The 9/11 Mystery Plane & The Vanishing Of America, Book review of Mark Gaffney's failed effort Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Ok this is a VERY detailed and VERY involved review but it gets out a lot of extremely important information.

I worked real hard to untangle an extremely messy and convoluted web here but my personal involvement with it all should make for an interesting read.

This book is one of the most desperate, pathetic, and embarrassing serious efforts I have seen yet.

Please take the time to go over my detailed review and let me know if you have any questions or what you guys think.

http://www.thepentacon.com/MarkGaffney.htm

[dMz]

There just are no words for it SP... Perhaps "911files" should consult "Bananaman" instead of an aspirin bottle. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

So was there recently a major "colonic" over at ATS or what?

[SPreston]

There just are no words for it SP... Perhaps "911files" should consult "Bananaman" instead of an aspirin bottle. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

So was there recently a major "colonic" over at ATS or what?

Farmer was receiving some strong attacks from a lot of good people over at ATS, but Craig and Aldo would know better than I exactly what pushed Farmer over the edge.

[madtruth]

Craig,I am disappointed with the findings about Mark's book. I bought it and read it about 2 months ago and wrote a favorable review on Amazon.com. But, thanks for your research and alerting us. The fact that DR Griffith did the foward on the book leant credibility to it -- so I thought.

It seems the reason or the motive for why Mark did what he did, was to probably sell a book instead of being a disinfo agent.
Foreknowledge would sell more books than just writing about a white plane that showed up after the fact.
But, although I am not new to the 9/11 truth movement, there is still alot of new information I am learning about all the time.
It will go from learning about the E-4B and then finding out disinfo about it or something else. What is easy to understand with CIT's information is the witnesses accounts, which cannot be disputed. England's account, can be disputed.

Back to Gaffney.Let's put his book and it's first 4 chapters aside and let's talk about something we all will agree on.

If the E-4B was able to be manned and ready for take off to be able to arrive 5 or 6 or 8 minute or however long it was AFTER the attack on the Pentagon (It's difficult to remember verbatim from your 10,000 word review of Gaffney's book (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) ) --- then there was enough time for Pentagon officials to order an evacuation of the Pentagon. Not to mention TSA's Norman Mineta's testimony (which was ommitted from the Commission final report) that a young military man was telling Cheney that the plane was "50 miles out,40 miles out, 30 miles out",etc. Or if the E-4B was already airborne because it was involved in one of the wargame exercises, it was and is the responsibility of the commission or officials to explain where this plane was at the time they learned of any of the initial attacks on the WTC's or of news of hijackings.

So you can tie in the E-4B and Mineta's statement with proving that the Pentagon officials purposely ignored evacuation procedures and should be held liable for the deaths of the employees on the impact side of the Pentagon.

This post has been edited by madtruth: Dec 23 2008, 09:24 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig,I am disappointed with the findings about Mark's book. I bought it and read it about 2 months ago and wrote a favorable review on Amazon.com. But, thanks for your research and alerting us. The fact that DR Griffith did the foward on the book leant credibility to it -- so I thought.
It seems the reason or the motive for why Mark did what he did, was to probably sell a book instead of being a disinfo agent.
Foreknowledge would sell more books than just writing about a white plane that showed up after the fact.

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!
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

But, although I am not new to the 9/11 truth movement, there is still alot of new information I am learning about all the time.
It will go from learning about the E-4B and then finding out disinfo about it or something else. What is easy to understand with CIT's information is the witnesses accounts, which cannot be disputed. England's account, can be disputed.

Now you're on the right track!
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

Back to Gaffney.Let's put his book and it's first 4 chapters aside and let's talk about something we all will agree on.

If the E-4B was able to be manned and ready for take off to be able to arrive 5 or 6 or 8 minute or however long it was AFTER the attack on the Pentagon (It's difficult to remember verbatim from your 10,000 word review of Gaffney's book (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) ) --- then there was enough time for Pentagon officials to order an evacuation of the Pentagon. Not to mention TSA's Norman Mineta's testimony (which was ommitted from the Commission final report) that a young military man was telling Cheney that the plane was "50 miles out,40 miles out, 30 miles out",etc. Or if the E-4B was already airborne because it was involved in one of the wargame exercises, it was and is the responsibility of the commission or officials to explain where this plane was at the time they learned of any of the initial attacks on the WTC's or of news of hijackings.

So you can tie in the E-4B and Mineta's statement with proving that the Pentagon officials purposely ignored evacuation procedures and should be held liable for the deaths of the employees on the impact side of the Pentagon.

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.