Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Hani Hanjour, Flight 77 and the Pentagon

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      --- In 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com  Paul Andrew mitchell wrote:

      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 that 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
      names that were the exact opposite of what I observed
      in those photos e.g. "noplanehitbetweenthesecolumns.gif".

      So, I went about collecting nothing more than raw images,
      and that effort produced a collection numbering about
      1,200 digital photos in all.

      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.

      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.

      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!

      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.

      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.

      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 underwing geometry of a 757 is very different!

      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.

      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.

      And, using simple physics, the impact of the starboard engine
      resulted in significantly reducing the 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.

      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.

      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.

      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
      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



      --- In 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com, James Patton <james_patton@> wrote:
      >
      > Here's part of a debate I had about Hani Hanjour, the pilot who
      allegedly flew
      > American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, but had trouble
      controlling
      > and landing a single engine Cessna 172.
      >
      > > > - How could an unqualified pilot not competent to land a Cessna
      > > > pull off the Pentagon job so neatly?
      > >
      > <--reply from a skeptic who believes this would be a relatively easy
      thing to do -->
      > > Try it yourself in a flight simulator program - it's not actually
      very
      > > hard to fly a plane and keep it in the air on even deliberately crash
      > > it into something - landing safely is the hard bit.
      >
      > I have little experience flying, but my very limited
      > experience in flight-simulators hasn't been that successful.
      >
      >
      > <-- reply from the skeptic-->
      > > Also a short time after the original attack some idiot stole a Cessna
      > > and few it into a building in a copycat incident - he wasn't a
      > > qualified pilot either.
      > > >
      > > > - How could same poor pilot pull off an aerial manoeuvre in an
      > > > unfamiliar aircraft that even 'top gun' military pilots
      have said
      > > > would have greatly challenged them?
      > >
      > <-- skeptic -->
      > > Which top gun pilots said that?
      >
      > The 'top gun' pilots who said that are commander Ralph Kolstad
      > and former air force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg. Try googling
      > their names and see what you get.
      >
      > <-- skeptic who thinks this aerial manoeuvre would be easy -->
      > > - I can do those kinds of manuveres in
      > > a flight simulator.
      >
      > What, a 330-degree turn at 530 miles per hour, descending
      > 7000 feet in two and a half minutes, to crash American
      > Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon?
      >
      > In a real aeroplane?
      >
      > Okay, maybe you could? Who am I to say?
      >
      > But please remember, before you can get to the seat in your
      > simulator, you must FIRST overpower Captain Charles F. Burlingame,
      > a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock, who had flown
      > over 100 combat missions, and First Officer David Charlebois,
      > and somehow manage to toss them out of the cockpit (surely
      > very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without
      > inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging
      > the autopilot).
      >
      > And you are armed with only a box-cutter.
      >
      > Every pilot who knew Burlingame says that rather than politely
      > hand over the controls, he would have instantly
      > rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have
      > broken his neck when he hit the floor.
      >
      >
      > See below for more:
      >
      > Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100
      > combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United
      > for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes
      > that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 &
      93),
      > does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
      >
      > RUSS WITTENBERG:
      > "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11...
      > Flight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in
      > Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have
      hit the
      > South Tower.
      >
      > I don't believe it's possible for... a so-called terrorist to
      train
      on a 172,
      > then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical
      navigate
      > the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at
      speeds
      > exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make
      > high-speed high-banked turns,.. pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's... I
      > couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do
      it."
      >
      > You can watch Wittenberg's statement here:
      > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3606159506368831731
      >
      >
      >
      > Hani Hanjour, the pilot who allegedly flew American Airlines
      > flight 77 into the Pentagon, had trouble controlling
      > and landing a single engine Cessna 172.
      >
      > Instructors at the Freeway Airport in Maryland were so
      > unimpressed with his flying skills that they declined
      > his request to rent a Cessna.
      >
      > And yet, we are told, on September 11 Hani managed a 330-degree
      > turn at 530 miles per hour, descending 7000 feet in two and a
      > half minutes, to crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the
      > ground floor of the Pentagon.
      >
      >
      > U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11
      > by Alan Miller
      > September 5, 2007
      > http://www.opednews.com
      >
      > U.S. Navy `Top Gun' pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started
      > questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the
      > event. "It just didn't make any sense to me," he said. And
      now 6
      > years after 9/11 he says, "When one starts using his own mind, and
      > not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the
      > official story."
      >
      > Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot
      > during his 20-year Navy career.
      >
      > Kolstad writes:
      > At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying.
      >
      > I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's
      > and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
      >
      > I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor,
      > U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying
      > low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what
      > these beginners did.
      >
      > Something stinks to high heaven!
      >
      > http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Kolstad.html
      >
      >
      >
      > After googling Kolstad and Witttenberg, you may like to consider
      > this article:
      >
      > The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
      > NILA SAGADEVAN / Earth's Common Sense Think Tank 13jun2006
      >
      > Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot
      > of heavy aircraft.
      >
      > source:
      >
      http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/911_Impossible_Flying_757.html
      > 13jun2006
      >
      >
      > About the Author: Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka)
      > and educated in Britain. A former commercial pilot, he holds a degree
      > in aeronautical engineering from the University of Edinburgh and works
      > as a communications consultant. He lives with his wife and son in
      > Laguna Hills, CA. and may be reached at nila@
      >
      >
      http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: oaklandtyke <rawpaint@>
      > To: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, 31 August, 2008 12:58:43 AM
      > Subject: [9-11-NeXuS] The Pentagon Blue Tarp . . .
      >
      > The strongest evidence regarding the Pentagon can be found at the
      pilotsfor911truth.org
      > web site and forum:
      >
      > • The FDR (black box) data allegedly from Flight 77 (obtained via
      FOIA from the NTSB)
      > significantly contradicts the damage observed at the Pentagon
      (altitude is too high for
      > impact and on the wrong heading to cause the observed debris path)
      Cf. this one-hour
      > youtube presentation that summarizes the P4T info as of 2007:
      http://tinyurl.com/calumdouglas
      >
      > • Many eyewitnesses to the plane flying toward the Pentagon saw it
      on a (north) flight
      > path irreconcilable with the (south) damage path. See the work of
      Citizen Investigation
      > Team here: http://www.thepentacon.com/ Although ALL of the witnesses
      interviewed on
      > film *believe* the plane they saw impacted the Pentagon, their
      observations of it directly
      > contradict the damage path. The two are irreconcilable.
      >
      > • The FBI and NTSB have no records (via FOIA requests) indicating
      that ANY of the plane
      > debris (including the FDR (black box) allegedly found within the
      Pentagon) were
      > positively identified cross-referencing serial numbers against
      maintenance logs. Cf.
      > Aidan Monaghan's blog: http://www.911blogger.com/blog/2074
      >
      > • The Pentagon security video footage does NOT clearly show a
      large Boeing aircraft
      > hitting the building and, moreover, indicates an altitude and
      inclination (level with the
      > lawn) that is completely inconsistent with the FDR data allegedly
      from Flight 77.
      >
      > These four points (and others I've not listed such as the absence of
      visible aircraft debris
      > and the damage observed on the facade prior to building collapse,
      etc.) are STRONG
      > evidence of a cover-up and require no conjecture on our part.
      >

      --- End forwarded message ---



      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
      "SupremeLaw" group.
      To post to this group, send email to supremelaw@...
      To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
      supremelaw+unsubscribe@...
      For more options, visit this group at
      http://groups.google.com/group/supremelaw?hl=en
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

      --- In 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Andrew Mitchell"

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.