Monday, March 20, 2006

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1182

There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Jeff King, MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
From: "Alfons" <>
2. After reading your answers, Paul, I am not inclined to argue.
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
3. Re: Jeff King, MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>
5. lobbyist list
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>
6. How many of you took advantage?
From: Joe Stokes <>


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:18:22 -0000
From: "Alfons" <>
Subject: Jeff King, MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

This is good, yet another high profile academic throws a hat in the 911
Truth ring.
Just 14 minutes to the point


Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:00 -0800
From: "Dick Eastman" <>
Subject: After reading your answers, Paul, I am not inclined to argue.

After reading your answers, Paul, I am not inclined to argue.

I don't see the disintegration at columns 16 and 17, merely
some displacement -- and I do not have the physics background
to argue that an engine would not disintegrate --

I do not remember where I read that the gouge was perpendicular to
the direction of the killer jet, so I cannot argue there.

In short, you may be right -- but in destroying the "no starboard
engine" arguement, you seem to re-admit the possibility of a 757

Time for me to pull back and think about it.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: [catapult] Re: Simple Math demonstrates Official 9/11 Account is a

> (DE) the lack of penetration between
columns 16 and 17 ...

(P.M.) I disagree: 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.

In the past, you have tried to
make inferences from patterns
of foam after it was sprayed
from fire trucks. That is a
very questionable approach,
predictably error-prone.

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:

Whoever chose the name for that key photo:
-- "no_engine_hit_between_16and17.jpg" --
was evidently trying to persuade
viewers to jump to the wrong conclusion.

I would NEVER have chosen such a misleading
and conclusory filename for that photo:


I would be dishonest with you if I
agreed with everything you have written

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.

> The gauge in the diesel generator
> is perpendicular to the direction of
> the killer jet.

I think you meant "gouge" not "gauge".

Again, I disagree strongly.

Also, it is clear to us that the generator's
left end was shoved away from the cyclone fence
and towards the Pentagon, as the starboard engine
glanced thru that end of the generator housing, also
taking out a section of that fence. Thus,
the narrow "furrow" in the top of the generator
housing most probably resulted from the impact
of an underwing pylon. The right end of the
generator housing was not directly impacted
by any part of the killer jet.

I know you like to argue, Dick, particularly
with anyone who does not espouse the conclusions
you have made on your own.

But, I'm not the kind of individual who needs
anyone else to agree with me, before reaching
my own conclusions.

We arrived at our conclusions independently,
after reading your writings and the writings
of many other authors on this subject.

Please don't grace the "757" theory
with any more attention to it:
"negative identification"
is now a waste of time, imho.

Really, any more time spent arguing
that "it was not a 757 for this or
that reason" is really a waste of my

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

The A-3 Skywarriors were retrofitted
with JT8D engines, because they were
found to be more efficient, more
readily available and more easily
maintained e.g. more experience
among aircraft mechanics, both
military and civilian.

I decline to argue with you any further
about these details.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

--- In, "Dick Eastman"
<olfriend@...> wrote:
> My comments (Eastman) in gray.
> ----- Original Message -----
> paulandrewmitchell2004@...
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 2:17 AM
> Subject: [catapult] BLOG: Simple Math demonstrates Official 9/11
Account is a Fabrication
> Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a
> Paul Andrew Mitchell added these
> comments to the Blog above:
> Just a few quick comments,
> based on forensic analysis
> of photographic evidence:
> (1) the hit on the second WTC
> tower shows most of the jet fuel
> combusting OUTSIDE that building,
> where it was mostly NOT in touch
> with the steel frame and hence
> unable to tranfer sustained
> high temps into that steel;
> This is further proof of the "planehugger" conclusion.
> Real jetliners were used.
> (2) the FDNY never had enough
> time to wire WTC7 with demolition
> explosives; they must have been
> in place PRIOR TO 9/11; Larry
> Silverstein admitted on PBS
> that he gave his permission
> to "pull it" i.e. detonate the
> explosives to effect a controlled
> demolition; FDNY do not normally
> respond to a multi-alarm hi-rise
> fire with the [large] quantity of
> explosives required to demolish
> a 47-story steel frame building
> (not a good idea to place so much
> explosives so close to a fire);
> Then all three buildings were set with
> demolition charges prior to 9/11/01
> (3) numerous Pentagon photos do
> show aircraft debris, most notably
> the P&W JT8D engine that came to
> rest OUTSIDE the Pentagon:
> I have not seen numerous photos of
> an engine outside the Pentagon (i.e.,
> outside the E-ring) nor is it clear that
> any of the engine parts photgraphed
> inside the building and between the
> "C" and "B" rings were not planted there
> after the crash -- whatever type of
> engine they are from.
> (4) the telltale "fingerprints"
> on the diesel generator reveal
> a lot, e.g. starboard engine
> intake cowling and underwing rocket
> pylon fit the damages quite well;
> geometry of a Boeing 757 is quite
> different and a "bad fit";
> The gauge in the diesel generator
> is perpendicular to the direction of
> the killer jet. There are no photos
> showing pieces of engine cowling.
> There is no evidence at all that the
> aircraft had a starboard engine --
> the lack of penetration between
> columns 16 and 17 indicate that
> no engine hit there. If the engine
> had scraped the top of the generator
> then the engine would have had to
> have hit the ceiling/floor between
> the first and second story -- no
> damage of this kind is shown in
> any of the good photos of this area.
> (5) the collision with the diesel
> generator lifted the right wing,
> causing the attack jet to roll
> to the port, in a counter-clockwise
> direction;
> The was no "inclined plane" in the generator
> configuration. The plane would not have
> been lifted -- at most there would have
> been some rotation (pivoting) -- as mentioned
> above -- there is no sign of an engine penetrating
> the wall, either on the first floor, or between floors
> or on the second floor. The idea that the plane
> was lifted on the starboard side which served
> to turn the plane is not valid -- the wings were
> not configued for a banking turn, even if it could
> be elevated. The lack of damage to the second
> floor on the starboard side shows that if the killer
> jet was banking, it certainly did not have a starboard
> engine -- because no starboard engine hit the
> wall there -- see
> (other evidence photos are no up right now, but
> they back up what this photo shows).
> (6) at a ~45-degree angle of
> incidence, the starboard JT8D
> and starboard wing tip hit the
> Pentagon facade at almost
> exactly the same instant;
> elevated wing tip hit at
> the second floor, port wing
> tip hit at the first floor,
> because of this slight roll;
> Had a Boeing 757 hit at the 55-degree
> angle (or even a 45 degree angle) the
> starboard engine would have to have
> hit before either the wing tip or the
> wing root -- but there is no evidence of
> such a hit. Also, there is damage further
> south on the wall at the level of the third
> floor -- which cannot be explained by
> any part of a Boeing 757 or any plane
> hitting centered on column #14 -- this
> is damage caused by a missile -- possibly
> fired by the killer jet before its own crash.
> (7) at maximum velocity exceeding
> 400 feet per second, the kinetic
> energy of the starboard engine
> was greatest, causing a clear
> pattern of damage to 2 bearing
> columns on the first floor, and
> just missing the bearing column
> immediately to the right of those
> 2 bearing columns; E=1/2mv**2
> [kinetic Energy equals one-half mass
> times velocity squared]
> also F=ma
> [Force equals mass times acceleration]
> (where "a" is the rate
> of instantaneous deceleration here);
> Nice equations -- but they don't buy you
> a starboard engine. It is exactly because
> a Boeing 757's engines are so massive
> and dense and that the kinetic engery
> geometrically related to velocity was so
> great that there would have to have
> been penetration of the wall between
> pillars #16 and 17 -- and that if any part
> of the plane would have punched through
> the wall it would have had to have been
> the engine. This did not happen. There
> was no starboard engine -- the killer jet
> was a single -engine jet and therefore
> a military plane.
> (8) the 5 published frames from
> the Pentagon's cctv camera were
> subsequently altered with image
> processing software; these
> alterations are most obvious
> in frame 1, e.g. the fuselage
> to the left of the tail section
> was "air-brushed" with a pixel
> color taken from an entirely
> different region of that frame;
> this modification of murder
> weapon evidence was a felony,
> in and of itself;
> You are way off target -- to he right of
> the tail fin in the first frame we see a
> trail of thick white smoke -- the characteristic
> trail of a missile -- this is in no way,
> shape or form a "fuselage" --
> obviously you have never bothered
> to look at the "small-plane" evidence
> very carefully. Do so now:
> (9) the collision of a modified
> A-3 Skywarrior "best fits" the
> pattern of damages that are
> documented in detail in the
> available digital photos;
> I say the A-3 tail does not fit
> as well as the F-16 -- and an
> F-16 was seen by one witness
> just five minutes before the crash.
> A remote controlled F-16 would be
> in perfect disguise for the attack, since
> F-16's normally guard the capital.
> Also, F-16's are known to have been
> modified for remote control combat.
> The F-16 was the optimum choice
> and it fits all the knowns as well as
> any plane.
> (10) an air-to-ground missile
> appears to have been launched
> from under the port wing,
> just prior to the jet hit;
> Either under a wing or from under the
> fuselage -- the F-16 is capable of
> either.
> (11) we have received unconfirmed
> reports that a Russian satellite
> photographed the launch of
> the attack jet from the
> deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier
> stationed off the Atlantic coast;
> A-3 Skywarriors are fitted with
> landing gear designed for flight
> deck operations.
> This is not reliable, but if true,
> we do not know what part the
> aircraft seen taking off might
> have played -- it certainly wasn't
> tracked directly to the Pentagon.
> Still it may have been the plane --
> I am not saying that an A-3 is impossible.
> For more background on our
> investigation, see:
> I'd like to know how you dismiss the F-16 theory and why
> you think the killer jet had a starboard engine?


Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:27:25 -0000
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>
Subject: Re: Jeff King, MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

v good...keep it coming

--- In, "Alfons" <alfonslof@...> wrote:
> This is good, yet another high profile academic throws a hat in the
> Truth ring.
> Just 14 minutes to the point


Message: 4
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:25:07 -0000
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>


Message: 5
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:20:27 -0000
From: "mojo_j_2000" <>
Subject: lobbyist list,%


Message: 6
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 03:34:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Stokes <>
Subject: How many of you took advantage?

From: "Donald Stahl" <>

I gave out a little less than 100 copies of Loose
Change 2 over the
weekend at the antiwar rally in St. Louis.

I have 75 copies of Loose Change 2E ready to go. The
Rally and March scheduled for Sunday (19th) in Dallas
was flooded out by a 6-9 inch rain. I am sure there
will be another rally soon and I am ready. I print the
following on one piece of paper and enclose it in the

For far more video, audio, documented evidence go to
these websites:


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:


No comments: