Finally the A3 Skywarrior theory as put forth by Karl Schwarz and Jon Carlson can be seen for what it was - a theory unsupported by any solid physical evidence. This theory has made it into some of the most publicly represented materials in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was even recently mentioned in two hit pieces against the 9/11 Truth Movement. One directly ridiculed it discrediting the research that has been done on the Pentagon by honest researchers (1) and the other indirectly referred to it in regards to a 9/11 film (2). In a third location it has been completely controverted by aerospace industry professionals (3). This amounts to multi-thousands of people who have been affected by this theory. Its negative impact on the credibility of 9/11 research has been substantial.

Obviously any theory is welcome to be introduced into the 9/11 Truth Movement for examination. We all do it. But when one is addressed for its merit and proven to be detrimental it should then be discarded. If somebody persists in a theory to the point that it appears they have become careless or deceptive then we have to look at the people themselves. In this article we will examine the last three photos Karl and Jon have dredged up to support a dead proposition. I am thankful to Rense.com for offering a fair forum that allows all sides of an issue to be represented. Because of this, the 9/11 Truth Movement has had an opportunity to move beyond the A3 Skywarrior theory and ask what Jon Carlson and Karl Schwarz are really up to.

In the last articles of this series we have seen literally all of Jon & Karl's original evidence crumble. They have never responded with any real contribution to substantiating their position. Instead they have grasped at straws and attempted to distort and mislead people as to the contents of photos. My biggest question at this point is why? Why would they want to distort evidence to continue promoting this idea instead of simply moving forward to a different position? Isn't the purpose of 9/11 truth to get as close as possible to what really happened and make that information available to the world for the benefit of all?

In a recent article Karl states, "I got an email last Friday that is one of the most interesting I have received since 9-11. The first photo below was embedded in that email by a person who has been trying to figure out what that piece of laminated glass goes to.....There was a piece of evidence exposed in plain sight that might solve once and for all that no 757 hit the Pentagon." (4)

This is the photo he posted with that statement. It is a video still frame from Jamie McIntyre's video (CNN). He was in the Pentagon and came right out and started filming around the heliport. From this photo and after much convoluted "logic" Karl states, "Is it from an A3 Skywarrior? Most likely source until someone can come up with a better explanation." (4) So let's see if there is another explanation.

This is typical airliner glass. It is from a 737 after it was struck by a bird. It appears to be substantially thicker and seems to have a different breakage pattern than the piece on the lawn.

The above diagram shows the construction of a Boeing 757 cockpit windshield.

Here is a window that was partially broken right in the area where Jamie's video was shot. All of the windows to the left of this have been blown completely out. You can see the similar breakage pattern to the piece Karl presented. In the top right image you can see another piece of glass. In the bottom right photo you can see yet another piece in proximity to Venetian blinds. I believe the glass on the lawn is from the first floor windows. In any case, it is a far stretch to imply the shape of the glass matches the cockpit windows of an A3 Skywarrior as Karl did. (4)

This helps locate the photo directly above this one. You can see the labeled window on the right. The grass in the left foreground of this photo is the area that the video of the broken glass was shot. It is right in front of the blown out windows. If you look at the windows you can see that whatever blast force blew them out came from the inside. Notice how everything is pushed forward against the window frames and the debris has been projected out from the building.

Now we'll go to Jon's new idea that photos show an A3 Skywarrior wing and fuselage. My thought is why weren't those ever mentioned before? If their original theory had included the wings, fuselage, engine components, blue tarp and everything in the beginning, then we could have saved a lot of time. But instead, as the evidence for the A3 dwindles Jon and Karl persist in making up new versions of "evidence". Why are they doing such obvious distortions and manipulation now?

Jon presented this photo in a recent article. with the following description, "Finally, this photo shows a similar wing end on the right side of the Pentagon crash area: " (5)

Here is another angle on the same piece. It is the cover for the underground utility system visible in many photos of the Pentagon. This is only one example of several close-ups of the same piece that are readily available. Why Jon took the one he did and tried to convince us it is a wing of anything I don't know. Now we'll look for a fuselage.

In yet another recent article Jon uses this photo and says,"This photo shows an engine and the fuselage section of a A3 Skywarrior. Most of the aircraft was blown to bits that rained down for blocks around by onboard explosives:" (6) First of all, we discovered that what Jon was claiming to be an engine this whole time is actually remnants of a construction trailer (see Previous A3 Skywarrior Articles at the bottom of this page). Right in between Jon's circles you can see the utility vault cover that in another photo he claimed was a wing. Why would he do that if he'd seen this photo already? He claims this is a "rare German photo". I don't know what that means but I can assure you I have many photos of the exact area. You will see two of the closer ones that show the area from two different angles next.

This also shows another view of Jon's alleged wing. I have looked as close as possible at this and I have yet to see an A3 Skywarrior fuselage. What I do see is some sort of fabric.

Here is a different angle of the same area. You can also see other fabric around the window frames. They had constructed the blast reinforced section of the building with Kevlar cloth. I don't know if this is what the fabric is or not. But I do know there is no fuselage of an aircraft here.

I started this whole process of evaluating Jon and Karl's theory by asking them for opportunities to discuss this in a productive way with no response. I was willing to believe it was an A3 if evidence was presented to support it. I kept my original evaluations very impersonal as well. But in the face of several articles they have yet to do anything but get more deceptive in the presentation of spurious new "evidence". They have not even responded to specific questions or arguments many people have approached them with. The glass has an alternative explanation, the blue tarp is a service tent (not an A3 wing being smuggled out), the "engine" was a construction trailer, the A3 never had a JT8D on it, the wheels of an A3 don't fit Pentagon evidence, the other engine piece is not even remotely identifiable to an A3, there are no wings in the photos, the fuselage is non-existent and no eyewitnesses reported a military aircraft or a missile being fired as Karl claimed happened in his original article. (6)

What's left? I guess we'll see what they come up with next.

This theory has damaged the credibility of 9/11 research on a large scale in public view. I am not trying to be judgmental. I am just trying to protect the work of many good and honest researchers out there whose hearts are into finding the truth and sharing it for everybody's benefit.

Russell Pickering
www.pentagonresearch.com

This Article:

(1) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00363.htm

(2) http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-04-27-
conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

(3) http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

(4) http://www.rense.com/general70/poss.htm

(5) http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm

(5) http://www.rense.com/general70/3o.htm

(6) http://www.karlschwarz.com/02-02-05_Schwarz.pdf

PREVIOUS A3 Skywarrior Articles:

The JT8D & A3 Skywarrior Pentagon Theory.
http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm

JT8D Engine Or Rusty Trailer: You Decide.
http://www.rense.com/general70/rusty.htm

http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm