarz really claim to be a billionaire but twice go bankrupt?

  • How many companies has he started that he claimed were multinationals but that in fact had 1 or no employees?

  • Did he really attempt to illegally attract investors to these fictitious companies?

  • Is there really a $2 million judgment outstanding against him?

  • Did the judge really call him a "sociopath before locking him up for failure to pay the weekly $35 child support he owed?

So, have you made a decision about Schwarz's qualifications and honesty?

Remember, this guy gets a lot of press for the "9-11 Truth Movement."

But most importantly, we don't know if he has any expertise in identifying jet engine parts. Are you ready? We're about to find out what your man Karl W. B. Schwarz thinks about that Pentagon engine part.

"Gullibler's Travels" Continues... Gullibler breaks free from the bonds of facts that the Liilliputians have tied him up with.

It's been a while, but you remember that engine part, right? Here's what Karl thinks of it:


He believes that the piece is a JT8D Turbojet Engine from the US Air Force A3 scottwarrior

(that's A-3 Skywarrior )

"Little Rock, we have a problem!"  First, the piece is not an engine. Second, Skywarriors don't use JT8D engines, and never did.

The piece in the FEMA photo is the front shaft bearing housing.

Wrong. This is the front shaft bearing housing of a JT8D, from your video.

Jet engines have a center shaft which must be balanced as well as bare seals on the front and back.

A certain director may be in need of some balancing, and may have a leaky seal or two.

The (FEMA) photo shows the front seal and a rotar [sic] hub missing its fan blades.


These blades are easily removed in a collision such as the one found at the Pentagon.

I thought the engines were supposed to stay "relatively intact."

From Schwarz's website:

"It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a "turbojet" component from a U.S. Air Force/Navy vintage-type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance planes."

Remember, he's talking about the JT8D engine. Which happens to be by far the most commonly used jet engine in history, and is used in the 707, 727, 737, DC-9, MD-83, etc. etc. Hell, it seems like two of the only planes that DON'T use it are the 757 and the A-3.

Look at the photo below Sure looks like that part could be from a 757 engine, and it's clearly not the part that "Loose Change" says it is. It only took a few minutes to get this info, and a few more to put the pictures together and stick letters on them.

Now, do you see why we critical thinkers get frustrated with the CT crowd? And this is just one tiny, tiny issue. We're talking about the trees here, not the forest. I elaborated on it because it shows the absurd things CTists will believe, without doing ANY fact-checking. AND THIS IS LEAVING OUT THE FACT THAT DOZENS OF PEOPLE (click this link to see)  SAW THE 757 HIT THE PENTAGON,  MUCH OF THE PLANE WAS RECOVERED ON THE SCENE, AND ALL THE PASSENGERS' REMAINS WERE IDENTIFIED BUT ONE.

From the Popular Mechanics 9/11 myth debunking article: (By the way, Ben Chertoff, Editor of Popular Mechanics says that as far as he knows he is not related to Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security, which is a claim CTists have been making to attempt to discredit Popular Mechanics.)

"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C.

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


The United States Air Force has only a few A3's left in operation,

And they're all accounted for. You can check for yourself if you don't believe me.

And they're stored in Van Nuys California at Hughes Aircraft,

Anybody missing one of these? Anybody see one at the Pentagon?

Which is now better known as Raytheon.

Five Raytheon employees died in the 9/11 attacks. This is a pretty complicated plot to be a "hit" on those five.

So if this piece didn't come from a 757, then where? And where are the engines from Flight 77?

Just showed you a large piece of one engine. Stick around and we'll do another.

So, to recap (or is that "E*cap"?):

1. You want to identify part of a jet engine that supposedly came from a Boeing 757. You don't want to rely on investigators on the scene to tell you, because you don't believe they can be trusted.

2. You, or your source, contact three manufacturers of aircraft components, none of which make the engine that your part came from. They say they don't make that part. You never contact the plant where the engine is made or any other aviation experts.

3. Frustrated, you decide that your only option is to turn to another conspiracy-monger who knows nothing about aircraft engines and a lot about telling tall tales. You cite his leadership of invisible companies as evidence of his expertise.

4. Your guy Karl gets everything wrong. Rather than checking, you assume he's right.

5. You find some pictures of an engine part that looks nothing like the Pentagon part. You state definitively that they match.

6. You find a nice photo of a ground-attack plane firing a missile, and put it in your video.

And perhaps the saddest part of this story is that you could have contacted a Karl Schwarz who does know something about jet aircraft, and maybe he could have helped you with your homework.

Is any of this sinking in, Mr. Avery? Mr. Rowe?

Do I need to remind you that you dedicated this video to "those we lost on September 11, 2001" and that you claim to be "truth-seekers?"

Then why are you spreading this garbage? Why won't you do the slightest bit of fact-checking? Is this what you consider to be a respectful approach to 9/11?


The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly a piece of the fuselage

The second of how many? Have you talked to a single expert who investigated? I don't see any quoted here at all.  Did you talk to a single person who was there, or even read a report or an article by any of the hundreds of people who were there to deal with that mess? Did you?

Skeptics have claimed that this is proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon .

This, the hundreds of other parts, the eyewitnesses, the remains, the forensics, the videos...

But this piece could have come from any American Airlines plane.

Wrong. And look at the background. See debris there? Might be worth looking into.

And why is it not singed or scratched after a 530 MPH impact and a subsequent fireball?



The third piece of debris was a diffusor case.

Let's look a little closer at the diffusor case of a 757.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings?

Yes. Just one question: is this from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B that flight 77 used, or is it from the Pratt & Whitney engine? It matters.

Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon.

Gosh, you're right. I wonder why that is?


See, I told you it matters. You're showing a part from the wrong engine.The case on the left is from the Rolls-Royce 535 engine, the type used by flight 77. The one on the right is the case for the engine that you and Schwarz believe was at the Pentagon. Again, this information took just minutes to locate.

The remainder of the debris was light enough to have been carried by hand.

By several people, maybe. Doesn't mention additional engine parts, landing gear, wheels, tires that were found., plus large parts outside. The following photos are not from "Loose Change," but they should be.

Roadway for heavy equipment being built. CTists find it "suspicious" that the lawn should have been "immediately covered with sand."


And employees at the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.

Why the mystery?

There is no mystery. It's a tent. Just how hard have you been searching for the "truth?" Note behind the guys with the blue tarp is a guard rail, an ambulance, a lightpole - in other words, a road. They are carrying in an empty tent from the road to the Pentagon's lawn.


If Flight 77 was vaporized on impact, it would be the first time in aviation history.

Vaporized on impact! I just showed you pictures of tons of debris. See all the people in the picture above? Did you attempt to talk to any of them?

For example. August 15th, 2005.

Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full speed. 121 passengers, all dead. Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections. Engines. Cockpit. Bodies. Catch my drift?

What's this. Got to do. With a plane. Hitting. The Pentagon. At 530. Miles per hour?


Fifth. Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Assumption. When are you going to present experts?

These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed.

The only damage to the outer wall is a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter.

A blazingly ignorant statement. Haven't you read a single report by those who were there? Or seen any photos except those you used In your video? The hole was approximately 75 feet wide before collapse. Once again, you don't present photo evidence that backs your claim. The inner hole made by the landing gear in ring C was about 12' [Actually, looking at better photos today, it looks to be about 8 or 9 feet.]

A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high, has a 124 foot wingspan, and weighs almost 100 tons.

Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole, without leaving any wreckage on the outside?

We've already seen photos of the wreckage outside. You're being dishonest.

This is not even close to representing the correct approach angle.

Why is there no damage from where the wings, or the vertical stabilizer,

Who says there isn't? Are you expecting us to make that judgment based on these images? (See photos below)

Or the engines would have slammed into the building?

There is a 75-foot hole there.

Remember how big the engines were? If 6 tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at 530 MPH, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints.

Speculation. One wing hit the ground first. There is visible wing damage on the building. See below. You want a cookie-cutter shape in a reinforced concrete building? Sorry. Link

And yet, the only damage on the outside of the Pentagon is this single hole,

Again, smoke obscures most of the scene. The hole was approx. 75' wide, and includes the portion behind the cable spools, where the right wing hit. Again, this does not represent the angle at which the plane hit.

With no damage from where the engines would have hit.

The "hole" extends all the way to the right edge of this photo, where the right wing struck.


Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?

They are meant to be bomb-resistant. Remember, you mentioned the construction work?

Why are the cable spools directly in front of the hole completely untouched?

Where were they before the crash? You'd need to know that to say that they're untouched afterwards. Look at the spools on the left and the right. Do they look untouched?

And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole approximately 16 feet in diameter

It's about 12 feet. It was expanded for safety and to help with debris removal.

Found on the other side of the C ring, three rings from the impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.

Completely wrong. There are two false assumptions here:

1) That the plane entered and exited the three rings. In fact, the rings are formed by light wells that don't start until the second floor. The ground floor is an "open" floor plan, with no extra reinforced walls to penetrate. Most of the plane entered at ground level and nothing exited the building until the hole in to the A-E drive

2) That each of the ring walls was specially reinforced like the exterior wall was as part of the renovation. Only the exterior wall received blast proofing. (Thanks Mark)

...the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft.The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g. Source: NIST


(Not from LC)


The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon. This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner in a plane crash. If the nose caused this hole, where's the rest of the debris from the plane?

