Subject:

Private Attorney General releases Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard:

positive identification of the Pentagon murder weapons



(see below)

p.s. Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (retired)

has reviewed this Executive Summary with approval.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Subject:

Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard:

positive identification of the Pentagon murder weapons





TO:

Steve Martin, Host

The Aroostook Watchmen Radio Program

WXME-AM Monticello, Maine





Greetings Mr. Martin et al.:



Yes, I am the sole author of the Executive Summary prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard

under our pro bono verbal agreement to assist them with 9/11 follow-up.



That pro bono verbal agreement is described here,

in a pleading filed at the Federal District Court in Philadelphia:



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





I should also add to the Executive Summary our finding that the

5 key frames from the Pentagon's cctv camera were re-sampled

to a lower resolution, thus destroying valuable detail.



Fortunately, in the course of our investigation we were able

to locate original high-resolution frames, which made comparisons

very easy.



I was able to confirm this re-sampling using simple computer

graphics software and a ZOOM tool. I am also a published

author in computer graphics (Harvard Laboratory for

Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis, 1977).





I am happy to share this Executive Summary with you,

but I am not willing to appear on your radio program:

lengthy telephone conversations are too easily traced.



Because this was a formal homicide investigation,

with a focus on identifying the murder weapons,

security remains a paramount concern.



For further details about our firm policy with regards to

telephones, please see our Client Guidelines here:



http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)





Thank you for your interest in our 9/11 work for U.S. Coast Guard

Investigations with offices at San Diego Harbor, California, USA.





Bcc: Major General Albert Stubblebine







Sincerely yours,

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)



All Rights Reserved without Prejudice





---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Subject: Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard: positive identification of the Pentagon murder weapons





We got very tired of "negative identification" a long time ago; since then,

we achieved "positive identification" of the Pentagon murder weapons.



Search the SupremeLaw message archives for:



"Pentagon" + "positive identification" + "A-3 Skywarrior" .



e.g.:





Executive Summary: positive identification of the Pentagon murder weapons



As you can probably tell from the photos upon which

we relied for our conclusions, prepared originally

for the U.S. Coast Guard, the testimony of eyewitnesses

is notorious for being unreliable, particularly if and when

a black op is planned in advance to confuse eyewitnesses

about what they were expected, and planned, to be seeing.



We also got very bored with all of the discussions about

what the Pentagon plane was NOT: we coined the term

"negative identification" to describe that tendency

of too many Internet activists to mention here.



Because the WTC crime scenes were just too complicated

for one individual like myself to do a comprehensive

job of forensic analysis, we chose instead to focus on

"positive identification" of the Pentagon murder weapons.



This job was much more difficult than it might appear,

at first blush, because we found lots of photos and

an equally large number of writers who were often

quite un persuasive in their attempts to describe

what they reported seeing, and discovering, in those photos.



Certain photos came in the form of digital files with

file names that were the exact opposite of what I observed

in those photos e.g. "noplanehitbetweenthesecolumns.gif":



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/no_engine_hit_between__16and17.jpg





So, I went about collecting nothing more than raw images,

and that effort produced a collection numbering about

1,200 digital photos in all.

[See photo subset here: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon ]





Of course, the Pentagon's 5 cctv frames were exceedingly

important. And, because I am a published author

in computer graphics (Harvard Laboratory, 1977),

I was able to use some simple graphics software

to examine closely the pixel patterns in the one cctv frame

which appears to show the attack jet's vertical tail section:



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic1a.jpg



That analysis immediately resulted in confirming evidence

that the jet's fuselage, forward of the visible tail section,

had been "air brushed" with a purple color which had been taken

from a completely different region of that one frame:



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame91.purple.color.gif



Proving that this color was "foreign" to the pixels where

the fuselage would have been visible, was quite easy:

all that we needed to do was examine subsequent frames,

which showed a dissipating missile exhaust plume, then

the distant background which was covered mostly by

green-colored vegetation growing on a highway embankment

there:



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



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frameb2.bbc.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frameb3.bbc.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frameb4.bbc.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frameb5.bbc.jpg



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.1.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/frame81background.5.jpg



Of course, given the terminal velocity of the attack jet,

its fuselage was not and would not have been visible at all

in any of those subsequent frames.



Once we had confirmed these "air brushed" pixel alterations,

we then theorized that the purple-colored pixels actually

did obliterate the fuselage, and very little else:

therefore, the air-brushed pixels turned out to

outline the fuselage almost perfectly!!



Also, it is quite plausible that the Pentagon personnel,

who did these alterations to evidence of a murder weapon,

were in a big hurry, and didn't stop to consider fully the

extent and manner of those alterations. For example,

a 757's nose would have protruded further to the left

than the left-most purple pixels visible in that cctv frame!



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/ldsxox.2.gif



Thus, the first element of our hypothesis was a somewhat

rough estimate of the overall dimensions of the attack jet,

based in part on the area outlined by those purple pixels

forward of the visible tail section.





From there, we turned our attention to the photos of the

Pentagon that were taken after the crash and before the

roof collapsed. Of course, the roof collapse resulted

in destroying or concealing plenty of valuable forensic

evidence. But, there were enough photos taken before

the roof collapsed, for us to make a reasonable estimate

of the attack jet's "imprint" on the Pentagon's exterior

facade:



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/compmix2.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/compmix2.2.jpg



Then, we had a breakthrough when we discovered the localized

damages on the diesel generator which had been parked

just outside of the Pentagon's exterior wall: after its

fire was extinguished, that diesel generator was not

moved for quite some time, so it appears in lots of

photos taken both before and after the roof collapsed:



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.burning.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator-gouge-small.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/generator.foaming.jpg

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/generator.smoking.jpg



It was most interesting that the specific damages to that

generator came very close to matching the geometry of

an A-3's starboard engine and starboard missile pylon.



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/a3142667.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3side.jpg

The starboard under-wing geometry of a 757 is very different!



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/281582.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/b757_right_engine.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/underwing_757.jpg



[Moreover, the instantaneous impact of the starboard engine

with the left end of that diesel generator helps to explain

why the attack jet hit with slight roll to the port side.

Its forward-looking radar may have also attempted to

avoid a collision with that diesel generator, but

its avionics failed to roll the jet quickly enough.]





Also, there were relatively few indications of direct

impact above the first floor of the Pentagon, except

of course the main entrance hole, and except for

one localized area which matched quite neatly

the point at which the right wing tip must have hit.

Those damages where the right wing tip hit were also

superficial, as compared to where the starboard engine

demolished 3 reinforced concrete bearing columns.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/facade-intacte-1.2.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/right.wing.tip.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/right.wing.tip.2.jpg



Then, things started to fall into place quite nicely,

because the damages to the bearing columns also lined

up with the starboard engine, which would have had

maximum kinetic energy and would have been the first

high-density aircraft component to hit the Pentagon.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/no_engine_hit_between__16and17.jpg

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

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

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/impact_scale.2.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/MissileDamage_First-Floor_Wall.jpg





[Formula for Kinetic energy is K = 1/2 mv**2 ]





And, using simple physics, the impact of the starboard engine

resulted in significantly reducing the attack jet's overall incident

kinetic energy, so much so that the port engine ended up

hitting with much less kinetic energy. And, if you know

where to look, you can see where the 12"+ thick concrete

ceiling above the first floor was chipped away,

most probably when the port engine hit right at that point.



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



Another big breakthrough occurred when, somewhat later in my

search for photos, I came upon the one showing a crane

lifting two planar sections of metal, one of which exhibits

a severe compression gash at one end. Also visible on the

other planar section is a conduit, or tube-like device,

running the horizontal length of that planar section.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/crane.lifting.parts.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3142256.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/A3_7_echelon.jpg



Well, the A-3 Skywarrior is quite unique for having

a rectangular fuselage and an external re-fueling line

attached to the port-side fuselage. A Boeing 757,

on the other hand, has a distinctly cylindrical fuselage

and no external re-fueling lines whatsoever.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3454nose.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3146454s.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3n576ha.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/A3_7_echelon.jpg



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/cylindrical.fuselage.jpg

[That compression gash in the shorter metal section

most probably resulted when the fuselage collided

with the ceiling above the first floor, at an incident

angle of about 50 degrees off the building line.]





This "geometric" approach did result in producing

the best overall "fit" between an A-3 Skywarrior

and the damages evident on the Pentagon before the

roof collapsed.



There were other anomalies which this "best fit" approach

did not explain directly: for example, debris was

later identified as components from other aircraft,

not from an A-3. Although we don't have any really

convincing proof of the following explanation,

it has been suggested -- by me and by several others --

that those other parts were either stowed in the A-3's

bomb bay and/or those other parts were placed in the

Pentagon prior to the crash -- to confuse forensic

investigators.



All of this analysis would have been much easier, of course,

if all video evidence had been promptly published of the

attack jet's final approach, and if all of the debris

had been assembled in a single NTSB hangar, which is

SOP whenever a commercial jet crash has occurred,

in order to attempt mandatory accident reconstruction.



Nevertheless, coupled with other, secondary evidence

of which I am aware, some of it admittedly circumstantial,

we have informed the U.S. Coast Guard of our conclusions

that an unmanned, remotely controlled A-3 Skywarrior

hit the Pentagon, immediately after an air-to-ground ("AGM")

missile was launched from under the port wing, in order to

soften an entrance hole for the A-3's main fuselage.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/a3.and.phoenix.jpg



The timing of the warhead's explosion was not quite

"perfect" however, and the shock wave resulted

in partially disintegrating the A-3 into pieces,

some of which came to rest outside the Pentagon.



http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/framec4.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/framec5.jpg

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/framec5.2.jpg

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





I am a qualified Federal Witness, and I am competent

to testify, under oath, as to the facts and conclusions

summarized above.





Thank you.







Sincerely yours,

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)



All Rights Reserved without Prejudice