What hit the Pentagon? A Boeing 756 did.

[Jester]

http://www.abovetopsecret./forum/thread79655/pg1

...thus disproving the Pentagon911.swf

Cheers!

 

[Laura]

I guess you haven't been paying attention OR doing your homework.

See: Is Abovetopsecret.com COINTELPRO?
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_02_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_07_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
Abovetopsecret.com COINTELPRO Update
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_10_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
AboveTopSecret.com COINTELPRO Update 2
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_11_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
More Inside Scoops on Abovetopsecret.com!
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_12_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
The Spider and The Fly: SkepticOverlord and COINTELPRO
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_14_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
The Cult of the Plausible Lie
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
The Magus and the Swamps of Eugnosia
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_15_laura-knight-jadczyk_archive.html

and
Abovetopsecret: Ethics and Google Bombs
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/abovetopsecret-ethics-and-google-bombs.html

There are also a couple of threads that discuss ATS here in the forum. Search for 'em.

More recently, there is this:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth - A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20060311_BusharroWorld.php#9b658f451959ca8bdcbc4cb6aca

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer

And this interesting item that shows exactly why the so-called witnesses were so easily manipulated:

Important for 9/11 Research: Brain Blindness
by James Eagan and Emily Hager
9 Mar 06

We all know that seeing something emotional can distract us, but researchers say that it might even blind us... not in our eyes, but in our brains. This ScienCentral news video explains.

Driving Blind

It's hard not to look when you pass an accident on the road, but doing so can be dangerous. Vanderbilt University psychologist David Zald says "emotional" images - like car accidents, a gruesome murder scene, or a bit of pornography - can briefly blind us to everything else around us, limiting our senses and potentially putting us at risk.

"Something that's emotional not only captures our attention, but it does it to such an extent that it's blocking information that comes in after. We're no longer even looking at that image," says Zald.

As reported in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Zald and his colleagues trained twenty-one people to spot a neutral target image out of a series flying by at ten pictures per second, and then state whether it was rotated to the left or the right. The volunteers performed well except when either a gory or erotic image - more graphic than can be shown here - appeared before the target image. Co-author Steven Most, from Yale University, says in those cases participants were far more likely to miss the target.

"When an emotional picture appears, it seems to short-circuit that processing in the brain that will then help you construct a visual conscious perception," Most explains.

Zald says these emotional blindings happen all the time in our daily lives, but are probably most important for drivers, since a lapse in attention of less than a second is enough to cause an accident.

"A ball that's suddenly come out on the road, a child who's suddenly stepped into the street… Anything that could happen very quickly, we could easily miss it," says Zald.

In a separate interview, Zald gave an example of how this phenomenon plays a role in personal safety. If someone is suddenly shot on the street, witnesses will stop reading their newspapers, take cover, and stare at the victim as he or she falls to the ground. But witnesses may not be able to transfer their attention quickly enough to also determine if the shooter is targeting them next. "The problem is that there's also a cost to it," says Zald, "which is that we don't tend to other information when we see something that's emotional."

The research team also found that some people are more easily distracted than others. "[People who] have the lowest amounts of anxiety are sort of able to override this distraction," Most says. But they have not yet found any other trends.

Illinois University psychologist Daniel J. Simons says the study is "a really neat finding," because it documents how we may be distracted by things beyond our focused attention. He adds however, that whether seeing a car accident, or a racy billboard on the road causes this blindness, has yet to be confirmed. "We don't know if it has that [specific] consequence yet."

In order to conclusively document what happens when we're driving, Simons says researchers would need to design studies that use driving simulators to test peoples' on-the-road reactions to graphic stimuli. His own research however has shown that people often fail to see things even with their eyes wide open. "Looking out the window," he warns, "doesn't guarantee that you will see [everything in front of you]."

Elizabeth Phelps, a psychologist at New York University, also agrees that under certain circumstances some people may be able to suppress this emotionally induced blindness. For example, she says doctors who regularly deal with bloody injuries or people who work in the pornography industry may have become desensitized to graphic images because they are exposed to them on a regular basis. However, she says that in these situations, these professionals are not facing any immediate danger themselves. "With no consequence, is that going to extinguish their emotional response?" Phelps asks."I think so." In other less professional and more everyday settings, she says almost everyone is susceptible to these lapses in attention.

Zald, Most and their colleagues are planning additional studies to see what is happening in the brain when this emotional blindness occurs.

This work was reported in the November 2005 issue of Psychonomic Bulletin and Review and was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

In short, see if you can get your neurons to fire and desist from spreading COINTELPRO lies.

 

[Ryan]

There are also a couple of threads that discuss ATS here in the forum.

There is this one exploring a connection between Christian Bailey and "Simon Gray", and there is also this one about ATS & Project SERPO, and also this little snippet.

The ATS article is simply a slick piece of ad hominem nonsense, which anyone can see through if they take the time to criticially examine the supposed "facts" being presented. I particularly get a kick out of the way that "Catherder" interprets off-colour shades in photographs of wreckage as proof of "Boeing primer coatings".

 

[Joe]

http://www.abovetopsecret./forum/thread79655/pg1

...thus disproving the Pentagon911.swf

Cheers!

You should also view the complete rebuttal to to the ATS nonsense here:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

 

[anart]

http://www.abovetopsecret./forum/thread79655/pg1

...thus disproving the Pentagon911.swf

Cheers!

Am I the only one who greatly appreciates the name under which you chose to post?

 

[Cyre2067]

Yeah i thought it was sarcasim as well

 

[Anders]

http://www.abovetopsecret./forum/thread79655/pg1

...thus disproving the Pentagon911.swf

Cheers!

I just watched the docu 'loose change 2nd edition, which I think shows the obvious just like the pentagon flash did. The link is: http://www.loosechange911.com/
The docu 'In plane site' is another good visual film, exposing the lies.
Anders

 

[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]

This should keep you all busy ...

Laura's article caused quite a stire on my conspiracy website and some excellent analysis resulted.

Check it out.

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.
*************************

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.
>
> I would be dishonest with you if I
> agreed with everything you have written
> below.
>
> 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.
>
> > The gouge in the diesel generator
> > is perpendicular to the direction of
> > the killer jet.
>
> Again, I disagree strongly.
>
> 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 know you like to argue, Dick, particularly
> with anyone who does not espouse the conclusions
> you have made on your own.
>
> But, I'm not the kind of individual who needs
> anyone else to agree with me, before reaching
> my own conclusions.
>
> We arrived at our conclusions independently,
> after reading your writings and the writings
> of many other authors on this subject.
>
> Please don't grace the "757" theory
> with any more attention to it:
> "negative identification"
> is now a waste of time, imho.
>
> Really, any more time spent arguing
> that "it was not a 757 for this or
> that reason" is really a waste of my
> time.
>
> 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.
>
> I decline to argue with you any further
> about these details.
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> > I'd like to know how you dismiss the F-16 theory and why
> > you think the killer jet had a starboard engine?

************************
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.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

******************************
----- 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.

*************
Paul Andrew Mitchell <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.

> 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.

 

[rs]

Actually, "Jester" had it right the first time.

It was a Boeing 756 that hit the Pentagon.

[Doh! there is no 756 manufactured by Boeing...]

:O