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