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

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?

um no.

So was this "pinnacle" E4B "white plane" character one of Farmer's alter egos or Gaffney, or ???

So was this "pinnacle" E4B "white plane" character one of Farmer's alter egos or Gaffney, or ???

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 ) --- 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.

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

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.

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!






Now you're on the right track!





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.

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 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.

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

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, ***********