Frozen Fish in another forum

[Windmill knight]

Hi. I posted the following in QFS and Laura suggested posting it here as well. She also commented it in today's SOTT's editorial.

________________________


I posted the Flying Fish article on Jeff Well's forum. I am quite surprised to see that an admin, using the name 'Rigorous
Intuition' (apparently Jeff himself) immediately suggested that believing that there was no passenger plane at the Pentagon was
COINTELPRO:

"I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO."

He later quotes a witness. Weird that he thinks that witnesses are more reliable than physical evidence!

I also found strange that someone else wrote:

"Hi all: I would urge everyone to very carefully investigate information coming from signs-of-the-times.org. I'm not accusing anyone of anything but rather suggesting due dilligence before accepting what is posted there. I'm also not trying to single out the person who started this thread--I've seen others link to them as well. Just consider this a friendly tip. Honestly"

Weird that SOTT is now blacklisted - for no reason!


[end of quote]

________________________


I must say, however, that I still believe that J. Wells is an honest researcher, and I still like most of his work; though I completely disagree with his views on the Pentagon strike and the Oil Peak thing.

So, for what it's worth.

Perhaps the point of this thread should be: why is the Pentagon strike such a difficult issue among researchers when it is the strongest piece of evidence against the official story?? On a second thought: duh! It IS the most difficult issue PRECISELY because it is the strongest piece of evidence!!

Or so I think.

 

[Laura]

Perhaps the point of this thread should be: why is the Pentagon strike such a difficult issue among researchers when it is the strongest piece of evidence against the official story?? On a second thought: duh! It IS the most difficult issue PRECISELY because it is the strongest piece of evidence!!

Yes, I agree. It is the most covered up of the 911 events and the one with the most active cointelpro action against it. That says a lot.

Can you quote the witnesses that Jeff Wells was citing?

Like you, I still admire him and it is sad to see him falling for the Peak Oil and Pentagon issues.

 

[Windmill knight]

The witnesses accounts cited in the other forum:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html

________________

"How do I know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? First, local news immediately interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane going in. I have since interviewed many local people who watched the plane and even ducked as it flew so low overhead. The Pentagon has not released footage of it, and the local news media did not catch the moment as they had in New York City. It was not for lack of knowing it was coming, they had told us that a good 35-40 minutes ahead.

"Second, I was convinced I had lost a dear friend and fellow assassination researcher that day, who was a regular flight attendant on Flight 77 from Dulles to LAX. Thankfully, she was home with her ailing father and was not killed. She was taken with other ground crew and attendants who worked that route to see the damage at the Pentagon, and she recognized parts of the plane she had flown so often.

"There was rubble and remains despite your claims. She was shown autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized from the bracelet she wore. "
________________


I am sure I read in SOTT some months ago an article that destroyed that story about the flight attendant, but I didn't keep that link. Does anyone remember which one that was? It was a SOTT edition that had the photoshopped image of a Global Hawk with the AA colors.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I'm pretty sure that very deft destruction of that "eyewitness" account was by David McGowan, but I haven't found it yet on his site. I'll keep looking.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Here it is: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html The guy who claimed to know this "stewardess" was John Judge. McGowan's piece rips apart the eyewitness accounts with precision and great humor. A classic!

 

[Windmill knight]

Thanks Donald! I've saved the article now. I shall re-read it.

 

[Mr. Premise]

This stuff is so good I can't help but post a long excerpt. Here is McGowan http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html:

In retrospect, it seems odd that we had to look to France for answers to what happened in this nation's capitol. After all, don't we have any real investigative journalists of our own? Don't we have our own 'conspiracy researchers'? And aren't many of them based right there in Washington, DC? Weren't some of them in an ideal position to blow the whistle on the various Pentagon anomalies?

John Judge is one name that immediately comes to mind here. Judge is, as most readers are probably aware, a veteran researcher who is revered in many 'conspiracy' circles. He is not only a current resident of the nation's capitol, but a native son as well. In fact, he literally grew up in the Pentagon, as he is fond of telling people. If any alternative journalist knows his way around the Pentagon, it is John Judge.

Perhaps more so than anyone else, John Judge was in a position to serve as a whistleblower. But John Judge was also ideally positioned to fill another role: upholder of the official story within the so-called 'truth movement,' and denouncer of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that official story. Ever since questions first began to arise about what really happened at the Pentagon, John Judge has filled the latter role.

Judge is smart enough to realize that he can't possibly come out on the winning end of any arguments over the merits of the available evidence, so he has, for some three years now, studiously avoided debating the actual evidence. Instead, he quickly created an apparently fictional entity, in the form of an unidentified, but supposedly dear friend of his who just happens to be a flight attendant for American Airlines, and just happens to regularly fly the route flown by Flight 77 that fateful day, but just happened to have taken that particular day off so that she survived and now has insider information, unavailable to anyone else, that Flight 77 really did crash into the Pentagon that day.

This mythical person has served Judge well for the past three years, enabling him to sidestep any and all substantive questions concerning the evidence anomalies with a pat answer that goes something like this: "Well, you know, there were hundreds of witnesses, and my friend says that it really did happen the way the government says, so it must be true."

