IPB




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

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 17 2008, 08:42 PM
Post #1





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



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 17 2008, 08:54 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks for your hard work reviewing the claims of this book Craig.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Dec 17 2008, 09:12 PM
Post #3





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 17 2008, 07:42 PM) *
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


Excellent analysis, Craig.....I am also (or still) curious about the fact that the E4B was white (usually an ELINT aircraft and /or a NEACAPS aircraft) using a "VENUS" callsign, as VENUS is "always" a SAM callsign. VENUS is usually assigned for a SAM a/c without a VIP.......So, would that mean it was the normal NEACAP a/c flown without VIP, therefore as an ELINT aircraft?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
richard cranium
post Dec 17 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 276
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



Nice work Craig. These guys have to be exposed. Boy,it must of been a headache to work on. Thanks thumbsup.gif

rc

ps. This is off topic but do you think the OC Weekly (or is it "Weakly"?) would publish your review,or the April Gallop lawsuit story?

This post has been edited by richard cranium: Dec 17 2008, 09:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 17 2008, 09:38 PM
Post #5





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



QUOTE (richard cranium @ Dec 18 2008, 02:13 AM) *
ps. This is off topic but do you think the OC Weekly (or is it "Weakly"?) would publish your review,or the April Gallop lawsuit story?



laughing1.gif



um no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
richard cranium
post Dec 17 2008, 09:45 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 276
Joined: 30-December 06
From: california
Member No.: 390



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 15 2008, 11:38 PM) *
laughing1.gif



um no.



That's what I thought you would say. I agree. laughing1.gif

rc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 18 2008, 03:55 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



So was this "pinnacle" E4B "white plane" character one of Farmer's alter egos or Gaffney, or ??? dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Dec 18 2008, 04:43 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 16 2008, 05:55 AM) *
So was this "pinnacle" E4B "white plane" character one of Farmer's alter egos or Gaffney, or ??? dunno.gif


Look up http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t=#entry5037716

28,000 views.

Pinnacle used to post here, only on E4B i seem to recall. He and BoneZ were on the ball on E4B issues early on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 18 2008, 11:38 AM
Post #9





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



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 18 2008, 07:55 AM) *
So was this "pinnacle" E4B "white plane" character one of Farmer's alter egos or Gaffney, or ??? dunno.gif



He's anonymous so we'll never know for sure.

Gaffney refers to him as his "anonymous colleague".

I believe him about that but of course this book shows how none of these guys are to be trusted.

Unless they come out HARD with full on retractions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 18 2008, 12:02 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



As I recall, "pinnacle" never responded to my PM (or two?) about USAF 84 RADES data at this forum FWIW- that was a long time ago though.

EDIT: And do you want your TrollStalker back Craig? I think I'm done with him. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 18 2008, 01:40 PM
Post #11


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE
In other words John Farmer lied about the evidence and used Mark Gaffney to publish those lies. While we don't have any proof that Gaffney was aware of the explosive new evidence we released 3 weeks before his book went to print, it seems odd that he would fail to pay attention to what Farmer had posted on his blog addressing the trailer we had released, and of course it is unconscionable that Farmer would fail to even mention it to Mark.

Deliberately lying about this information as cover for the flyover is bad enough on Farmer's part, but this also served the dual purpose of covering up the fact that these witnesses revealed a breakthrough tidbit of information concerning the true approach direction and timing of the C-130, which also fatally contradicts the 84 RADES data, ironically lending credence to one of the main premises of Gaffney's book but for a much different reason than Gaffney would suggest.

Afterword

I had emailed Mark to request a free copy of his book in return for the free DVD he had requested from us and he obliged. It came in the mail shortly after the release in the beginning of October. Naturally I was amazed at the extreme levels of ignorance and deception displayed so I decided to confront Mark via email as civilly as possible. I simply asked Mark if he was aware of the July 31st release of the interviews we conducted with the ANC employees including #428 as referenced by Farmer in his book. Not surprisingly he denied any knowledge of the interviews. If Gaffney was telling the truth about this it means that Farmer withheld the information so he could proceed with his plans to insert this now proven false 2 plane north side flyover E4B disinformation theory in Gaffney's book.

I pointed Mark to the new evidence and requested that he review it and release an addendum addressing the fact that Farmer's "Afterword" was deliberately based on a proven false notion. Mark refused to take responsibility for the false information in his book and instead, as expected, pushed this burden off on Farmer by replying, "If you don't like Farmer's Afterword, take it up with him. It's his research. He wrote it."


Therefore John Farmer's primary mission was to sabotage the work of Mark Gaffney. After mission accomplished John Farmer stated:

QUOTE
I am done with anyone in the TRUTH movement. I don't give a damn what any of you assholes think. To hell with the government, the TRUTH movement is worse than they are.

I am still a Truther, just not a "truther"

I have never worked with such a group of loony toons in my life. Pass me an aspirin.



This post has been edited by SPreston: Dec 18 2008, 01:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 18 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



There just are no words for it SP... Perhaps "911files" should consult "Bananaman" instead of an aspirin bottle. ohmy.gif

So was there recently a major "colonic" over at ATS or what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 18 2008, 02:37 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Craig -- I'm enjoying reading this. I'm a lay person and if you can write about all this and get me to understand what is being talked about, that's a good thing. So far it is mostly making sense. I want to point out, however, that I believe this sentence is inaccurate: "Naturally if this had happened the "2nd pass" impact would have been on live TV much like the 2nd attack on the WTC." To my knowledge, there was no "live" TV reportage of what was going on at the Pentagon for quite some time after the "impact". There may very well have been reporters on site almost immediately after the explosion(s) but no "live" TV was shown of the Pentagon for quite some time. I no longer recall how long but I would say none prior to the "collapse" of the outer facade/ring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 18 2008, 02:56 PM
Post #14


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



This is a GREAT paragraph:
QUOTE
So since this is the very video used to initially identify the plane, and since it's 100% clear from this video alone that the plane was spotted minutes after somebody mentions an explosion at the Pentagon, why would there ever be a doubt that the evidence proving this plane exists clearly demonstrates it was in the skies after the attack? Why would there be a doubt that the evidence for a plane in the skies before the attack would have to be referring to another plane? The only reason a competent researcher would refuse to acknowledge this would be to deliberately merge the two stories. Mark Gaffney was doing exactly what we said the perpetrators were trying to do. The campaign to blend the stories of this not so mysterious mystery plane with the covert flight path of the attack jet was in full swing via mainstream media, and now from an alleged official story skeptic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 18 2008, 03:28 PM
Post #15


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



VERY well done, Craig. I especially like the "Afterword" which ties it all together. Gaffney's comment, "If you don't like Farmer's Afterword, take it up with him. It's his research. He wrote it." is completely unacceptable. it is HIS (Gaffney's) book, HE is responsible for its content -- that he shirks this responsibility is, more than merely irresponsible, intellectually dishonest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 18 2008, 03:32 PM
Post #16





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



QUOTE (painter @ Dec 18 2008, 06:37 PM) *
Craig -- I'm enjoying reading this. I'm a lay person and if you can write about all this and get me to understand what is being talked about, that's a good thing.


Awesome!

I'm really glad to hear that. When I write stuff I'm often afraid it's going to be too complex for people to follow so that is good to hear.

QUOTE
So far it is mostly making sense. I want to point out, however, that I believe this sentence is inaccurate: "Naturally if this had happened the "2nd pass" impact would have been on live TV much like the 2nd attack on the WTC." To my knowledge, there was no "live" TV reportage of what was going on at the Pentagon for quite some time after the "impact". There may very well have been reporters on site almost immediately after the explosion(s) but no "live" TV was shown of the Pentagon for quite some time. I no longer recall how long but I would say none prior to the "collapse" of the outer facade/ring.



Well that's why I followed up with.....

"Certainly, in the very least, numerous eyewitnesses would have reported this yet of course none did."

However I believe Dave Statter with WUSA claims he was on the scene in less than 5 minutes.

No matter how you slice it....a 2 pass theory is quite ridiculous and it was sheer lunacy for Gaffney to confidently and dismissively make that assertion to us as if it should be obvious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 18 2008, 03:41 PM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (painter @ Dec 18 2008, 07:28 PM) *
VERY well done, Craig. I especially like the "Afterword" which ties it all together. Gaffney's comment, "If you don't like Farmer's Afterword, take it up with him. It's his research. He wrote it." is completely unacceptable. it is HIS (Gaffney's) book, HE is responsible for its content -- that he shirks this responsibility is, more than merely irresponsible, intellectually dishonest.


Thanks a lot painter.

Yeah, that is the crux of it.

This book was a straight on assault.

Farmer's dramatic exit from the movement is not a coincidence.

The good news is that we have been on top of this since the day that CNN piece dropped so these lies are being exposed even BEFORE they're told.

After we got the ANC witnesses from right under their noses their game was up and they knew it. That was their Ace in the hole and it completely backfired.

But it was too late, they had to put the lies out as scheduled anyway.

It's really pretty scary and shows you the deep levels of disinfo we are up against here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 18 2008, 10:13 PM
Post #18


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 18 2008, 01:07 PM) *
There just are no words for it SP... Perhaps "911files" should consult "Bananaman" instead of an aspirin bottle. 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madtruth
post Dec 23 2008, 09:10 PM
Post #19





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



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 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 24 2008, 04:50 PM
Post #20





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



QUOTE (madtruth @ Dec 24 2008, 01:10 AM) *
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!
tongue.gif



QUOTE
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!
yes1.gif


QUOTE
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 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.
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: 1st October 2014 - 04:18 PM