IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The 9/11 Mystery Plane & The Vanishing Of America, Book review of Mark Gaffney's failed effort

Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 24 2008, 04:52 PM
Post #21





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Gaffney put out his first public reply to my review:

QUOTE
I will not rebut Craig's caustic review. But I do have some comments. I must confess I stopped reading about half way through it, after he started to entangle me in his fly-over hypothesis.

Craig doesn't mention it but the release of the RADES radar data was damaging to the official 9/11 story, quite apart from the E-4B issue, because it revealed the 5-10 minute diversion of the Langley fighters south of Washington. This third wild goose chase occurred while Flight 93 was still in the air and was not admitted by the US military, nor by the 9/11 Commission in its report. So, no question, there was a "cover up."

I suspect -- but cannot prove -- that Lynn Spencer was blessed with special access to bring this embarrassing episode to light in her book Touching History -- released a few months before my book, only after individuals in the US military realized that the RADES radar data was going to be released. As of now, though, it is not possible to know exactly how all of this played out.

None of the flights out of Andrews (except for the C-130) were a part of the official story. My book is the first attempt to bring this to light.

Craig seems to imply that the identity of VENUS 77 became known with the release of the RADES radar data in October 2007. But this is not correct. We only confirmed that VENUS 77 and SWORD 31 were E-4Bs a few days before the book went to press, from just-released FAA documents.

It is true that the CNN raw footage might have led me to this conclusion sooner. John Farmer suggested this as early as May 2008. Spencer also guessed that VENUS 77 was the mystery plane, as did Pinnacle, at various times. (See p 93 of my book - at bottom) However, I was not convinced because of the 9:41 AM report by Peter Jennings of a plane over the White House. At which time VENUS 77 was still on the tarmac at Andrews. It did not depart until 9:44 AM. The Jennings report remains unexplained to this day.

Also, the press reports seem to indicate a close pass; and Bob Kur has just confirmed this. Whereas VENUS 77 never came closer than two miles.

And there are other press reports and eyewitness accounts of an unidentified plane circling over Washington before or at the time of the Pentagon strike. So there was a basis. Nonetheless, I should have connected VENUS 77 with the CNN footage sooner. This was my error.

I should mention that the issue is still not settled. Although NBC White House correspondent Bob Kur declined to be interviewed previously, he has recently been answering my questions. See the blog for more about this recent dialogue. Kur's new testimony about what he saw does not match the known flight path of VENUS 77. CIT's Craig Ranke has never seen the full length CNN video so he is unaware that there are two separate E-4B segments, not just one. They are back-to-back in the video but still separate.

When Robin Hordon studied the CNN video he concluded these were two different E-4Bs. I didn't agree at the time, but based on what Kur has just told me I wonder now if Hordon was right. It's now clear that the two stills we pulled from the first segment (the pan and the zoom on pp 44-45 of my book) are a match with VENUS 77. However, the third still shot on page 46 is from the second segment and is still at issue.

The question is whether this is a telephoto of an E-4B six miles away or a close up. If the E-4B is 6 miles away then it is VENUS 77. But if it's a close up this is additional powerful evidence for an as yet unaccounted-for E-4B. Video expert Ken Jenkins is helping with this.

One final comment on the matter of tampering: Despite what Ranke says in his review, the 25-second time lag in the RADES radar data remains unexplained, and there is every possibility that data was altered. John Farmer also found irregularities in the short range radar data: a serious azimuth shift and a series of time lags, but apparently not enough to throw out the data. In my opinion, all of the radar data from 9/11 is suspect.

source


See my reply in next post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 24 2008, 04:54 PM
Post #22





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Mark Gaffney wrote:

QUOTE (Mark Gaffney)
I will not rebut Craig's caustic review. But I do have some comments. I must confess I stopped reading about half way through it, after he started to entangle me in his fly-over hypothesis.


Entangle you?

Strong verb there Mark.

However quite inappropriate since the review never discussed the "flyover hypothesis" at all.

Of course you could only be referring to the evidence for a DC approach of the attack jet that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "flyover" yet equally proves a military deception on 9/11.

You know, the evidence that you blatantly covered up by deliberately blending it with accounts of the E4B that you have now admitted wasn't in the skies until later?

That.

QUOTE
Craig doesn't mention it but the release of the RADES radar data was damaging to the official 9/11 story, quite apart from the E-4B issue, because it revealed the 5-10 minute diversion of the Langley fighters south of Washington.


Huh?

Is it fraudulent or is it proof?

Which is it Mark because you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I say it's fraudulent because the independent verifiable evidence proves this.

Is it a white-wash that implicates a cover up of LIHOP or is it hard evidence of fabrication proving MIHOP?

Be clear.

We are clear about this and we have proof it is the latter.

QUOTE
This third wild goose chase occurred while Flight 93 was still in the air and was not admitted by the US military, nor by the 9/11 Commission in its report. So, no question, there was a "cover up."


Is it a white-wash that implicates a "cover up" of LIHOP or is it hard evidence of fabrication proving MIHOP?

Be clear.

We are and we have proof it is the latter.

QUOTE
I suspect -- but cannot prove -- that Lynn Spencer was blessed with special access to bring this embarrassing episode to light in her book Touching History -- released a few months before my book, only after individuals in the US military realized that the RADES radar data was going to be released. As of now, though, it is not possible to know exactly how all of this played out.


That's a lot of speculation for nothing but some special information that supposedly reveals LIHOP which we know is a proven lie.

You are dancing Mark.

Please stay on point.

You put out a book of false information that served the purpose of the suspect by blending the DC approach of the attack jet with the E4B.

You need to deal with this professionally by acknowledging your mistake and admitting that it's entirely possible for the attack jet to have flown over DC skies and that there is ample evidence to support this notion.

QUOTE
None of the flights out of Andrews (except for the C-130) were a part of the official story. My book is the first attempt to bring this to light.


Huh?

What kind of an egocentric and presumptuous yet empty generic statement is that?

You were patently wrong about the C-130 in your book and that was the main thing that I regret not being able to fit in the narrative of my review.

As I said I had more info to cover. But the gist of it is that you were INCREDIBLY egregious in supporting the official lie in this regard by even using their proven false talking point that the C-130 "shadowed" AA77.

Outrageous and very very sad investigative journalism. Actually it has the signs of pure propaganda in my honest opinion.


QUOTE
Craig seems to imply that the identity of VENUS 77 became known with the release of the RADES radar data in October 2007. But this is not correct. We only confirmed that VENUS 77 and SWORD 31 were E-4Bs a few days before the book went to press, from just-released FAA documents.


No not imply.

I KNOW it for a fact AND we specifically referenced this in our Feb 2008 released presentation that you TOLD US you watched as explained in my review.

Your alleged "FAA documents" may be considered "confirmation" but they did not tell us anything more than we already gathered from the 84 RADES data.

You credit Marco Bolletino in your book with this and he as well as Farmer and all the researchers understood immediately in October 2007 how this was the ONLY possible return that could be the E4B.

If you didn't it's because Farmer lied to you or you lied with him or you are not very bright.

Take your pick but there is no other option.

QUOTE
It is true that the CNN raw footage might have led me to this conclusion sooner. John Farmer suggested this as early as May 2008. Spencer also guessed that VENUS 77 was the mystery plane, as did Pinnacle, at various times. (See p 93 of my book - at bottom) However, I was not convinced because of the 9:41 AM report by Peter Jennings of a plane over the White House. At which time VENUS 77 was still on the tarmac at Andrews. It did not depart until 9:44 AM. The Jennings report remains unexplained to this day.


And so is the crux of the issue.

As we said the Jennings report and other pre attack evidence of a jet over DC is evidence for the DC approach of the attack jet. This has nothing to do with a "flyover" so get off that trip.

But to play-act like it is some miracle revelation that the alleged radar data all the sudden matches the photographed E4B flight path after all the rhetoric you spewed combined with your admission that you HAD NO EXCUSE when it comes to the CNN footage is inexcusable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 24 2008, 04:54 PM
Post #23





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE
Also, the press reports seem to indicate a close pass; and Bob Kur has just confirmed this. Whereas VENUS 77 never came closer than two miles.


Yeah yeah Bob Kur.

Why do you trust him?

Because he works for the mainstream media?

Maybe he is honest and has his time-line messed up and saw the attack jet flying away? Or maybe he's part of the obfuscation operation. Who knows?

But his account is not sufficiently corroborated and what we DO know is that the E4B in the photographs and video was there after the attack yet Steve Chaconas demonstrates how the attack jet came from east of the river and flew over DC.

Why did you leave Steve Chaconas out of your book Mark?

Don't you think he at least deserved a casual mention in a footnote?


QUOTE
And there are other press reports and eyewitness accounts of an unidentified plane circling over Washington before or at the time of the Pentagon strike. So there was a basis. Nonetheless, I should have connected VENUS 77 with the CNN footage sooner. This was my error.


My what a noble concession.

Error?

It was pure foolishness.

A clear desire to ignore the obvious.

Shoddy journalism at its finest.

I'd go so far as to say cognitive dissonance but it was all too obviously premeditated to me.


QUOTE
I should mention that the issue is still not settled. Although NBC White House correspondent Bob Kur declined to be interviewed previously, he has recently been answering my questions. See the blog for more about this recent dialogue. Kur's new testimony about what he saw does not match the known flight path of VENUS 77. CIT's Craig Ranke has never seen the full length CNN video so he is unaware that there are two separate E-4B segments, not just one. They are back-to-back in the video but still separate.


Uh-huh.

Anything to keep your conspiracy "mystery" of a "mystery plane" going.

Give me a break man.

It's so transparent.

Come back with corroborated statements FILMED on location and you might be believed.

Otherwise simply concede that the independent verifiable evidence that DOES exist proves the attack jet flew over dc skies and looped around from east of the river over Arlington, flew over the Navy Annex, north of the citgo, and therefore continued on past the Pentagon.

There is no debate. The evidence is what it is and you only serve to cloud it.

QUOTE
When Robin Hordon studied the CNN video he concluded these were two different E-4Bs. I didn't agree at the time, but based on what Kur has just told me I wonder now if Hordon was right. It's now clear that the two stills we pulled from the first segment (the pan and the zoom on pp 44-45 of my book) are a match with VENUS 77. However, the third still shot on page 46 is from the second segment and is still at issue.


Ok. Maybe it was. I doubt it but just MAYBE there was ANOTHER E4B that flew over DC before the attack proving LIHOP.

But that doesn't change the fact that the independent verifiable evidence that DOES exist proves the attack jet flew over dc skies and looped around from east of the river over Arlington, flew over the Navy Annex, north of the citgo, and therefore continued on past the Pentagon proving MIHOP.

QUOTE
The question is whether this is a telephoto of an E-4B six miles away or a close up. If the E-4B is 6 miles away then it is VENUS 77. But if it's a close up this is additional powerful evidence for an as yet unaccounted-for E-4B. Video expert Ken Jenkins is helping with this.


Yeah you're reaching.

But your convolution of the data along the way only serves the purpose of obfuscation.

You would be a MASTER at that if you weren't so transparent due to your simplistic nature and perceived tendency to be lacking knowledge of the new information.

QUOTE
One final comment on the matter of tampering: Despite what Ranke says in his review, the 25-second time lag in the RADES radar data remains unexplained, and there is every possibility that data was altered. John Farmer also found irregularities in the short range radar data: a serious azimuth shift and a series of time lags, but apparently not enough to throw out the data. In my opinion, all of the radar data from 9/11 is suspect.


Suspect??

It is PROVEN fraudulent but certainly not because of anything Farmer has claimed.

CIT has only been unforgivable in this regard and you should know this since you admitted to watching our Feb. 2008 presentation fully establishing the 84 RADES data as fraudulent with multiple levels of corroboration from all kinds of sources.

Funny how you ignore my statements about Farmer and his influence on you yet still end up referencing him in this context.

Do you understand how he has already backed off his claims of manipulation in this regard? Do you understand how he has quit the movement, deleted his website, become a full-time "jrefer" and didn't even bother to announce the release of your book?

Of course you do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Dec 26 2008, 12:30 AM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 23-December 08
Member No.: 4,041



After reading your replies and the other posts, your Gaffney review, and now his reply to your review of his book -- Gaffney indeed has alot he needs to answer to and he's not done a very good job of it. And he only read half of your review. I don't get him at all. His answers to your questions were far reaching and never touching on anything but grasping at straws. I don't know how you feel about David Ray Griffin, but I wonder why DRG would do a foward on his book.