Judge's phantom friend, it should be noted, is not your average flight attendant. In a post dated February 21, 2004, Judge told the latest fanciful, and unintentionally hilarious, version of his friend's story, which has grown more and more elaborate, and more and more ridiculous, over the past three years:


A dear friend and fellow researcher had been working as a flight attendant for American for many years, and that was her regular route, several times a week ... As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken the day off work to care for her sick father ... When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculation of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through the building walls.


Already we see that not only is this person a flight attendant, but also a fellow researcher and, apparently, an expert on airplane crashes. As we return to the story, Judge's mystery friend has been "approached by another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site." Let's see what happens next:


The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance ... [My friend] and her mother signed up for an overnight shift on Friday, September 21st. She and her mother spent the entire night continuously providing drinks to rescuers ... At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area.


I have to interrupt here briefly to ask a couple of silly questions that come to mind. First, how is it that someone who is supposedly a conspiracy researcher, and a dear friend of a very well known conspiracy researcher, obtains a security clearance that allows them to roam about the Pentagon? And second, if the mystery friend had just spent the entire night tending to the rescue teams working at the Pentagon crash site, why did she then have to be driven to the crash site? Where did that Salvation Army van take her -- across the Pentagon lawn?

Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear to be. If you're going to completely fabricate a story, you have to be careful that that story is consistent. And with that out of the way, let's get back to the story, which is about to veer off into bizarro world:


The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.


How do I even begin to dissect out all the absurdities present in this one brief passage? I suppose I could begin by pointing out that the mystery friend couldn't possibly have seen a "gaping hole" since any entry hole was buried in rubble shortly after the alleged crash, when the Pentagon was afflicted with that curious September 11 malady known as Collapsing Building Syndrome. I also have to point out how extremely unlikely it is that a group of flight attendants would be invited to freely tour a site that was: (1) one of the world's most secure military installations; (2) ground zero of an investigation into what was supposedly the deadliest act of 'terrorism' ever on American soil; and (3) a badly damaged, unsafe, partially-collapsed structure that obviously would have been off-limits to anyone who didn't need to be in there.

I was also going to comment on the scenario of the unnamed flight attendant cruising around the site in a jeep-and-wagon set-up, but, to be perfectly honest, every time the visual flashes through my mind I find myself too convulsed with laughter to think of anything to say.

At this point, you are probably wondering what the phantom stewardess/researcher/crash expert/rescue worker saw when she entered the building. Quite a bit, as it turns out. Certainly far more evidence of a plane crash than anyone else has ever claimed to have seen. And much of what she saw, believe it or not, was wreckage that could be positively identified as wreckage of an American Airlines Boeing 757, which she was, of course, an expert at identifying


She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell ... and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane ... The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized ... The blue coloring of the drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes ... Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes ... She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her ... One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows ... was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those.


Who knew there was so much identifiable aircraft wreckage? Wreckage that was apparently never photographed and never shown to anyone other than John Judge's friend? Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe been watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz. "Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."

The anonymous friend "also saw," we are to believe, "charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts." So the bodies were apparently reduced to charred bones, but the upholstery, carpet and drapes were, of course, still looking factory fresh.

In an earlier version of the flight attendant story, posted on October 30, 2002, Judge claimed that his friend was also "shown autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized from the bracelet she wore." I have to confess here that I never realized how much access flight attendants have. I now find myself wondering what kind of access commercial pilots must have. I'm guessing they could probably sit in on the President's morning briefings if they really wanted to.

Anyhow, getting back to the story, we aren't quite through yet being subjected to outlandish claims. The next one goes something like this:


The crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after the crash, and Renee had used a cell phone to call her mother during the hijacking.


It sounds like the phantom stewardess has this case all wrapped up. She has, single-handedly, gathered more evidence that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon than the entire federal government and all of its media mouthpieces combined. I, for one, am impressed. She has seen and positively identified wreckage of Flight 77. She has seen and positively identified the remains of actual humans who were supposed to be on the flight. She has seen the gaping entry wound. She has spoken to someone who can personally vouch for the hijacking story.

And that's not all! Judge has other phantom witnesses as well, and they can verify other portions of the official fairy tale:


Other American ground crew workers saw some of the suspects board American Airlines Flight 77 and recognized them from published photos ... My attendant friend knows and has put me in touch with other American Airlines employees and pilots who were at the site and took photographs. We are busy locating these, as well as another attendant who was at the site with her that day.


Well, you keep working on that, John. Let us know just as soon as you can produce a single one of these alleged witnesses, or any of their alleged photographs. But, really, there's no rush. We understand that these things take time, and you've only had three-and-a-half years to locate these witnesses that you claim to have already been in touch with.

By the way, what were they all doing stomping around the Pentagon crash site? Was it open to all American Airlines employees? How about United Airlines employees? Were Boeing employees allowed to tour the site as well? How about employees of Dulles International Airport? How about employees of the company that catered the meals for Flight 77? Did the baggage handlers get to take a peek? I don't mean to sound snide here; I'm really just trying to determine what the criteria were for deciding who was allowed to tour this very sensitive site, because, truth be told, I would have liked to take a look for myself, but my invite must have gotten lost in the mail or something.

Moving on, it's time for Mr. Judge to abruptly segue into the conclusion of his formidable case:


My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious ... My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence.


Let it never be said that I participated in the vilification of a nonexistent person. That just wouldn't be right. For the record, the argument here is not that Judge's friend is a liar. No, the argument here is that John Judge is a liar. And not a particularly good one -- but certainly a very ambitious one. Lest there be any lingering doubt about that, Judge saves his best for last. In the final paragraph of his missive, he actually makes the following claim:


One employee saw the nose of the plane crash through her office wall.


No shit? I hope she didn't receive any serious injuries.

 

[anart]

Don, I laughed out loud through most of that - it is absolutely priceless - I love the

The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.

I could not have come up with something funnier if I tried for weeks- I picture a 1970's stewardess in the full regalia, hat and all, with a pot of coffe and tea on her wagon, dutifully driving through the debris. =)

 

[Cathryn]

This following paragraph is a bit like the dead elephant in the parlour, it stinks you have to walk round it and yet the physical evidence is not good enough.

"I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO."

Apeguia:
"He later quotes a witness. Weird that he thinks that witnesses are more reliable than physical evidence!"


I agree with you on this, it is wierd. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously pliable, and when already primed by FOUR airliners being hijacked, two have been flown into the World Trade Centre Buildings, and then something hits the Pentagon, it has to be one of the four airliners. It's in the programming, the priming, the following demonstrates this theory...

From 'Forensic & Criminal Psychology' Dennis Howitt:

"Few would doubt that human memory is fallible. An intriguing demonstration of this was a study of memory concerning the crash of an EL AL Boeing 747 jet onto a residential area of Amsterdam (Crombag et al., 1996). The crash had only been verbally reported on news bulletins as NO FILM OR VIDEO OF THE PLANE CRASH EXISTS [emphasis mine] Apart from eyewitnesses, no one could have seen the events. Nevertheless, participants in the research were misled into thinking that they may have seen such images on television by asking them about their recollections of the news coverage. Substantial numbers of participants in the study readily provided visual details of the crash as if they had seen it on film.[...]
"The key finding of the research is the failure of participants to recognise the falsity of their claims. That is to say, they did not realise that they were manufacturing memories."...]

This is not to say that eyewitnesses are not at all reliable, they are, but the essential point in the above is that with the right 'cueing' (programming) a vast number of people can be led to manufacture memories. Very sad isn't it, and it is easy to see the comparison here with how most people were led to believe it was a hijacked passenger airliner that hit the pentagon.

On a personal thought basis, I think we have just witnessed the co-option of a good alternative newswriter. Sing the neocon song and kick the SOTT. I wonder how they did it!

 

[Laura]

Ya'll might want to check out these forums for some serious background on abovetopsecret.com

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=523

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=626

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=751

The last one pretty much proves our case that abovetopsecret.com is most definitely cointelpro/psy-ops and that they were "commissioned" (probably by Dick Cheney and the Pentagon) to produce the CatHerder piece. Our debunking of the CatHerder piece is apparently a big problem for them because they have certainly taken serious steps to try to get it removed.

 

[gritzle70]

Sorry, I posted this to the wrong forum. I am reposting this with the hopes that you will get the entire links. Many appear to have "disappeared." Anyway, you might have to go to his root directory to gain access to all the links if you cannot open them individually:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/

Dear Laura,

I thought you would be interested in some of the information that surfaced in one of my conspiracy websites as a result of your original article; and then I read ATS's attempt to discredit you:

This is a long post but it includes some excellent research footage on the type of military aircraft that is believed to have hit the Pentagon.

Please start at the bottom (which first mentions your article) and read to the top. Paul Andrew Mitchell and his group have done some excellent research (in my opinion). He opens up the line of discussion refering your article:

See proposed interception paths:

http://www.avweb.com/other/911flightexplorer.html

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com wrote:
Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Subject: [SLL] Pentagon crash -- much more detail in re: A-3 Sky Warrior engines

Note well the purple-colored pixels which overlap
the fuselage forward of the visible tail section:
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies72.htm

Here's a typical version of frame 1:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81.jpg

And here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pentani.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Security_cam_captures_F-16_tail_fin_and_missile_smoke.jpg

Note well the much higher pixel resolution of frame 1
here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic-pent1.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic1a.jpg
(use a good program like ACDSee to ZOOM in and out)

This higher pixel resolution proves that the 5 published
frames were re-sampled to a lower pixel resolution, thus
destroying valuable detail.

NOW, WATCH THIS SEQUENCE, AND FOCUS ON THE
PURPLE-COLORED PIXELS THAT OVERLAP
THE FUSELAGE FORWARD OF THE TAIL SECTION:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/the_plane.gif

Note that the pixels have changed color, most probably
with the passage and dissipation of the white, helix-shaped
exhaust plume from an under-wing air-to-ground missile:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/the_plane.gif

Applying this same methodology to all 5 frames, it's easy
to demonstrate that the fuselage pixels were colored purple
in frame 1 and ONLY in frame 1; in all subsequent frames,
those same pixels show the color of the missile exhaust plume,
or the background far to the rear, near the highway interchange:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.1.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.2.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.3.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.4.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.5.jpg

Conclusion: background at highway interchange was most probably
green grass and darker green tree leaves.

Therefore, this simple methodology proves at least two things:

(1) the 5 published cctv frames were re-sampled
from a higher resolution to a lower resolution;

(2) the pixels at the fuselage were air-brushed with a
purple pixel color taken from a completely different region
of frame 1.

Contrary to lots of (wrong) opinions, there are plenty of
photographs of aircraft debris, e.g.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/stablizer.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/mystery_engine.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/hiding_evidence_planting_debris.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pentdebris.jpg

(the foreground debris was planted; note other shredded debris
between it and the group of men standing at base of Pentagon)

The most significant, in our opinion, is this high-res photo
of what we believe is the port engine, after it sheared off
at the pylon and bounced off the exterior Pentagon wall,
coming to rest next to a Nissan 300-ZX and Jeep Cherokee SUV:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pentagon.missile.debris.bmp
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Pentagon_JT8DC.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Whole8C.jpg

The vehicle on the left is a burned-out Jeep Cherokee, which
was black (or dark green) before burning; to the left of the Jeep was a
Nissan 300-ZX which was white before burning:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Pentagon_SW2.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Pentagon_SW2C.jpg

Here's a selected subset of generator photos:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/fireball.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/crash2a.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator-gouge-small.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.burning.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.foaming.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.smoking.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator_fence1.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator_spraying.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/spraying_generator.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pentacollapse.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pentagon_no-collapse3.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/damage1.jpg

The white smoke appears to be steam, condensing from the
generator's engine radiator.

That generator was not moved for quite some time, so
it makes for an excellent reference point:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/right_aerial.jpg

Now, compare the underwing geometry of a 757:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/281582.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/underwing_757.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/b757_right_engine.jpg

(note the vertical distance between the bottom leading edge of
the starboard engine, and the underwing pylons further out)

... with the same underwing geometry of an A-3 Skywarrior:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3side.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3pylon.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3n576ha.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3144846.jpg

The latter geometry is a much better, almost perfect fit
with the localized "finger prints" clearly visible on
the damaged diesel generator (see photos above).

Now, continue on a straight line from the damaged left
end of the diesel generator, to columns 16 and 17:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/MissileDamage_First-Floor_Wall.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/no_engine_hit_between__16and17.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/compmix2.2.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/compmix2.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/pcs7.jpg

There is also photographic evidence that the primary explosion
blew the aft half of the jet away from the Pentagon:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic4a.jpg

Here's someone's attempt to fit a different jet to this evidence:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic.s-3b.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic4b.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic4c.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic1b.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic1c.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic-pent1.jpg

Here's another attempt:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/GlobalHawk.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/Globalkhawk4.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/GHwing.jpg
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/GlobalHawkCammo.jpg

It's always possible that certain "parts" were either pre-planted
inside the Pentagon, or stowed in the cargo bay of the killer jet,
in order to mislead forensic investigators: e.g. the presence
of a global hawk wing section does not necessarily mean that
a global hawk missile hit the Pentagon.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
*****************************
On 3/20/06, Paul Andrew Mitchell <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:09:44 -0000
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" < paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
Subject: A-3 Sky Warrior engines

> http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies72.htm

Yes, we agree.

A-3 Skywarriors were routinely retrofitted
with Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines,
because they were found to be more efficient,
more readily available, and more easily
maintained, e.g. by military and civilian
mechanics had more experience maintaining
that engine.

The starboard engine hit the cyclone fence
and the left end of the diesel generator,
pushing the generator towards the Pentagon
and away from that fence. Also, a narrow
"furrow" in the top of the generator housing
was most probably made by an underwing
missile pylon just "creasing" that metal
housing:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon
(look for filenames with "generator")

Given the incoming angle of attack, the
starboard engine and starboard wing tip
hit at almost exactly the same moment
-- approximately 45-55 degrees off the
building line.

The high velocity resulted in high
kinetic energy. Combined with leverage,
that kinetic energy resulted in only
superficial damage where the wing tip
hit the second floor, but the starboard
engine almost completely disintegrated
the three bearing columns to the left
of column 18, which the engine just missed.

The formula for kinetic energy is E = 1/2mv**2
(Energy equals one-half mass times velocity squared).

Also, the formula for force is F = ma
(Force equals mass times acceleration).

Here, "a" is the rate of instantaneous
deceleration experienced by the starboard
engine, which imparted enormous kinetic
energy -- and force -- to those damaged
bearing columns. This explains the
extensive damage to those columns
immediately to the right of the large
hole where the fuselage entered the
Pentagon.

After so much kinetic energy was absorbed
by the starboard engine's collision with
the exterior facade and bearing columns,
the port engine followed with much less
kinetic energy: it appears to have sheared
off at the pylon and bounced off the exterior
facade of the Pentagon, coming to rest
outside the Pentagon where it was photographed
next to a Nissan 300-ZX and Jeep Cherokee,
both badly burned out after the fires were
extinguished.

We think the collision with the diesel generator
was not anticipated: either a remote controller
(human) or forward-looking radar detected the
obstacle in that generator, but the terminal
velocity of the jet was too high to make an
adequate correction: the impact with that
generator vaulted the right wing upwards,
causing the jet to roll to the port side,
in a counter-clockwise direction.

This is plain action-reaction in physics.

Also, an attempt to avoid that collision by the
guidance system may have commenced that roll
before the impact with the generator.

Either way, the starboard wing tip hit at
the second floor, and the port wing tip hit at
the first floor, because of the slight roll
to port side at the moment of impact.

Our subset of Pentagon photos, for purposes
of forensic analysis, are here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

--- In CCCC-USA@yahoogroups.com, "mojo_j_2000"
wrote:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies72.htm

http://www.911studies.com/index.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

*****************
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:52 pm
Subject: Re: Simple Math demonstrates Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

correcting a typo:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/no_engine_hit_between__16
and17.jpg

(fixed below too)

--- In catapultthepropaganda@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Andrew Mitchell"
<paulandrewmitchell2004@...> wrote:
>
> > the lack of penetration between
> columns 16 and 17 ...
>
> I disagree: 15, 16 and 17 clearly
> disintegrated and were dislodged
> towards the left, in line with
> the incoming angle of attack,
> particularly at ground level;
> 18 is still vertical, indicating
> only superficial damage there
> but no structural relocation of
> column 18.
>
> Just align all columns in a
> rectangular grid, separated
> by windows.
>
> In the past, you have tried to
> make inferences from patterns
> of foam after it was sprayed
> from fire trucks. That is a
> very questionable approach,
> predictably error-prone.
>
> The tops of those damaged columns were
> not "shifted to the right", because
> those tops were still mostly aligned
> with the bearing walls separating
> the windows on the floors above them.
>
> The disintegration of columns 15, 16
> and 17 must be viewed BEFORE
> foam was sprayed on both:
>
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/no_engine_hit_between__16
and17.jpg
>
> Whoever chose the name for that key photo:
> -- "no_engine_hit_between_16and17.jpg" --
> was evidently trying to persuade
> viewers to jump to the wrong conclusion.
>
> I would NEVER have chosen such a misleading
> and conclusory filename for that photo:
>
> WE CONCLUDE THAT A PRATT & WHITNEY
> JT8D DID HIT SQUARELY AT 16 AND 17,
> JUST MISSING 18; AND, ITS IMMENSE
> KINETIC ENERGY CAUSED IT TO DISINTEGRATE
> MUCH MORE THAN THE PORT ENGINE.
>
> There is only one thing that would
> cause steel-reinforced concrete walls
> to disintegrate like that: penetration
> of a significant mass, moving at a high
> incoming velocity.
>
> Also, it is clear to us that the generator's
> left end was shoved away from the cyclone fence
> towards the Pentagon, as the starboard engine
> glanced thru that end of the generator housing, also
> taking out a section of that fence. Thus,
> the narrow "furrow" in the top of the generator
> housing most probably resulted from the impact
> of an underwing pylon. The right end of the
> generator housing was not directly impacted
> by any part of the killer jet.
>
> I have also concluded that no F-14,
> F-15 or F-16 was involved.
>
> The A-3 Skywarriors were retrofitted
> with JT8D engines, because they were
> found to be more efficient, more
> readily available and more easily
> maintained e.g. more experience
> among aircraft mechanics, both
> military and civilian.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
***********************
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > paulandrewmitchell2004@
> > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 2:17 AM
> > Subject: [catapult] BLOG: Simple Math demonstrates Official 9/11
> Account is a Fabrication
> >
> > http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/03/simple-math-
> demonstrate-that-official.html
> >
> > Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a
> Fabrication
> >
> > Paul Andrew Mitchell added these
> > comments to the Blog above:
> >
> > Just a few quick comments,
> > based on forensic analysis
> > of photographic evidence:
> >
> > (1) the hit on the second WTC
> > tower shows most of the jet fuel
> > combusting OUTSIDE that building,
> > where it was mostly NOT in touch
> > with the steel frame and hence
> > unable to transfer sustained
> > high temps into that steel;
> >
> > This is further proof of the "planehugger" conclusion.
> > Real jetliners were used.
> >
> > (2) the FDNY never had enough
> > time to wire WTC7 with demolition
> > explosives; they must have been
> > in place PRIOR TO 9/11; Larry
> > Silverstein admitted on PBS
> > that he gave his permission
> > to "pull it" i.e. detonate the
> > explosives to effect a controlled
> > demolition; FDNY do not normally
> > respond to a multi-alarm hi-rise
> > fire with the [large] quantity of
> > explosives required to demolish
> > a 47-story steel frame building
> > (not a good idea to place so much
> > explosives so close to a fire);
> >
> > Then all three buildings were set with
> > demolition charges prior to 9/11/01
> >
> > (3) numerous Pentagon photos do
> > show aircraft debris, most notably
> > the P&W JT8D engine that came to
> > rest OUTSIDE the Pentagon:
> >
> > I have not seen numerous photos of
> > an engine outside the Pentagon (i.e.,
> > outside the E-ring) nor is it clear that
> > any of the engine parts photographed
> > inside the building and between the
> > "C" and "B" rings were not planted there
> > after the crash -- whatever type of
> > engine they are from.
> >
> > http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/
> >
> > (4) the telltale "fingerprints"
> > on the diesel generator reveal
> > a lot, e.g. starboard engine
> > intake cowling and underwing rocket
> > pylon fit the damages quite well;
> > geometry of a Boeing 757 is quite
> > different and a "bad fit";
> >
> > The gouge in the diesel generator
> > is perpendicular to the direction of
> > the killer jet. There are no photos
> > showing pieces of engine cowling.
> > There is no evidence at all that the
> > aircraft had a starboard engine --
> > the lack of penetration between
> > columns 16 and 17 indicate that
> > no engine hit there. If the engine
> > had scraped the top of the generator
> > then the engine would have had to
> > have hit the ceiling/floor between
> > the first and second story -- no
> > damage of this kind is shown in
> > any of the good photos of this area.
> >
> > (5) the collision with the diesel
> > generator lifted the right wing,
> > causing the attack jet to roll
> > to the port, in a counter-clockwise
> > direction;
> >
> > The was no "inclined plane" in the generator
> > configuration. The plane would not have
> > been lifted -- at most there would have
> > been some rotation (pivoting) -- as mentioned
> > above -- there is no sign of an engine penetrating
> > the wall, either on the first floor, or between floors
> > or on the second floor. The idea that the plane
> > was lifted on the starboard side which served
> > to turn the plane is not valid -- the wings were
> > not configured for a banking turn, even if it could
> > be elevated. The lack of damage to the second
> > floor on the starboard side shows that if the killer
> > jet was banking, it certainly did not have a starboard
> > engine -- because no starboard engine hit the
> > wall there -- see http://bedoper.com/eastman
> > (other evidence photos are not up right now, but
> > they back up what this photo shows).
> >
> > (6) at a ~45-degree angle of
> > incidence, the starboard JT8D
> > and starboard wing tip hit the
> > Pentagon facade at almost
> > exactly the same instant;
> > elevated wing tip hit at
> > the second floor, port wing
> > tip hit at the first floor,
> > because of this slight roll;
> >
> > Had a Boeing 757 hit at the 55-degree
> > angle (or even a 45 degree angle) the
> > starboard engine would have to have
> > hit before either the wing tip or the
> > wing root -- but there is no evidence of
> > such a hit. Also, there is damage further
> > south on the wall at the level of the third
> > floor -- which cannot be explained by
> > any part of a Boeing 757 or any plane
> > hitting centered on column #14 -- this
> > is damage caused by a missile -- possibly
> > fired by the killer jet before its own crash.
> >
> > (7) at maximum velocity exceeding
> > 400 feet per second, the kinetic
> > energy of the starboard engine
> > was greatest, causing a clear
> > pattern of damage to 2 bearing
> > columns on the first floor, and
> > just missing the bearing column
> > immediately to the right of those
> > 2 bearing columns; E=1/2mv**2
> > [kinetic Energy equals one-half mass
> > times velocity squared]
> > also F=ma
> > [Force equals mass times acceleration]
> > (where "a" is the rate
> > of instantaneous deceleration here);
> >
> > Nice equations -- but they don't buy you
> > a starboard engine. It is exactly because
> > a Boeing 757's engines are so massive
> > and dense and that the kinetic energy
> > geometrically related to velocity was so
> > great that there would have to have
> > been penetration of the wall between
> > pillars #16 and 17 -- and that if any part
> > of the plane would have punched through
> > the wall it would have had to have been
> > the engine. This did not happen. There
> > was no starboard engine -- the killer jet
> > was a single -engine jet and therefore
> > a military plane.
> >
> > (8) the 5 published frames from
> > the Pentagon's cctv camera were
> > subsequently altered with image
> > processing software; these
> > alterations are most obvious
> > in frame 1, e.g. the fuselage
> > to the left of the tail section
> > was "air-brushed" with a pixel
> > color taken from an entirely
> > different region of that frame;
> > this modification of murder
> > weapon evidence was a felony,
> > in and of itself;
> >
> > You are way off target -- to the right of
> > the tail fin in the first frame we see a
> > trail of thick white smoke -- the characteristic
> > trail of a missile -- this is in no way,
> > shape or form a "fuselage" --
> > obviously you have never bothered
> > to look at the "small-plane" evidence
> > very carefully. Do so now:
> > http://bedoper.com/eastman
> >
> > (9) the collision of a modified
> > A-3 Skywarrior "best fits" the
> > pattern of damages that are
> > documented in detail in the
> > available digital photos;
> >
> > I say the A-3 tail does not fit
> > as well as the F-16 -- and an
> > F-16 was seen by one witness
> > just five minutes before the crash.
> > A remote controlled F-16 would be
> > in perfect disguise for the attack, since
> > F-16's normally guard the capital.
> > Also, F-16's are known to have been
> > modified for remote control combat.
> > The F-16 was the optimum choice
> > and it fits all the knowns as well as
> > any plane.
> >
> > (10) an air-to-ground missile
> > appears to have been launched
> > from under the port wing,
> > just prior to the jet hit;
> >
> > Either under a wing or from under the
> > fuselage -- the F-16 is capable of
> > either.
> >
> > (11) we have received unconfirmed
> > reports that a Russian satellite
> > photographed the launch of
> > the attack jet from the
> > deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier
> > stationed off the Atlantic coast;
> > A-3 Skywarriors are fitted with
> > landing gear designed for flight
> > deck operations.
> >
> > This is not reliable, but if true,
> > we do not know what part the
> > aircraft seen taking off might
> > have played -- it certainly wasn't
> > tracked directly to the Pentagon.
> > Still it may have been the plane --
> > I am not saying that an A-3 is impossible.
> >
> > For more background on our
> > investigation, see:
> >
> > http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

