My Theory On What Happened At The Pentagon. Let's Solve This., CIT flyover, A-3 Skywarrior with missile, bombs. Options

[lightninboy]

The CIT north-of-Citgo flyover is indisputable, right?

No 757 parts were ever found, but A-3 Skywarrior parts were found.

The A-3 Skywarrior flew south of Citgo through the planted lightpoles and fired a missile ahead of it, according to Attorney Paul Andrew Mitchell.

Some bombs were needed to make the damage inside the Pentagon. Terral has studied this.

Some more explosives may have been used later to bring the roof down.

This post has been edited by lightninboy: Sep 21 2011, 06:07 PM

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:http://northamptonlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/thumbs_up.jpg)

[lightninboy]

(IMG:http://northamptonlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/thumbs_up.jpg)

I guess that's a "Right on!"

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

I guess that's a "Right on!"

far from....lol.


This post has been edited by Domenick DiMaggio CIT: Sep 24 2011, 02:34 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//uploads/monthly_09_2011/post-1875-1316889238_thumb.jpg)

Haha!

[lightninboy]

Domenick! I've been trying to contact you for weeks!

Hey, I gave CIT credit for the north-of-Citgo flyover. And CIT wouldn't deny there were bombs in the Pentagon. It just happened that at the same time that was going on, an A-3 Skywarrior south of Citgo firing a missile ahead of it hit the Pentagon. There's evidence of it.

[onesliceshort]

Domenick! I've been trying to contact you for weeks!

Hey, I gave CIT credit for the north-of-Citgo flyover. And CIT wouldn't deny there were bombs in the Pentagon. It just happened that at the same time that was going on, an A-3 Skywarrior south of Citgo firing a missile ahead of it hit the Pentagon. There's evidence of it.

Did the A-3 Skywarrior fly over too? And why an A-3 Skywarrior? Any witnesses to these shenanigans?
Hit us up with the "evidence". The suspense is killin me.

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

Domenick! I've been trying to contact you for weeks!

Hey, I gave CIT credit for the north-of-Citgo flyover. And CIT wouldn't deny there were bombs in the Pentagon. It just happened that at the same time that was going on, an A-3 Skywarrior south of Citgo firing a missile ahead of it hit the Pentagon. There's evidence of it.

alright, i'll play along.

who saw an a-3 skywarrior?
who saw a missile?
who saw an a-3 skywarrior firing a missile at the pentagon?

[lightninboy]

who saw an a-3 skywarrior?

Of all the people claiming to have seen a plane, some of them saw one plane and some of them saw the other plane, I assume.

who saw a missile?

Nobody that I know of.

who saw an a-3 skywarrior firing a missile at the pentagon?

Nobody that I know of.

[lightninboy]

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Jul 7, 2009

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

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:
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 under-wing geometry of a 757 is very different!
[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 a 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.
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.
[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.
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.
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)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth...8a9e71f60602273

[lightninboy]

"9/11 -- An Inside Job,"
By Paul Andrew Mitchell
(3/18/2010)

An A-3 Skywarrior hit just after an AGM missile was fired
from under its port wing, to soften an entrance hole for
the fuselage. A key debris photo shows 2 planar fuselage
sections, one of which has a telltale re-fueling line
along its horizontal length.

Very few jet aircraft have rectangular fuselages;
and, of those only one has an external re-fueling line.
All photos of A-3s that we have seen do show this external
re-fueling line on every A-3 we have examined.

That A-3 was reportedly modified at a private airfield
in Loveland, Colorado, using different crews to do
different retrofits, e.g. avionics, weapons, remote-control,
transponder beacon, etc.

It had been purchased as part of a fleet of A-3s now
owned by Raytheon, a major DOD contractor.

One USAF pilot I know told me that Captain Gerald F. DeConto
was on the telephone to Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy,
requesting authorization to engage the incoming, because
the Pentagon's automatic fire control system had been fooled
by a "friendly" transponder beacon.

As the highest ranking officer in the Naval Command Center,
DeConto and his staff must have been tracking that incoming
on their in-house radar systems, and realized that the
incoming jet had a friendly transponder, because the
fire control system had NOT activated itself.

While England kept Captain DeConto on the telephone,
evidently stalling him, DeConto and his staff were killed
by the missile warhead and subsequent impact of the A-3.

The Boeing 757 seen by many eyewitnesses was timed to fly over
the Pentagon at precisely the moment of the A-3's impact.
It landed at National, into the waiting arms of 94
ground crew who had infiltrated Dulles and National airports.

They were later deported for falsifying Social Security
applications and violating immigration laws:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/eastma...ents.090902.htm
(search for "94 workers")

We suspect they were all Mossad (Israeli secret police).

Wayne Madsen also recently reported that a Boeing 747
departed from JFK for Tel Aviv at 4:11 pm on 9/11/2001,
full of passengers. We estimate that about 400 people
were on that flight, most likely to receive heroes'
welcomes after landing in Israel, despite the FAA's
grounding order which was not lifted until several
days later.

AA11 was most probably hijacked by Mossad officer
Daniel C. Lewin. AA11's first flight deviation
turned it into a new heading straight for Rome, NY,
host to Griffiss AFB and NEADS -- the Northeast
Air Defense Sector responsible for tracking all
aircraft in the airspace above 500,000 square MILES
of Northeastern USA. This is what we learned
about the tracking technology at NEADS on that day:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/davis/...iss.htm#remains

While we were assisting the U.S. Coast Guard with this
investigation, we requested the U.S. Military to issue
an APB (All Points Bulletin) for the immediate apprehension
of Daniel C. Lewin on suspicion of aircraft piracy on the
morning of 9/11/2001.

All that Griffiss interceptors needed to do was to get airborne,
and AA11 would have flown right into them. If they had
scrambled SOP instead and accelerated to about Mach 2, they
would have screamed by AA11's windshield at a combined
velocity of about 33 miles per minute (~600 + ~1,400 mph).

Air National Guard claims they have the proven capability
to intercept anything above anywhere in the USA in NINE MINUTES.

AA11's first reported deviation was about 8:14 a.m., so
add 10-15 minutes to estimate actual moment of intercept --
we calculate that moment would have occurred in VERY close
proximity to Albany, New York.

According to flight paths published by the Federal government,
the jet that hit the Pentagon flew due South and almost
bisected the distance between the Pentagon and Andrews AFB:
that distance is about 11-12 miles, so the attack jet could not
have been much more than 6 miles away from the fighter wing
stationed at Andrews.

F-14 and F-15 interceptors can accelerate to max velocity
in less than 60 seconds after takeoff, by activating
their after-burners.

Moreover, Dick Cheney and Norman Mineta were in their command
bunker, while a radar operator kept them informed of the
forward progress of that attack jet. "It's 50 miles out;
it's 30 miles out; it's 20 miles out; it's 10 miles out.
Do the orders still stand?" the operator asked.

"Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard
anything to the contrary?" Cheney barked back.

So, they were tracking that attack jet all that time.

We have more, much more. Does this make your blood boil?
Mine is STILL boiling, now 8 1/2 years later!

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/inside.job.htm

[lightninboy]

By Paul Andrew Mitchell
May 31, 2005

Our current surviving hypothesis is that an A-3 was launched from a U.S. aircraft carrier stationed off the Atlantic coast: the Russians reportedly have a satellite photo of its launch from that carrier.

The A-3 was remotely controlled, and we are quite confident in the evidence which defines the precise trajectory of its final approach:

(1) its engines singed the tree-top leaves right near the highway cloverleaf adjacent to the Pentagon;

(2) its starboard engine did very discernible damage to a large diesel generator, just before hitting the Pentagon's exterior wall; there is a large gouge, and a smaller furrow, which must have been caused by the A-3, most probably the starboard engine and/or pylons under the starboard wing;

(3) an air-to-ground missile appears to have been launched from the port wing, and it hit the Pentagon a fraction of a second before the plane itself hit;

(4) the plane was banked slightly to the port side, causing the starboard wing tip to impact the Pentagon at an altitude slightly higher than the port wing tip;

(5) the starboard engine crashed into specific bearing columns, which absorbed a great deal of the kinetic energy of that plane: E = 1/2 mv2 (energy equals one-half mass times velocity squared); certain photos show those damaged columns BEFORE fire-suppressant foam was injected there, concealing that evidence from plain view after the fire department crews extinguished the flames;

(6) the nose encountered less obstruction, because the missile had already blown a large hole for the nose and fuselage to enter the building; however, there is other evidence that the missile exploded, causing significant damage to the plane's fuselage;

(7) we also estimate that the energy imparted to the bearing columns by the starboard engine, also resulted in a total LOSS of kinetic energy on the port side;

(8 ) the port engine, now significantly deccelerated, hit the exterior wall and other bearing columns at a slower velocity, which sheared it off at its pylon, and then a major piece of that engine appears to have bounced off the Pentagon and landed outside the exterior wall;

(9) the debris of the port engine has now been positively identified;

(10) Bush and Rumsfeld were photographed supervising the preparation and loading of a cargo container that was covered with blue tarps;

(11) Pentagon military personnel were then photographed removing that same cargo container -- by carrying it over their heads, by hand;

(12) other photos of that vicinity also show what appears to be A-3 stabilizer debris, surrounded by a security tape.

http://truedemocracy.net/td-19/12.html

[lightninboy]

Paul Andrew Mitchell:

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.

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.

The latter geometry is a much better, almost perfect fit
with the localized "finger prints" clearly visible on
the damaged diesel generator.

Now, continue on a straight line from the damaged left
end of the diesel generator, to columns 16 and 17.

There is also photographic evidence that the primary explosion
blew the aft half of the jet away from the Pentagon.

Here's someone's attempt to fit a different jet, the S-3B Viking, to this evidence:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/pentagon/majic-pent1.jpg

Here's another attempt with the Global Hawk:

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

I have also concluded that no F-14, F-15 or F-16 was involved.

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

Laura 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.

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=791.0

[lightninboy]

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell
September 16, 2007

True, there are competing conspiracy "theories", but they only compete with the OCT not the conspiracy reality, as they all have anomalies, inconsistencies, improbabilities, and out right impossibilities that will keep them forever in the realm of "theory" unsupported by fact. These conspiracy "theories" that eschew the OCT only to embrace other utter nonsense (like: planes didn't hit the WTC, holograms and "video trickery" were used instead; the three WTC skyscrapers demolished on 9-11 were destroyed by exotic, space-based, directed energy beam weapons; a commercial jet really did hit the Pentagon) are in reality all part of a concerted COINTELPRO-style USG disinformation campaign designed to splinter and marginalize those of us who have solved the Rubik's Cube of 9-11. These "theories" don't compete with what is known to be true by the vast majority of the 9-11 Truth Movement, they are deliberate and elaborate disinformation campaigns designed to make those of us who do know the truth look foolish by association.

Here is a synopsis of what the best and brightest researchers around the world have gleaned over the past five-plus years from the best evidence available:

* yes, 9-11 was a "terrorist" attack, but it was not perpetrated by "angry Arabs", it was a State-sponsored "inside job", a " false flag" operation planned, executed, and covered up by elements of the USG and operatives from at least two other countries ... it was the greatest act of psychological warfare ever perpetrated;

* the alleged 19 Arab "hijackers" were "patsies", several are still alive, several were under the care and feeding of USG operatives and were being "trained" at CIA-operated flight schools;

* FBI field agents who discovered the plot were told by their superiors not to investigate the "suspicious Arabs in flight schools";

* no interceptor jets were launched in a timely manner on 9-11 because of the five to seven overlapping war games -- "games" simulating a simultaneous hijacking of several planes -- that were taking place on 9-11;

* the planes that hit the Twin Towers were most likely remotely controlled to their intended targets;

* WTC 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) and WTC 7 were all destroyed by pre-planted charges -- a combination of Thermite and high-powered explosives -- in controlled demolitions;

* the Pentagon was hit by a military drone painted to look like American Airlines flight 77, possibly in combination with a cruise missile;

* the cell-phone calls allegedly made from the "hijacked" flights were not possible with the technology available on 9-11 from the altitude and speed at which the jets were traveling, these calls were faked to help sell the OCT;

* the fate of United flight 93 is still up for debate at this time, it seems to have been intended to hit Congress and was likely shot down by a "rogue" air force interceptor, but some reports claim it landed in Cleveland (one way or another, all passengers are dead).

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/09-17-07/...ion.cgi.23.html



Paul Andrew Mitchell
02 Sep 2007

A 757 was flying overhead
at the moment the Pentagon crash occurred,
but it was at an altitude more than 400 feet
ABOVE sea level at that precise moment.

When the NTSB Flight Data Recorder data
are adjusted for the correct barometric
pressure near the Pentagon, the pressure
altimeter reading goes UP. There is no
evidence in that data that the pressure
altimeter was adjusted for the local
barometric pressure, however, contrary
to routine aircraft descent procedures.

It was correctly adjusted during its climb-out,
by comparison.

It's trajectory also placed it NORTH
of the Citgo gas station, not even close
to the attack jet's final approach.

We believe that 757 landed at National, into the
waiting arms of 94 spies who had infiltrated
ground crews at Dulles and National Airports.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oldright/message/13612

[lightninboy]

Dec 19, 2010
"The Last Second: A Forensic Analysis of the Pentagon Murder Weapon's Final Approach"
by Paul Andrew Mitchell
[ W O R K I N G D R A F T #1 ]

This analysis relies heavily upon the attached diagram.

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/1680/lastsecond1.gif

The letter "P" represents the Pentagon's exterior wall,
at the point of impact on the morning of 9/11/2001.

The letter "A" represents an Aircraft that crashed into
the Pentagon at point "P".

Four different points in time are represented by the
circled numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The symbols A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 represent
points at which A's final trajectory intersects with
the shock wave from an intense blast at epicenter "P".

An air-to-ground missile ("AGM") is mounted on a
missile pylon on the underside of A's port wing.

The object of this exercise is to determine
what would have been the optimal point in time
for the Aircraft to launch the AGM at target "P".

Assume that A is incoming at more than 300 knots
(300 nautical miles per hour), probably faster.

Point "1" is a theoretical construct in which
the Aircraft hits point "P" without launching the AGM.

Point "2" is a more realistic construct in which
the AGM has been launched and hits the Pentagon
before the Aircraft's nose arrives at point "P", and
the Aircraft arrives to meet a very high pressure
shock wave -- high enough to cause destructive,
disintegrating damage to that Aircraft.

Point "3" is another realistic construct in which
the AGM has been launched and hits the Pentagon
long enough before the Aircraft arrives to attenuate
the shock wave sufficiently to cause only minor
turbulence through which the Aircraft must pass.

Point "4" represents the Aircraft with the AGM
still mounted under its port-side wing, both of
which are traveling at a terminal velocity
in excess of 300 knots. Here, the Aircraft is
about one second away from hitting point "P".

The problem we wish to address now is this:
at what exact point in time should the AGM be
launched from the Aircraft, to satisfy all of the
following constraints?

(a) if the AGM is launched too soon, the
Pentagon's automatic fire control system
will have enough time to detect the incoming
and activate its own systems of defense,
e.g. anti-aircraft guns shoot a wall of lead
that will destroy the AGM when it hits that wall;

(b) if the AGM is launched too late, the
Aircraft hits the Pentagon before the missile
can soften an entrance hole through which
the fuselage can travel deeper into the Pentagon's
interior office spaces; think of a mosquito hitting
a car windshield at 70 mph;

© if the AGM is launched and its warhead
detonates so as to soften an entrance hole
for the Aircraft's fuselage to pass through,
the launch timing may be late enough for the shock wave
to meet the incoming Aircraft when that shock wave
is very intense, causing very destructive, disintegrating
damages to the Aircraft;

(d) ideally, the AGM should be launched
and its warhead detonated with precise timing that
causes the shock wave to attenuate enough
that it causes only minor turbulence through which
the incoming Aircraft must pass, but without
suffering any destructive/disintegrating damages
before the Aircraft actually reaches point "P".


For some of the following reasons, we think that © above
is the most probable scenario.

Put yourself at the controls of a remote computer monitor
and system, which displays the view from an on-board
video camera mounted in the Aircraft's cockpit.

You may be seated in another nearby aircraft,
or you may be seated in an office on the other
side of the Pentagon.

You have rehearsed this moment numerous times.

You must "pull the trigger" launching the AGM
at precisely the right moment, in order to satisfy
all of the above constraints.

You pull the trigger, but what you have not anticipated
are the delays, or latencies, that exist in all of the
intervening electronic steps that must occur perfectly
and in perfect sequence.

There are delays in the telecommunications pathways
connecting you and the AGM's launch mechanism.

You have failed to take those latencies fully into account
during all of your rehearsals.

In order to "err" on the side of greatest confidence
in your abilities, you avoid launching the AGM too early,
and wait until the very last moment.

You pull the trigger, but the latencies give the
incoming Aircraft just a few more milliseconds
to reach the Pentagon at a point where the
resulting blast wave is still very intense.

That shock wave is so intense, it severs the
Aircraft's fuselage amidship, blowing the aft half
away from the Pentagon and onto the grass
perimeter.

The Pentagon's closed circuit television camera ("cctv")
records evidence of the Aircraft's instant disintegration.

The latter 2 photos are at a relatively high resolution,
so Pentagon personnel are promptly ordered to
re-sample all of the 5 cctv frames before they are
released to the public and to the major media
like CNN and the BBC.

Also, the one frame which does show any part
of the incoming Aircraft, is deliberately altered
by "air brushing" a purple-like color over the
fuselage that is forward of the visible tail section,
and nowhere else in that one key photo…

... and certainly not where the nose and front one-third
fuselage of a Boeing 757 would have appeared in that photo,
if tail sections were aligned and superimposed.

That particular purple-like color does not appear at the same
pixel locations in ANY of the preceding frames, nor in any
of the subsequent frames of the full cctv frame set.

Those re-sampled photos have a much lower pixel resolution,
which makes it intentionally impossible to verify forensic details
that are readily apparent in the high resolution versions.

Such deliberate alterations of evidence of a murder weapon
is a serious FELONY Federal offense, to be construed as
aiding and abetting premeditated murder in the first degree and/or
murder-for-hire. Such a crime is on the order of hindering
the apprehension of a suspect who is guilty of a homicide.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oldright/message/16713

[onesliceshort]

© if the AGM is launched and its warhead
detonates so as to soften an entrance hole
for the Aircraft's fuselage to pass through,
the launch timing may be late enough for the shock wave
to meet the incoming Aircraft when that shock wave
is very intense, causing very destructive, disintegrating
damages to the Aircraft;

I'm just trying to figure out what sort of missile could "soften an entrance hole". Like a sexshop lube.

"Foreplay missile"?

Sorry mods, but I can't take this shit seriously. Attaching dumbass theories to bona fide evidence that just happens to be provided by CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth.

What are you up to "lightninboy"? Hmm?

[amazed!]

LightninBoy provides pure sophistry. Lots of letters & numbers amounting only to an effort at sleight-of-hand. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I'm just trying to figure out what sort of missile could "soften an entrance hole". Like a sexshop lube.

"Foreplay missile"?

Sorry mods, but I can't take this shit seriously. Attaching dumbass theories to bona fide evidence that just happens to be provided by CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth.

What are you up to "lightninboy"? Hmm?

He's a disinfo nympho. Lol

[lightninboy]

Are you so ignorant of 9/11 truth you've never even read about the 737 with a pod under it firing a missile ahead of it into the WTC? Aluminum doesn't penetrate concrete and steel; depleted uranium does.

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

I'm just trying to figure out what sort of missile could "soften an entrance hole". Like a sexshop lube.

"Foreplay missile"?

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)