Also,I had seen the CNN footage several months ago about the E-4B but swept it aside as there was not much other information about the story. Then I discovered Gaffney's article he wrote about it and soon thereafter I learned he was releasing a book. Thus this topic was new to me. I suspected that 'maybe' the E-4B was running remote control operations being that one was also possibly filmed by ABC tv with Diane Sawyer referring to a plane that flew past one of the WTC's just as it was hit by a plane. And Gaffney's book touched upon the remote control issue a bit. I never equated the E-4B with being the attack jet, a decoy jet, or whatever..but more about a plane that was running the show from the sky.

I had not read about the 84 RADES data until now.

I stumbled upon an earlier post where someone mentions how Rob has to be commended for having alot of patience with newbie posters, because you get the same questions asked over and over. Earlier thread links , which you guys have been posting for us, is easier for you guys and very helpful for newbies...like me! And it is much appreciated. noob.gif tongue.gif

On a separate note, I started off very early on with LIHOP but have graduated to MIHOP a while ago and won't ever be convinced of anything else. There is no doubt that CIT's and Pilots evidence is clearly the only evidence that is 100% indisputable and ready for presentation to a Grand jury.No 9/11 commission re-investigation needed (it would only be a waste of time anyway).

Marc


QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 24 2008, 03:50 PM) *
Yes this is an easier take on the whole situation to accept.

Unfortunately Gaffney took it further then that with the "Afterword" written by John Farmer plus his "mistakes" were so ridiculously egregious and transparent that even greed can't adequately explain it.

This book was meant to be a vehicle for false info.

Gaffney knew full well it would destroy his credibility but it did not matter because this is his job.

He isn't this stupid.

He writes too well to be that stupid!
tongue.gif





Now you're on the right track!
yes1.gif




Well of course.

But since we have evidence proving a complete and total deception it is reasonable to suggest that absolutely everything was done with a purpose and reason behind it.

Once we start embracing information because it demonstrates foreknowledge it leads us off the path that inexplicably proves full-on deliberate planning and execution of the event.

It's clear to me that Gaffney deliberately walks the LIHOP/MIHOP line for this very purpose.

LIHOP is a white-wash.

Plain and simple.

We can't accept it and we mustn't focus on this simply because it may seem easier to prove.


This post has been edited by madtruth: Dec 26 2008, 12:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 29 2008, 01:28 PM
Post #25


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



I haven't read Gaffney's book yet because I was not sure if it would touch something relevant for my research, so I have to be careful with my comments.

The argumentation in your reply is conclusive, Craig, and I see also no reason why the flyover plane (whose existence I'm convinced of) should be somehow correlated to the E4B over DC. Two different planes, and a E4B over DC/Arlington prior to the Pentagon impact is pure speculation, IMO.

What I really don't like about the book, even without reading it, is its title. There was not one, but multiple "mystery" planes on 9/11, and I'm working on these things since years. I just say Pentaplane, Cleveland plane, "phantom flight 93" etc. The E4B over DC is certainly interesting, but not the big key for solving 9/11. To take the E4B as the hottest smoking gun to prove "foreknowledge", i.e. LIHOP and at the same time ignoring the overwhelming MIHOP evidence at the Pentagon is not only deficient, but dangerous, because, as CIT and others have shown, MIHOP/Op. Northwoods IS detectable and provable by simply asking people on the ground.

Certainly the title was chosen to sell the book. This is an understandable approach, from an economic point of view, but it tends to "blur the picture". I predict that history will reveal many "mystery" planes, more precisely, secret military exercise planes.

I also think that Gaffney shirks Craig's arguments in his re-reply.

I have Lynn Spencer's book and I'm not sure which passages he refers to (how the Langley fighters are correlated to the flyover plane, f.i.). But there is one reason that might cause me to buy the book:

QUOTE
None of the flights out of Andrews (except for the C-130) were a part of the official story. My book is the first attempt to bring this to light.


Does Gaffney mention Billy Hutchison (F-16 pilot from Andrews who was being interviewed by Lynn Spencer), and at length? Can somebody tell me?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 29 2008, 02:22 PM
Post #26





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 29 2008, 06:28 PM) *
What I really don't like about the book, even without reading it, is its title. There was not one, but multiple "mystery" planes on 9/11, and I'm working on these things since years. I just say Pentaplane, Cleveland plane, "phantom flight 93" etc. The E4B over DC is certainly interesting, but not the big key for solving 9/11. To take the E4B as the hottest smoking gun to prove "foreknowledge", i.e. LIHOP and at the same time ignoring the overwhelming MIHOP evidence at the Pentagon is not only deficient, but dangerous, because, as CIT and others have shown, MIHOP/Op. Northwoods IS detectable and provable by simply asking people on the ground.


Very succint and important point.

I am just about to put out an open letter to Steven Jones along this vein since he seems to think the best argument regarding the Pentagon attack is Mineta's comments to the 9/11 commission!

Amazing, I know.


QUOTE
Does Gaffney mention Billy Hutchison (F-16 pilot from Andrews who was being interviewed by Lynn Spencer), and at length? Can somebody tell me?


Later tonight after I get home I'll check again to be sure.

It does sound familiar but I don't believe it would have been covered "at length" no.

I can't exaggerate how devoid of any real substance while being chock full of fallacious rhetoric this pathetic effort really was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 29 2008, 02:36 PM
Post #27





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



New development in the Gaffney soap opera.

His "expert" consultant John Farmer has thrown him under the bus.

Now we know that they are BOTH proven liars.

After I received my copy of the book I had emailed Gaffney simply asking him if he was aware of the interviews we conducted with the ANC witnesses that Farmer addresses in his book.

His reply to me on Oct 9th was "No -- but feel free to send me the gist."

We had a dialog about it when I demonstrated how Farmer had lied to him about the info and Gaffney never admitted to being aware of the interviews before his book went to print, thereby shifting all responsibility for the lies onto Farmer.

When pressed by a CIT supporter on the GL's forum about this Farmer eventually pulled out the following email to prove that he DID inform Gaffney and the publisher about the interviews on Aug 12th, about a week before the book went to print.


Farmer said:
QUOTE
Below is a segment of an email response to the publisher and Mark was a co-recepient. My responses are in italics to his questions. I will respond no further to this thread. TLB, the fact is, no one of reputation is interested in the CIT nonsense. Sorry to be the one to break that to you.

From: Dr. Russell **********
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 3:31 PM
To: 911files@bluecollarrepublican.com
Cc: publisher@********; markhgaffney@********
Subject: Appdx to "Mystery Plane"

Sir:

Thank you for your excellent contribution to the book. Please consider three questions re your essay, one on form and two on fact.

First, in the context of the book alone (which as an editor is how I tend to think), it seems an improvement to eliminate Citgo employee Turcios from the narrative, simply because your piece is already demanding enough in its detail, and you wind up discounting his testimony as unreliable. We can mention him in a footnote directing reader to the article where his testimony is discussed. Please advise if there is some overriding reason not to cut this material, which has been neatly done, from the essay itself.

I have no problem with this deletion. I included him primarily because not mentioning him might be suggested by some critics as a deliberate effort to dismiss him. Craig Rankle of CIT fame is the first to develop that witness set and are rather sensitive to that sort of thing.

***************************

Russ ********
TrineDay

P.S. Just as a point of interest, I notice an employee's name not redacted in the interview doc: Stepiron. Has anyone talked to him?

Since the writing, CIT (I peaked their interest) went to Arlington and interviewed this witness and numerous others. Those have yet to be fully vented, but they have linked those video accounts at their website, http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm


P.P.S. Kris ******* and I will be doing some finish work tomorrow morning. If we discover other issues, might you be reachable by phone at that time?

Certainly, ***********



The strange part is that I have no idea who "Stepiron" is.

So while this email proves that Farmer let them know about the interviews that he had congratulated us on 10 days prior, it's clear that they had to ask Farmer to get him to say anything and he still didn't explain the relevance of this new information and how it proves the entire premise of his essay fallacious.

Now we know for sure that both Farmer and Gaffney deliberately lied.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 29 2008, 02:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2008, 02:49 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Geeeze.... i guess now everyone knows why Farmer has a habit of deleting his past work....

Its a shame Gaffney got caught up in Farmers web and appears to have rubbed off on Gaffney as well...

Good job Craig...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th December 2019 - 10:19 PM