You're the only one talking about the nose. The official report is that the landing gear, the strongest part of the plane, made that hole.

So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon,

Another demerit for the 16-foot hole comment. Here Mr. Avery shows footage of a shoulder-mounted anti-tank missile being launched. I guess he just likes things that go boom.

Smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and leave another 16 foot hole?

Speculation. Only part of it would need to do that. And got that "9 feet" wrong again.

A cruise missile.

Wow! Can't wait to see your evidence that it was a cruise missile and not AA flight 77.

This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a Tomahawk cruise missile had hit it. See any similarities?

See any differences? Heard of any? Like the huge amount of 757 debris and the remains of the passengers, all but one of whom were identified? But you're not concerned with victims, are you?


Sixth, the eyewitnesses. Some saw a huge 100 ton commercial airliner.

Yes. How many didn't say that?. Do a tally.

" And I looked off, I was, you know looked out my window I saw this plane, jet, American Airlines jet coming."

Some saw a small, 8 to 20 passenger commuter plane.

" ...maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides... "

That makes 1. The others?

And some saw a United States Military helicopter.


"...when it occured, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building."


"He said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is. And that he then saw a fireball going to the sky. "

When, and where? What's this got to do with a helicopter? Did you think of looking into what a helicopter might have been doing there?

So who's telling the truth? Take this into consideration.

Take this into consideration: eyewitness accounts, 30 of which specifically mention an AA airliner. Not to mention the report of the C-130 crew that followed and identified the 757.


April Gallop was working in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit.

And did not see the plane hit, unlike all of the witnesses  in the link above.

In Jim Marrs' book Inside Job, April claims...

Marrs is a professional conspiracy theory author.

"While in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once."

How many men? How many times is more than once? Did any men not in suits visit her?

How many men in suits visited her while she was working at the Pentagon?

This isn't a shot at Gallop, but at the typical way Marrs tells stories.

"They never identified themselves or what agency they worked for."

I don't know how badly she was injured, but does it seem plausible that she wouldn't ask or that someone wouldn't have identified themselves? Again, Marrs likes to keep things murky.

"They didn't tell her what to say, just made suggestions. For example, to take the compensation money and shut up. "

Is "shut up" a quote, or is Marrs paraphrasing?

"They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over."

That WOULD be an odd thing for men in suits to say, if a plane hadn't hit the building.

" But I was there, and I never saw a plane, or even debris from a plane."

Okay, now he gets to a direct quote from her. Or is it? In no interview I've read, and there are several out there, has she repeated this story or anything like it.

"I figure this story is to brainwash people."

In fact, here's a telling comment she made to the Washington Post:

"When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back." Source

The makers of Loose Change make a fairly big issue of her story. Did they make an effort to contact her?


So if a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did?


Eyewitnesses inside and outside the building were thrown to the ground by what they described as a shockwave.

And how is this is inconsistent with a 757 traveling at 530 mph?

Even the Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 Miles away, was rocked by the blast.

Of course it was.

A number of military personnel at the Pentagon specifically mentioned smelling cordite.

How many is "a number"? One?

[On screen is a quote by Don Perkal about smelling cordite. Perkal is a lawyer. We don't know if he has any experience with cordite.]

Cordite and jet fuel have two very distinct smells. Cordite is a compound used in ammunition, which is comprised of nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin. It is cool-burning, produces little smoke and no flash, but produces a strong detonation wave.

"No flash" is incorrect. As for the rest, that is why cordite is used as a naval gun propellant, not as a payload explosive. (Thanks Mark)

And, eyewitnesses described a bright, silvery flash.

I counted one who did, from Eric Bart's Pentagon witness list. Most others described the fast-moving silver plane, which isn't hard to imagine looking like a flash when it hit the building at 777 feet per second (237 mps) on that bright morning.

The explosion certainly wasn't a "bright silvery flash. Video still from LC.

Jet fuel combustion, i.e. the planes that struck the Twin Towers, is bright yellow at best.

Watch this. [Another video of test airliner crash]

A massive smouldering fireball, no silvery flash,

[Just like at the Pentagon]

no shockwave.

No shockwave? How does he know that? It's a VIDEO of a test crash.

And at the Pentagon, a tiny bright silvery flash, which shakes nearby buildings.

Nope. A giant orange fireball. With tons of black smoke. And jet fuel burning over a 100-meter area. Photo was taken before emergency crews arrived.

This photo split into two parts. (Not from LC) This is the left...

And this is the right. Jet fuel is burning over a wide area.

(Not from LC)


Whatever it was, it might have been related to the two planes that were in the air after the crash.

Speculation. You have no evidence whatsoever that this might have been so.

The first one was uniformly identified as a C-130.

The anonymous quote on the screen says it resembled a C-130. Another anonymous quote says it looked like an electronic warfare plane.

The 9/11 Commission report said:

Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir."

Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?

The second plane was an unmarked white plane flying over Washington DC.

Did you ask anyone who would know, about that plane? How do you know it was unmarked?

"Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park directly across from the White House, perhaps about 200 yards from the White House residence itself. About 10 minutes ago there was a white jet circling overhead. "

"Now you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House, that is restricted airspace. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell.


At 9:25, Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, initiated a national ground stop, which prevents further takeoffs and requires all planes in the air to land.

The 9:25 order halted all takeoffs. See below for landings.

The order, which hasn't been implemented since 1903, applied to almost every single kind of a plane:

He means "ever." The first aircraft radio was installed in 1912, and radios in planes didn't become common until the 1920s. Source

Civilian, military, or law enforcement. Certain military flights were allowed to fly during this time, but the FAA isn't talking.

Whom are they not talking to? Why should the FAA talk to you about military flights?

Why were these two planes allowed in the air when everyone else had to land?

The order for all planes to land ASAP came at 9:45, seven minutes after the Pentagon had been hit. Source (Thanks Mike)

Could it be that they were there to help protect against attack?

Air Force General Richard B. Myers, from the 9/11 Commission Report:

When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked.

Could it be that they were in a holding pattern because traffic was stacked up?

How do you know they weren't ordered to land? Did you try to find out?


And finally, why did people keep reporting a second explosion at the Pentagon?

Because there was one. Is there some reason not to expect secondary explosions when an airliner hits a building and starts a huge fire?

" Well, I can't tell you about that, but I was just here in front of the capital, which by the way has been evacuated, and back toward the Supreme Court area we just heard a low muffled thud. It sounded like a small explosion. There have been unconfirmed reports of second explosions here at the Pentagon, we have not confirmed that, but again ..."

Well, this one said unconfirmed.

Where did this fireball come from?

Video shows small fireball. When was that video taken? And why shouldn't we expect additional explosions, as in the World Trade Center.

Seventh, surveillance cameras from a gas station, Sheraton Hotel, and the Virginia Department of Transportation captured the entire thing. However, the FBI was there within minutes to confiscate the tapes,

Yes, that's what investigators do. You wouldn't have taken the tapes as evidence?

Including a warning for the employees not to discuss what they had seen. If the government wishes to prove once and for all that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,

The government doesn't need to "prove" that. The wreckage and remains were recovered.

All they would have to do is release one of those tapes.

Some were played for victims at the Moussaoui trial. Has the government released all other recordings of all plane crashes to the public? No. If they are not classified such recordings may be available through FOIA requests. Writes contributor kookbreaker:

"... the government cannot just release confiscated tapes to the public. It may show them at trials, but they are still the property of the company whose camera took them. Look at the settlements with regards to the Zapruder film as a demonstration of why they do not release things."
Good point.


Instead, they released 5 frames from a camera across the heliport, even though none of them show a 757.

Because of the slow frame rate of the camera.

And finally, why do satellite photos taken 4 days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon 4 days later?

Uh-oh. Better call the crop circle experts. A "white marking?" Looks like a tan path in the grass to me. Perhaps it's a remnant of digging done to access electrical, sewage, etc. Remember the construction? The big cable spools? Most of all, why in the world would anyone need to vaguely "mark" the grass when there's a giant H on the helipad right next to it?

Here's the animation for statement 333.

Anyway, why would a path be necessary if it was a Tomahawk cruise missile that did the damage?

Or was it an anti-tank missile?

Or an A-3 Skywarrior?

Or an 8-to-20-passenger plane?

Or a military helicopter?

Or two mysterious planes overhead?

Or a cordite bomb?


And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack,

[Screen quote indicates blast-resistant windows]

Renovated to withstand an airliner strike at 530 mph? That would be something.

(Not from LC) Right Side of Hole. Hole stretches all the way to the right of the photo.

Photo Daryl Donley, annotations by

(Not from LC) Left side of hole. Note wing damage at the border of the 1st & 2nd floor.

Photo: Will Morris   annotations by


And that Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite end of the building?

That's where he works. Should he have been in the area under construction?

If the government has nothing to hide, why are they so afraid to answer a few questions, or release a few videos?

I'll let that statement speak for itself.

<= Previous section : Introduction, The First Events

Next section : The World Trade Center =>

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire