The PentaCon a HOAX?

Jack Tripper


Are you saying that if the witness accounts come from the MSM their testimony is void? I just read around 20 witness accounts that directly contradict the north of the Citgo via the airplane hitting light poles.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks Jack for your continued even handed and informed approach to this subject. You have shown more patience than most with those who would like to participate in the investigation but are limited, for whatever reason, to the screen in front of them. Please keep up the excellent work.

John,

I'm guessing this post was in reference to the "patience" Craig has shown with me considering that a lot of his responses were to me. I'm really getting tired of your condescending and unjustified jabs at me, and I'm going to point it out whenever you do this.

What's amazing about this most recent post of yours is that your name is on Pilot's for 9/11 Truth, their press release is shown signed by you, and yet you didn't even bother using the screen in front of *you* to watch the NTSB animation that P49T was commenting on.

You allow P49T to use your name, and your father's name, so they can buy some credibility and you didn't even see the "NTSB" animation video.

Do you honestly think you're in a position to make judgements and insulting comments about other people?



[edit on 6-6-2007 by nick7261]

Yet another personal attack from CaptainOblivious.

CIT does not support NPT or the work of Killtown.

Our research is based solely on hard evidence that we have personally obtained via true on site investigative journalistic efforts. Not staring at pictures online.

What do they do when they can't attack the information? Attack the messenger of course!

Clearly Nick was man enough to admit that he rushed to judgment.

As he looks into our research further he will realize the true nature of the incredible smoking gun we have reported.

He was quite correct when he said:

"If what you and Rob have is legitimate, it would break open the entire 9/11 story."

I can promise you that we ARE legitimate and that there is no "hoax" involved with our thorough, hard-hitting, investigative research.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Bottom line, it was PURE COINCIDENCE that the NTSB animation seemed to match the eyewitnesses. And it was only natural that we would form CIT and call PFT our "brother" organization since we both focused on cutting edge information about the Pentagon.

Craig,

There's still one more thing that's been bothering me that I'm hoping you can clear up. Back when you posted on the ATS forum you were going to be releasing a blockbuster video of witnesses testifying to the north-of-Citgo flight path and flyover, I posted a question to you in your thread.

The question was basically, "Do you realize that the NTSB animation matches your witnesses!!!?" I had no idea at the time who you were, what connection you had with P49T or the animation, or that you even KNEW about the animation.

Know what you answered back to me?

Nothing.

Even though you answered probably a dozen other questions people posted, you never answered the question I asked about your witnesses matching the animation video. And this was in February I believe.

So now here's what is bothering me, especially based on what I know now.

If you had so much excitement over the legitimacy of the witnesses who were going to testify to the north of the Citgo flight path, I would think you would have been jumping up and down screaming back in February about the the NTSB animation *corroborates* your witnesses.

You couldn't have asked for anything better. The NTSB releases an animation video that happens to show a very similar flight path to what your star witnesses were saying? Plus, the animation confirms your conclusion that Lloyd's story is bogus? And yet you wouldn't even answer my question about whether you were aware that the animation confirmed your witnesses.

For some reason you totally avoided using the NTSB animation as evidence to corroborate your witnesses. This is especially confusing since it was your "brother" organization that was touting the animation as showing the north flight path and flyover, which happened to match your witnesses.

How could you NOT use the NTSB animation to corroborate your witnesses?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Jack Tripper


Are you saying that if the witness accounts come from the MSM their testimony is void? I just read around 20 witness accounts that directly contradict the north of the Citgo via the airplane hitting light poles.

Of course we aren't saying that. Most accounts will work with EITHER flight path.

Of the 20 "light pole" accounts only TWO of them specifically say that they literally "saw" the light poles get clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous military man". The anonymous one doesn't count so that leaves one.

We tried to get a hold of Pentagon police officer Wanda Ramey to confirm or deny her account or see if she would directly contradict her colleagues Lagasse and Brooks but we were unsuccessful reaching her.

We DID however personally interview Stephen McGraw and Joel Sucherman who are 2 of the more famous witnesses who are often cited as having literally "seen" the light poles get clipped.

BOTH admitted to us that they did NOT see the light poles get clipped and merely saw them on the ground after the fact.

Same was the case with Brooks who had previously claimed he saw the light poles get clipped but admitted to us in person that he embellished this detail. The same thing likely happened with Wanda Ramey.

If you carefully read the rest of those published accounts you will see that NONE of them specifically state that they "saw" the light poles get clipped and merely saw them on the ground after the fact and therefore DEDUCED that they were hit.

We have attempted to contact ALL of these so called light pole witnesses.

We have not been able to find one who was able to definitively confirm that they saw the light poles get clipped.

So it's not that mainstream media accounts should be immediately dismissed but they MUST be heavily analyzed and CONFIRMED first hand before they are automatically accepted.

Lee Evey is listed as a light pole witness and he wasn't a witness to the event at all! He was the Pentagon Renovation manager and he was merely stating what was reported.

Investigate, analyze, and confirm or deny reports otherwise they must NOT be accepted out of hand.

One confirmed first hand report holds more weight then dozens of mainstream media 2nd hand unconfirmed reports.

Originally posted by nick7261

How could you NOT use the NTSB animation to corroborate your witnesses?

Simple.

We knew from the citgo witness testimony that the plane did not hit the building.

Therefore we knew that any data supplied by the perpetrators had to have been falsified.

We had no intentions of falling into that trap and citing government released data that was allegedly from a plane that hit the building as supporting our witnesses when the very existence of that data contradicts our hypothesis.

Does that mean that anomalies in the FDR should be ignored? Of course not!

Just that the lines of inquiry should remain separate.

We understood this from the very beginning and made sure to present our information this way.

This is particularly why the allegations you made in this thread were so incorrect and upsetting.

Plus we knew that the rest of the flight path we present further back did NOT match the NTSB animation because the witnesses (namely Edward Paik) report the plane as crossing over from the south side of Columbia Pike to the north side just after the Sheraton.

The NTSB animation does not depict this.

Back to the light poles:


"Father" McGraw is often cited as having seen the light poles get hit.


Here is his account about the light poles:

Father McGraw said he was sitting in slow-moving traffic in the left lane of Rt. 27 around 9:35 a.m. when "without warning a plane passed 20 feet over the cars, clipping a light pole," before plowing into the Pentagon.

Why does he say "a light pole" as in singular?

We interviewed McGraw and this will be presented in the Researcher's Edition.

He specifically tells us that he did NOT see a light pole or any light poles get clipped after all.

This is quite odd given his statement and the view from his confirmed location.

This is exactly his view:


He claims he literally saw the alleged impact.

While it's true that he would have had a perfect view of the alleged impact....how could he see the impact without seeing the light poles get clipped right in front of his face?

There are other very suspicious details about his account that you will see in the Researcher's Edition.

Bottom line you can not assume ANYTHING is automatically correct from mainstream media published accounts.

We must confirm all details.

Same goes for the so called "impact" witnesses.

Many people reported the impact but upon close examination it is clear that it is impossible for many of them to have seen it because of their location.

Much like McGraw and Sucherman are erroneously cited as having seen the light poles get clipped.......many many of the eyewitness are erroneously cited as having seen the impact just because they say the plane hit the building.

Plot their locations. You'll find that many of them couldn't even see the Pentagon at all. They just saw the plane and heard the explosion so they are cited as having witnessed the "impact".

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
To Arabasque:

You mean your lame pathetic deceptive debunk attempt?

Post one account that directly contradicts the north side claim.

You can't do it.

All you can do is copy and paste Eric Bart's mainstream media published witness list!

Sorry but that is NOT research.

You are a blogger/compiler.

Not an investigator.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]

I find it interesting how you decide what constitutes "research" since you ignore your own witnesses and can't find a single witness to directly support a flyover.

To me that sounds like "make believe fantasy" --not research. Researchers actually use the data they get--they don't ignore their own evidence. How many witnesses have you found who said something other than a plane hit the Pentagon, or retracted their story that the plane hit the Pentagon?

By the way, why don't you explain to me the motive for flying over the Pentagon?

Please enlighten me why the Government would be stupid enough to fly the plane close to the Pentagon, fly it over, and risk making themselves look guilty when they could fly it into the Pentagon and make the hijackers look guilty?

What motive would there be to do that? I'm waiting.

And while you're at it, you can call all the evidence I quoted suspect, but where is your evidence? Explain to me WHY the government wouldn't even fake a list of hijackers good enough, using the names of people who are still ALIVE and then waste all of the effort to fake over 100 eyewitness statements and none who claim a plane flew over?

The government couldn't even hide the fact that there were bombs in the Oklahoma City Bombing (witnesses REPORTED that) and you're going around claiming that people wouldn't notice a plane fly over the Pentagon when it's surrounded by large highways? Good one.

Do I have to write it in crayon for you? I'll try and write very thick as my crayon's aren't very "bright" as you say.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Arabesque]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
I can promise you that we ARE legitimate and that there is no "hoax" involved with our thorough, hard-hitting, investigative research.

I sure hope you're right!

So, into, or over the Pentagon?

[edit on 6-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[...]
As [Nick] looks into our research further he will realize the true nature of the incredible smoking gun we have reported.

He was quite correct when he said:

"If what you and Rob have is legitimate, it would break open the entire 9/11 story."

I can promise you that we ARE legitimate and that there is no "hoax" involved with our thorough, hard-hitting, investigative research.

Our research is based solely on hard evidence that we have personally obtained via true on site investigative journalistic efforts.

Put like that it's hard to argue with. You went somewhere. You interviewed people and got it on camera. They said what they said. You gathered the data. It was an effort. You were hassled. If this is all your work rests on, then I'd have to disagree with Nick's assessment of its import.

but I do recall seeing some pictures on a screen, some animated GIFs and whatnot that showed some stuff that I doubt was directly observed "in the field."

I'd believe your witnesses were all somehow simultaneously misconstrued, wrong, led, bribed, lying, whatever, however strongly you'd like to put it, than to add any credence or silent ascent to the overall overflight theory that NO WITNESSES SUPPORT that you spun from this and that contradicts every piece of evidence I've looked at. You have the evidence, but it has OTHER, far more rational explanations, than the "OBVIOUS" conclusion you all have reached.

It's all in what you have DONE with that data that the doubts lie. You do show a suspiciously flawed logic.

That is all for now.

ETA: Echoing Nick's thanks for the background info. When I'm ready to learn more and figure stuff out these will be valuable. There's plenety more in the PentaCon forum, interesting stuff all when it's all up-front. I like evidence, (David Icke on Lloyd's back seat?)

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Arabesque

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
To Arabasque:

You mean your lame pathetic deceptive debunk attempt?

Post one account that directly contradicts the north side claim.

You can't do it.

All you can do is copy and paste Eric Bart's mainstream media published witness list!

Sorry but that is NOT research.

You are a blogger/compiler.

Not an investigator.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Jack Tripper]

I find it interesting how you decide what constitutes "research" since you ignore your own witnesses and can't find a single witness to directly support a flyover.

To me that sounds like "make believe fantasy" --not research. Researchers actually use the data they get--they don't ignore their own evidence. How many witnesses have you found who said something other than a plane hit the Pentagon, or retracted their story that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Are you still really going there? Clearly it's all too complex for your simple mind so I will explain it to you yet again.

9/11 was a world wide psychological operation of deception. They deceived literally billions of people across the globe on live tv into believing that planes alone turned the towers to dust.

Details surrounding the Pentagon attack are even more secretive and dubious than at the towers since no clear footage of the event was released. But the evidence that we we present in The PentaCon proves that they used the same M.O. of deception. They staged the physical destruction with pre-planted explosives but used a real plane as a psychological tool of deception.

We did NOT ignore the fact that the citgo witnesses were deceived. It's quite clear this is what HAS to be what happened because of where they all place the plane. You simply refuse to see the forest for the trees and insist on using circular logic by making the absurd claim that the fact that the witnesses were DECIEVED (which is clearly the entire purpose of the operation) negates the fact that they all saw the plane on the north side of the station. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. ESPECIALLY during an investigation into an event of this nature and magnitude. You have to think outside the box and INVESTIGATE in real life if you want to get to the truth. Clearly you have not done this which is why you are not a researcher. Your are a compiler/blogger. I have never seen you even cite a single witness account in any discussion. You merely post a link to your bloated out amateur cut and paste compilation.

Aldo and I know the details of virtually every witness by name. If you call out a witness to us in person we could automatically tell you where they were located and what they claim they saw. You have not demonstrated you have any knowledge whatsoever or that you have analyzed any of these accounts at all. This is apparent because of the fact that you even include people like Pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey as a "witness" when he didn't see anything at all! In fact you even REMOVED the names from the witness accounts in the most relevant part of your blog!

By the way, why don't you explain to me the motive for flying over the Pentagon?

Please enlighten me why the Government would be stupid enough to fly the plane close to the Pentagon, fly it over, and risk making themselves look guilty when they could fly it into the Pentagon and make the hijackers look guilty?


What motive would there be to do that? I'm waiting.

Although this is IRRELEVANT to the evidence and a clear straw man argument I will indulge you anyway because it's easy for anyone with the slightest ability to think intuitively to answer this question. Although I must admit it is pretty childish and silly to say "I'm waiting" within your own post as if I should have read your mind and already posted the answer!

Here is your answer:

Obviously they did not plan to demolish the entire Pentagon like they did the towers. Naturally they would want as much control as possible of the damage to their own building. An actual plane crash would have been too random and the jet fuel may have contaminated the building for quite some time. Basically it boils down to complete control of the scene which they ultimately had in their own backyard.

And while you're at it, you can call all the evidence I quoted suspect, but where is your evidence? Explain to me WHY the government wouldn't even fake a list of hijackers good enough, using the names of people who are still ALIVE and then waste all of the effort to fake over 100 eyewitness statements and none who claim a plane flew over?

What? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never said that all the published witnesses are fake! Quite the contrary. I am quite sure that most are legitimate and were legitimately deceived just like the citgo witnesses and just like the billions of people who watched the towers collapse. Only a small handful are operatives. NONE of the accounts directly contradict the citgo witnesses and only a very small handful indirectly contradict them. So your attempt to misdirect the conversation with your hijacker analogy fell flat on it's face. You are batting zero.

The government couldn't even hide the fact that there were bombs in the Oklahoma City Bombing (witnesses REPORTED that) and you're going around claiming that people wouldn't notice a plane fly over the Pentagon when it's surrounded by large highways? Good one.

Oklahoma City Bombing??

As if you haven't used enough irrelevant analogies as straw men in this post already! But this one takes the cake!

Sorry buddy but Oklahoma City was not exposed! Nobody was indicted but Timothy McVeigh. I don't believe the OKC official story for one minute but news flash to you: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT!

Do I have to write it in crayon for you? I'll try and write very thick as my crayon's aren't very "bright" as you say.

Haha! Classic. Case in point! Your entire post was DRIPPING with anger and frustration to the point of embarrassment as you fell flat with virtually every line. So at the end you try your hardest to get in a dig to get back at me but it is devoid of poignancy, wit, finesse, or humor! It pretty much amounts to you sticking out your tongue and saying "I know you are but what am I?".

You have basically put on a show for everyone that perfectly demonstrates your naive and simplistic mindset.

Way to go Arabasque!

Jack Tripper,

While i appreciate your efforts and all,

I think you could use a more polite approach...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
[...]
As [Nick] looks into our research further he will realize the true nature of the incredible smoking gun we have reported.

He was quite correct when he said:

"If what you and Rob have is legitimate, it would break open the entire 9/11 story."

I can promise you that we ARE legitimate and that there is no "hoax" involved with our thorough, hard-hitting, investigative research.

Our research is based solely on hard evidence that we have personally obtained via true on site investigative journalistic efforts.

Put like that it's hard to argue with. You went somewhere. You interviewed people and got it on camera. They said what they said. You gathered the data. It was an effort. You were hassled. If this is all your work rests on, then I'd have to disagree with Nick's assessment of its import.

but I do recall seeing some pictures on a screen, some animated GIFs and whatnot that showed some stuff that I doubt was directly observed "in the field."

Are you a glutton for punishment? You HAD to come back for more didn't you? All right then.......you asked for it!

This is SO your method of debate. Assert some vague and generalized claim meant to cast doubt without even bothering to cite an example! Just listen to yourself!

What does the fact that we use images in our documentary to establish the official story etc have to do with our claim?

We cite ONE simple detail as a "smoking gun". The north side claim.

THAT'S IT!

Sure we hypothesize how the damage may have been simulated/planted and sure we postulate the ONLY alternative if the plane didn't hit which is a flyover but it's all based solely on the north side claim which is based solely on our investigation.

Do you see now how slimy and underhanded your discussion tactics are? If you don't you better believe people reading this post sure will.

I'd believe your witnesses were all somehow simultaneously misconstrued, wrong, led, bribed, lying, whatever, however strongly you'd like to put it, than to add any credence or silent ascent to the overall overflight theory that NO WITNESSES SUPPORT that you spun from this and that contradicts every piece of evidence I've looked at. You have the evidence, but it has OTHER, far more rational explanations, than the "OBVIOUS" conclusion you all have reached.

Wow. Pretty heavy claims to make with zero research or evidence to back them up. We present clear evidence of fatal contradictions in the official story and for no specifically stated reason at all you decide you should simply SAY that they are simultaneously wrong.

Lagasse made the north side claim back in 2003. It has been confirmed with Robert's manager this was his claim since 9/11. Despite the fact that Brooks and Paik fully and independently corroborate them; for no specific stated reason whatsoever you decide it necessary to simply dismiss their accounts.

Of COURSE the physical evidence is designed to sell the official story! You claim you believe 9/11 was a world wide operation of deception yet you insist on disingenuously asserting that the Pentagon HAD to have happened physically as you were told by the perpetrators despite the incredible level of deception involved in an operation of this magnitude.

You simply blow off the fact that the damage to the building is questionable (c-ring exit hole anyone?), that they permanently sequester video and 911 call transcripts, and that there were many dubious eyewitness accounts like PNAC member Gary Bauer or corrupt republican congressman Rick Renzi who reports the plane as "dive bombing", as well as the suspicious claims of a plane that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

But nope.......nothing questionable here folks......it all adds up! Clearly the citgo witnesses were hallucinating and the notion that the perps would deceive people in the area by using a plane as a psychological tool while staging the actual destruction with explosives is ludicrous!

It's all in what you have DONE with that data that the doubts lie. You do show a suspiciously flawed logic.

That is all for now.

Suspiciously flawed logic? What we have "done"????

What we have done is report where the witnesses saw the plane. The LOGIC is extremely simple............it is impossible for a plane where the witnesses all saw it to down the light poles and damage the building as reported.

There is not a single flaw in that logic. It is a cold hard fact.

Your problem is similar to Arabasque's in that you have a very simplistic and myopic way of looking at this extremely complex operation of deception. It's like you have absolutely zero ability to think intuitively and analyze information with any effective level of insight. So you don't even bother to try.

Your entire stamp on the movement has been relegated to poking holes in other people's work without ever really getting the gist of the point or into the specific details of what they claim or what was involved in the operation.

You haven't provided any investigative research of your own that focused on exposing the perpetrators. You are all about making vague claims chock full of hyperbole and empty rhetoric about other people's work that can only serve to recklessly cast doubt.

Think of what you have done to us. Within a few days after the release of our data you rushed to be the first to post a self admitted "hasty", "flippant", "poorly done hit-piece" against us and our film by instantly calling us out as "Pentagon-sponsored disinformation"!

Yet although you ADMIT these things about YOURSELF you insist on keeping something so atrocious and out of line posted on the internet for other simpletons like Arabasque to cite in his equally poorly done cut & paste compilation/blog.

Think of how shameful and disgusting that really is.

Just THINK about what a slimebag you truly are for THAT being your contribution to 9/11 truth.

How DARE you have so little regard for such thorough and important research that is so strongly supported.

Couldn't you have emailed us first and opened a dialog? Couldn't you have given yourself a couple weeks to do some research and make an attempt to actually think about all this before posting such a blatantly uninformed and pathetically biased attack piece?

I can't FATHOM how anyone could live with themselves after doing something so stupid.

You do realize what a repugnant tool that makes you if our information is valid don't you?

Guess what? The info is valid, tool.

I suggest you start thinking of ways to redeem yourself because as it stands you are lockstep with the treasonous traitors that pulled off this sickening operation of indefinite mass murder.

ETA: Echoing Nick's thanks for the background info. When I'm ready to learn more and figure stuff out these will be valuable. There's plenety more in the PentaCon forum, interesting stuff all when it's all up-front. I like evidence, (David Icke on Lloyd's back seat?)

True to your slimy M.O. you throw in a compliment or two to give the impression you have somewhat of an unbiased and fair outlook.

Well guess what? As long as you keep up that illogical, uninformed, badly written, off-base, ignorant, transparent, deceptive, out of control hit-piece on us you have exposed yourself as an attention starved irrelevant traitor who has the blood of countless 10's of thousands on his hands.

I want to vomit.

Originally posted by selfless
Jack Tripper,

While i appreciate your efforts and all,

I think you could use a more polite approach...

This is not a game.

This is about perpetual war and we have people dying EVERY DAY as a result of this lie.

The information we have obtained is CRITICAL to exposing this fraud and these two dopey know-nots have spent HOURS trying to discredit me personally and the information I present.

Sorry if I come off a bit strong but they deserve it and I won't let up as long as they continue with their ignorant foolish attempts to cast doubt on our incredibly important work.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Sorry if I come off a bit strong but they deserve it and I won't let up as long as they continue with their ignorant foolish attempts to cast doubt on our incredibly important work.

Jack, let me respectfully request you get a grip. There is no reason to use the strong language you are using. The people that really matter already know you are correct. The guys you are yelling aren't worth it.

Let me strongly suggest a more tactful approach. All of the charges you made are correct but there is no need to yell or use the strong language.

You can accomplish a lot more by using a more measured approach. We have a long ways to go and there is no reason to use up all your energy at this point. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Sorry if I come off a bit strong but they deserve it and I won't let up as long as they continue with their ignorant foolish attempts to cast doubt on our incredibly important work.

Jack, let me respectfully request you get a grip. There is no reason to use the strong language you are using. The people that really matter already know you are correct. The guys you are yelling aren't worth it.

Let me strongly suggest a more tactful approach. All of the charges you made are correct but there is no need to yell or use the strong language.

You can accomplish a lot more by using a more measured approach. We have a long ways to go and there is no reason to use up all your energy at this point. Thanks.

Yeah yeah.

I agree.

And I don't typically go off THAT hard.

But I had the two most egregious offenders of baseless attacks against us in the same place at the same time who together have published the only two deceptive hit-pieces that are being utilized to cast doubt, misdirect, and misinform people about our work so they needed a socking.

I know the cutting truth in what I say affects them because CL has straight up said so and it's obvious I reduce Arabesque to a quivering emotional basket case.

They need to abandon their campaign against us and our research or they will continue to be publicly exposed for what they really are.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

They need to abandon their campaign against us and our research or they will continue to be publicly exposed for what they really are.

They are not going to abandon anything. Calm, cool, measured response will do the trick. Remember, these guys are not the true enemies. The true enemies are infinitely smarter. Don't waste your ammo.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Jack Tripper

They need to abandon their campaign against us and our research or they will continue to be publicly exposed for what they really are.

They are not going to abandon anything. Calm, cool, measured response will do the trick. Remember, these guys are not the true enemies. The true enemies are infinitely smarter. Don't waste your ammo.

Perhaps.

But guys who put out crap like that ARE enemies. They are enemies of truth and justice and fiends for attention.

Honestly I think CL is more of the attention whore and Arabasque is just very simple minded and has been strongly influenced by the 757 impact conspiracy theorists.

Neither of them are smart enough to be actual cointelpro.

But their blogs do affect other dummies out there and become tools for skeptics. They don't have to be accurate or intelligent to cast doubt which is really all they hope to do.

But don't worry John.....I've got A LOT of energy and this won't come close to putting a dent in my fight!

In fact Aldo and I made a very interesting call to a very pertinent player in this operation earlier today!