Well, that just destroyed your credibility!

My internet connection is back up to speed, so I looked up performance data from Boeing for the 737-900(winglets) for you.

Some numbers:

EWR-LAS: 1935nm
737-900 MGTOW: 174,200lb

EWR airport elevation: 18ft (essentially sea level)
LAS airport elevation: 2181ft

FAA Standard Day: 15 degrees C (59F)
FAA Standard Day +15C: 30 degrees C (86F)

EWR longest runway: 11000ft
LAS longest runway: 14500ft

Calculation for EWR-LAS using 737-900 with winglets:

135k/lb payload
39k/lb fuel
Standard day (59F), dry runway conditions, sea level

Range: 2400nm
Takeoff run, flaps 25: 7200ft

Calculation for LAS-EWR using 737-900 with winglets:

135k/lb payload
39k/lb fuel
Standard day +15C (86F), dry runway conditions, 2000ft elevation

Range: 2400nm
Takeoff run, flaps 15: 9500ft

DISCLAIMER: these figures are incredibly simplistic, do not take into account a number of operational factors, including weather, airspace restrictions, route of travel, additional reserves, taxi time, company operating restrictions, plus other things. Also, I am not a pilot.

However, it should demonstrate that the 737-900 is more than able to operate the EWR-LAS sector, rebutting your assertion that the airplane is "absolutely" incapable of the route according to your exhaustive airliners.net research.

CO is likely to be operating 737-900ERs on this route, however, because the -900ER can haul about 10,000 more pounds than the standard -900 over the same stage length. This translates into greater cargo and pax capacity.