Book review: The 9/11 Mystery Plane & The Vanishing Of America

Mark Gaffney's book was released in September of this year and I have written an extremely involved critical review because I have special insight into what's going on here.

This book is an absolute travesty.

9/11 is too important of a topic for such a reckless effort. This is extremely harmful and after reading my review you will understand how it's clear that Gaffney got in way over his head with this issue, was seriously manipulated, or there's something deeper than that going on. Maybe all of the above.

Oh he's a fine writer and all but this review has nothing to do with his literary skills and of course is coming purely from an informational/evidential stand-point as you should expect by now from CIT.

This exposes a lot of important details behind the stories regarding a massive amount of new evidence that has been revealed the past year.

Please take the time to read it thoroughly and carefully so you can get the full gist of this complex web of information and disinformation that I have worked hard to untangle.

I'll spare the forum the lengthy text and images this time so everyone can read the review here:

A review of Mark Gaffney's 2008 book: "The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America"

Star and flag! I will get back later after I digest this article.
I hope this get lots of good responses.

Nice summary, Craig.

Keep up the good work.

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:

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

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

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

reply to post by SPreston


Yeah SPreston you got to the heart of it there.

Very strange situation.

CIT typically never goes after other people and their research but this was such an egregious example of disinfo, and they DID go after us specifically, so I had no choice but to respond.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I agree that ther is something wrong with the attack on the towers.
#1. In the news videos I believe I can see what looks like molten iron in rivers pouring out of the towers before the collapse.
#2. Just prior to the collapse of the North Tower it looks like a series of squib explosions go off in sequence.
#3. The second aircraft to hit the tower was not a commercial 727 but was a grey (AF) color with no windows and had a what would appear to be a secondary control system (Like a Drone would use) hanging from the underbelly of it. This aircraft was not an American Airlines Aircraft.
#4. Tower seven was razed by a demolition team. If you watch it fall you can see the squibs kick the main support pillars and start a controlled fall at a controlled speed. It fell too fast to have fallen due to damage from the other towers. It fell in on ii's original footprint and made a nice little pile of rubble.
#5.Tower seven was the HQ of the CIA, FBI and the DEA and would not have been evacuated at the time of the explosions and Mayor Gulliano was told not to go in tower seven at least an hour before it fell and on National TV John Kerry when asked all but admitted the Tower was razed.
#6. Only one month before the attack the lease holder on the twin towers expanded his lease to include all of the adjacent buildings and he purchased a $3.6B insurance policy on the complex and he (Larry Silverstein) is looking to collect double claiming the second aircraft intrduced a second claim.
#7. If you are watching the BBC report you can see the female correspondent reporting that Tower seven had collapsed when the building is in plain clear sight in her background. The news was loaded and because of the time difference in England (6 Hours ahead) The morning news for the UK ran before everyone's else and the Tower had not yet been razed.

I spent 17 years in the Army (Retired) as an Airborne Ranger and I have seen many different types of aircraft and explosives ands their natural effects on a target.
The Pentegon was a streight forward hit but the pilot could not have been one of the 19 due to the fact that the Pentegon, due to it's design would need to be hit at ground level as if you were landing and that is exactly how it was hit. the terrorists never spent time in the simulators practicing landing because it was not necessary. It was a professional Pilot that hit the Pentegon and it was the AA pilot of that plane as he had terminal cancer and he used to work in the pentegon in a very high department with the Air Force.

That is about all I have seen..........but I seem to remember a man in Arizona I think that had a radio station on the 9/11 conspiracy and he was murdered in a very professional (double tap) way. Hmmmmm????

reply to post by RANGER65


Thanks for the input but maybe you posted in the wrong thread?

This is not about the WTC.

It's about a new book full of mis and disinformation that came out regarding an E4B (doomsday plane) that was seen over the restricted airspace of Washington DC shortly after the Pentagon attack.

Shortly after my review of this book came out, the author of the "Afterword", who I demonstrated used the book as a vehicle for a proven false 2 plane disinformation conspiracy theory involving the north side flyover of the E4B, has deleted his website, publicly quit the "truth movement" in a swirl of obscenities, and became a full-blown daily contributor to the infamous pseudo-skeptic forum as he launches continuous attacks on CIT, P4T ,and of course the truth movement in general.

Very telling.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



The pressure on people who discuss 9/11 is intense. Is this the same guy David McGowan talks about on his website?

If it isn't this would not be the first time a CIT became a DCIT.

reply to post by Aubryish


I don't know if David McGowan has ever talked about Mark Gaffney and I have no idea what you mean by a "DCIT".

Care to elaborate?



[edit on 16-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Again, excellent work Craig. But nothing less than I have come to expect from you and CIT. Kudos.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Aubryish

 

I don't know if David McGowan has ever talked about Mark Gaffney and I have no idea what you mean by a "DCIT".

Care to elaborate?


DCIT equals DE as in anti CIT movement. The way I view your opposers very DECIT FUL

reply to post by Aubryish









There is no comparison to the work done by CIT. Follow the information here and spread the word.


There is no comparison to the work done by CIT. Following the info provided by they're research what other comparison can you come to but inside job?