Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard

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 unpersuasive 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.