************************
Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:17 am
Subject: BLOG: Simple Math demonstrates Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/03/simple-math-demonstrate-that-official.html

Paul Andrew Mitchell added these
comments to the Blog above:

Just a few quick comments,
based on forensic analysis
of photographic evidence:

(1) the hit on the second WTC
tower shows most of the jet fuel
combusting OUTSIDE that building,
where it was mostly NOT in touch
with the steel frame and hence
unable to tranfer sustained
high temps into that steel;

(2) the FDNY never had enough
time to wire WTC7 with demolition
explosives; they must have been
in place PRIOR TO 9/11; Larry
Silverstein admitted on PBS
that he gave his permission
to "pull it" i.e. detonate the
explosives to effect a controlled
demolition; FDNY do not normally
respond to a multi-alarm hi-rise
fire with the [large] quantity of
explosives required to demolish
a 47-story steel frame building
(not a good idea to place so much
explosives so close to a fire);

(3) numerous Pentagon photos do
show aircraft debris, most notably
the P&W JT8D engine that came to
rest OUTSIDE the Pentagon:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/

(4) the telltale "fingerprints"
on the diesel generator reveal
a lot, e.g. starboard engine
intake cowling and underwing rocket
pylon fit the damages quite well;
geometry of a Boeing 757 is quite
different and a "bad fit";

(5) the collision with the diesel
generator lifted the right wing,
causing the attack jet to roll
to the port, in a counter-clockwise
direction;

(6) at a ~45-degree angle of
incidence, the starboard JT8D
and starboard wing tip hit the
Pentagon facade at almost
exactly the same instant;
elevated wing tip hit at
the second floor, port wing
tip hit at the first floor,
because of this slight roll;

(7) at maximum velocity exceeding
400 feet per second, the kinetic
energy of the starboard engine
was greatest, causing a clear
pattern of damage to 2 bearing
columns on the first floor, and
just missing the bearing column
immediately to the right of those
2 bearing columns; E=1/2mv**2
[kinetic Energy equals one-half mass
times velocity squared]
also F=ma
[Force equals mass times acceleration]
(where "a" is the rate
of instantaneous deceleration here);

(8) the 5 published frames from
the Pentagon's cctv camera were
subsequently altered with image
processing software; these
alterations are most obvious
in frame 1, e.g. the fuselage
to the left of the tail section
was "air-brushed" with a pixel
color taken from an entirely
different region of that frame;
this modification of murder
weapon evidence was a felony,
in and of itself;

(9) the collision of a modified
A-3 Skywarrior "best fits" the
pattern of damages that are
documented in detail in the
available digital photos;

(10) an air-to-ground missile
appears to have been launched
from under the port wing,
just prior to the jet hit;

(11) we have received unconfirmed
reports that a Russian satellite
photographed the launch of
the attack jet from the
deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier
stationed off the Atlantic coast;
A-3 Skywarriors are fitted with
landing gear designed for flight
deck operations.

For more background on our
investigation, see:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

**************************************8

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Mar 7, 2006 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: FORUM FOR DISCLOSURES "Comments on the Pentagon Strike," by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

At http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html, the owner of WTC 7 admitted on video he blew up the 3rd building on 9/11. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT TAKES TO WIRE A 47 STORY BUILDING TO BE IMPLODED?!!
> COULD YOU DO THAT ON 9/11 TO A BUILDING THAT YOU CLAIM HAS UNCONTROLLABLE FIRES BURNING IN IT?!!
> LARRY SILVERSTEIN - 9/11 PROFITEER

Indeed!

I was an eyewitness to Silverstein's statement as broadcasted
on national television: I REACTED STRONGLY AND IMMEDIATELY.

Here's a partial list of reasons why:

(1) it is very unlikely that a Fire Captain would call the building owner,
or any lessees, to "request permission" to demolish a building
where a fire is being extinguished; Fire Captains have full and
complete authority at such emergencies, even over police at the scene;

(2) it is also extremely unlikely that those fire trucks arrived at the
scene with sufficient quantities of explosives on-board those trucks to place
controlled demolition charges throughout WTC7; it would also be quite
stupid to arrive at a multi-alarm fire with fire trucks loaded with high
explosives: one cinder or spark, and an entire truck would be
destroyed, not to mention its crew; those trucks are already loaded
to the gills with hoses, chain saws, oxygen tanks, protective clothing,
you name it -- no room whatsoever for large quantities of dynamite;

(3) the time between the initial alarm, and the collapse of the building,
was hardly enough to place all the equipment and charges required
to effect the kind of controlled demolition which is quite obvious
in the video evidence of its collapse; the firemen were busy extinguishing
the fires, they had no time to install all the wiring and explosives that
were necessary to execute that controlled demolition -- not with flames
and smoke endangering their very lives. Such a task normally takes
WEEKS not HOURS!!

So, Silverstein's statement is a LIE.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

----- Original Message -----
From: Supreme Law Firm
To: paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: FORUM FOR DISCLOSURES "Comments on the Pentagon Strike," by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

> If there were no hijackers, then who stopped the pilots from
controlling the planes? ...

> [Answer: Dov Zakheim -- who came to the Defense Department
from a company that makes combat efficient remote control equipment ]]

Knight-Jadczyk's theory about the purpose of this kind
of attack is explained fully in her excellent essay.

Summarizing: a comparison of the utter and complete
destruction of the twin WTC and WTC7 towers,
with the isolated and relatively limited damage to the
Pentagon, suggests that the Pentagon crash was a
"self-inflicted alibi" designed from the start to be
limited to a pin-point bull's eye, in order to make
the rest of the world THINK that the overall strategy
TRIED to destroy the Pentagon too, but failed.

