911 Military Intelligence Report + Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard

911 Military Intelligence Report +Executive Summary for the U.S. Coast Guard

———- 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

go to this link for links page to many photos http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/
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:

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.

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/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

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/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.

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.


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

Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine – NEEDS TO MEET – Capt. Field McConnell (Lt. Col.)

THE DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION OF ALL THAT HAPPENED ON 911:

WWW.ABELDANGER.NET

Tune-in Wednesday’s, 11AM – 2PM, On The MicroEffect Network

www.themicroeffect.com

More of Captain Sherlock Solves 911:

www.captainsherlock.com

DENVER PROTEST – INVESTIGATE 911 NOW!

Link: Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (Ret.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc

9/11 was a Staged Event – Military Intelligence

Sun Jun 10, 2012 06:23

Major General Albert “Bert” N. Stubblebine III, former head of U. S. military intelligence says:

  • Pentagon NOT hit by a plane.
  • WTC7 brought down by explosives.
  • Media in America is controlled.

Former Head of US Military Intelligence Publicly States 9/11 was a Staged Event
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc

A terrible pilot hits the Pentagon accounting office holding records of missing 3 trillion in oil for money scheme & missing 2.3 trillion in DOD expenses.

Pentagon debris: a single 3 foot engine proven not related to 757.

FBI took all video recordings from surrounding buildings and has refused to show them.

The FCC had all records on criminals like Paulson, Geithner, Ruben, Summers and others engaging in that illegal financial activity, but all the records of those illegal trades were destroyed when WTC 7 was brought down by nano-thermite on 9/11.

911 was a public snuff film used to shock the public and implement the final destruction of the Bill of Rights, maximize war profiteering for private companies like Halliburton, (stock from 10 to 50 a share) and to conquer & pacify crucial regions of the Muslim world for integration into the New World Order.

By destroying the WTC, they were able to cover up an unprecedented theft of gold bullion and destroy illegal financial transaction records performed just prior to the attacks (Google “9/11 put options”). 2.3 TRILLION still missing and unaccounted for within the U.S. military which went missing days prior 9/11.

Larry Silverstein spends 140 million to make 7 billion almost overnight; He admits on national television that he ordered the demolition of WTC7; “I gave the order to ‘pull’ building #7″… (“pull” is an old demolition term which is still used to this day). The only way that Building 7 could have been brought down the same day would have been for the demolition charges to be carefully prepared and placed in advance throughout WTC7 in the weeks or months prior to 9/11!

Former Head of US Military Intelligence Publicly States 9/11 was a Staged Event
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBcaz0CL-qc


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

Positive identification of the Pentagon murder weapons

(see below)

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:

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)

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

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s