The truth, on the other hand, was quite the opposite:
no attempt was ever made to destroy the entire Pentagon.
That would have required all personnel to be "absent"
that day, and such an enormous absence would have been
too obvious, as if it was not also too obvious at the
WTC too, e.g. Zim Navigational. (Isn't Zim now implicated
in the UAE port swindle? Hmmmm.)

And, given the TOP SECRET matters which ONI are
usually investigating, it would not be too difficult
to disguise the impact on ONI's new offices as "unexpected
collateral damage," when the opposite is much more likely,
namely, ONI KNEW IN ADVANCE that a modified jet
was being planned to launch from a U.S. aircraft carrier,
as part of the overall 9/11 run-up. So, ONI was
selected as the prime target at the Pentagon,
instead of Rumsfeld's office on the other side.

Curiously, one of the versions of frame 1 from the Pentagon
cctv camera is quite unique for having a pixel resolution
that is markedly superior to all the other cctv frames
that we have examined closely, with software which
permits unlimited pixel zooming. The text that accompanies
that hi-res frame 1 suggests that ONI's offices were being
used to store very sensitive intelligence about UFOs.
My guess is that this intelligence concerned the UFO
cover-up which the Pentagon has been sponsoring
for many years.

Knight-Jadczyk's theory is further supported by reports we've reviewed
which claim that the murder weapon was, in fact, modified
by rotating teams of technicians at an airfield in Loveland,
Colorado. Separate teams were needed to install new P&W JT8D
engines, remote-control avionics, wing-mounted missiles,
etc. and each team was kept isolated from the other teams,
to prevent "cross-talk" among them. I believe that ONI
knew about this Loveland operation while it was underway.

A pin-pointed crash would thus accomplish several
simultaneous objectives, one of which was the premeditated
murder of the very same people who quite probably had already
gotten wind of the 9/11 plan, had placed the conspiracy under
constant surveillance, and were working feverishly
to stop it from being executed. Instead THEY were
executed, in a fashion quite similar to the manner
in which Lee Harvey Oswald was set up.

Remember, now, D.A. Jim Garrison did believe that Oswald
had penetrated the conspiracy to murder JFK, but was
discovered and setup as the patsy, as his "punishment"
for attempting to disrupt that assassination.

See "Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane, particularly
the deposition by Castro's lover, who was driven
to Dallas, the day before JFK was killed, by the
same "hobos" who were apprehended in the railroad
yard behind the Grassy Knoll, and photographed as
they were being escorted thru Dealey Plaza
by Dallas Police (e.g. Frank Sturgis).

The same pattern is likely to have happened at the Pentagon,
particularly if the Mossad had a heavy hand in planning
and implementation: they have a habit of utilizing the
same "paradigm" in all their "jobs". It's what they do
"best", so why change it, if it has always worked in the
past? Read this detailed history, with that "paradigm"
foremost in your mind:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/pastore/

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

*************
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 03:57:15 -0000
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
To: supremelaw@googlegroups.com,supremelaw@topica.com
Subject: [planehuggers] [A-C] Re: ! Arabs not responsible for 911

Here's an interesting detail about the Pentagon's
automatic defense systems:

Comments on the Pentagon Strike
by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

[excerpt]

Military aircraft and missiles possess transponders which are much
more sophisticated than those of civilian planes.

These transponders enable the craft to declare itself to the
electronic eyes watching American airspace as either friendly or
hostile.

An anti-missile battery will not, for example, react to the passage
of a "friendly missile," so that, in battlefield conditions, it is
ensured that only enemy armaments and vehicles are destroyed.

Thus, it seems that whatever hit the Pentagon MUST have had a
military transponder signaling that it was "friendly" -- i.e. it
would take an American Military craft to penetrate the defenses of
the Pentagon -- or the anti-missile batteries would have been
automatically activated.

[end excerpt]

This further supports the legal theory of an inside job,
e.g. an attack jet launched from a U.S. aircraft carrier
stationed off the Atlantic Coast. We have received reports
that a Russian satellite photographed the launch of this jet,
but have not yet received any definitive confirmation.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
Date: Tue Mar 7, 2006 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [catapult] "Comments on the Pentagon Strike," by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

See "Operation Pearl" by Prof. Kee Dewdney,
attached as an Exhibit to this NOTICE:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/mariani/notice.intent.htm

With a plane swap mid-air, the planes that took off
must have landed (or crashed) elsewhere, and did NOT
hit either the WTC or Pentagon.

We've asked the U.S. Military to issue a military
APB (All Points Bulletin) for the apprehension of
Daniel C. Lewin and Alona Avraham, on suspicion
of aircraft piracy on 9/11.

Lewin was on AA11 and Avraham on UA175. We believe
that both de-planed and return to a hero's welcome
in Tel Aviv.

The planes that hit their targets were all remotely
controlled, as far as we can tell.

Flight 93 was evidently shot down with a sidewinder
air-to-air missile. See "The Intercept Scenario" --
another attachment to the NOTICE above.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

>
> This further supports the legal theory of an inside job,
> e.g., an attack jet launched from a U.S. aircraft carrier
> stationed off the Atlantic Coast. We have received reports
> that a Russian satellite photographed the launch of this jet,
> but have not yet received any definitive confirmation.
>