A Critical Review of John Farmer's Two-Plane
"You All Just Haven't Talked About It"
By: Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
I recently drafted a critical review of Mark Gaffney's book "The 9/11 Mystery Plane & The Vanishing Of America".
As explained in the review, the "Afterword" in that book is credited as having been authored by another person, John Farmer, so this new review will focus specifically on Farmer's piece that was used as a vehicle for a
two-plane disinformation theory concerning the 9/11 Pentagon event.
The original version of Farmer's article first appeared on his website 911files.com but he removed this entire site from the web in December 2008 along with virtually all his other original articles concerning 9/11.
As a result of this, the final version of the article as it appears in Gaffney's distributed book, is the only original contribution to 9/11 research in the public domain to date authored by the now semi-infamous CIT-bashing researcher, John Farmer.
Fortunately for John Farmer fans the article was introduced by Gaffney as "summarizing his two-year investigation into the Pentagon event." (pg. 102) So you can rest assured that the culmination of all his research has been preserved.
Ironically, despite the fact that Farmer has made a name for himself as a detractor of CIT, he credits us and cites our research in the article. In fact, it's written clearly in support of the notion that a plane did fly north of the Citgo gas station and therefore over the Pentagon at the time of the explosion, proving a deception.
He simply (illogically) chose to suggest this happened with a simultaneous impact of "AAL 77" on the south side (which still would prove a deception and cover-up).
CIT has always maintained that Farmer's entire goal when he first appeared on the scene was to push a 2-plane disnfo conspiracy theory. He consistently denied this allegation in the past, so the fact that our prediction in this regard would completely come true is no insignificant detail, particularly since Farmer was forced to lie about the Arlington Cemetery witnesses (eg, Russell Roy), in order to move forward with this 2-plane conspiracy theory agenda as we predicted.
The article used to exist here:
However repeated requests for an updated link have been ignored.
I transcribed the full article from the book and it is available exactly as published here.
I will now proceed with my critical review of the most relevant points.
Farmer begins the article by proclaiming the motive behind his entire "9/11 research project". He said he embarked on this endeavor based on suspicions of the official version because he was aware of "Operations Mongoose, and Northwoods developed by our own military-intelligence network, and advocating staged civilian attacks on United States citizens." (1st paragraph)
What this means is that the entire purpose of his personal "project" was to look at evidence in the context of considering the government a suspect in a potential false flag terror operation of deception. Keep this in mind because it speaks to the heart of the schizophrenic nature of his 2-plane conspiracy theory and his entire article.
In the second paragraph Farmer states,
"It seemed to me that if the military-intelligence community were involved somehow, then that attack would have to be very controlled, to limit the casualties to the nation’s command-and-control facilities and personnel."
I would like to say that this is the most logical and reasonable statement I have ever heard coming from Farmer. How this is relevant to his convoluted theory presented in the rest of the article I do not know. Regardless, this perfectly explains why the suspect would prefer to have the plane fly over rather than hit. Obviously the damage to their headquarters from a plane crash would be much more difficult to predict than strategically placed explosives.
Farmer continues, "The flight data recorder released by the National Transportation Safety Board has significant irregularities at the end-of-flight, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is refusing to release the information in their possession (videos and photographs), and the Federal Aviation Administration has been reluctant to release the air traffic control recordings and radar data for the Washington D.C. area for that date." (5th paragraph)
This further establishes clear skepticism for the alleged "empirical" data provided by the government as well as a belief in deliberate withholding of information implicating a cover-up. He even implies that he has already identified "irregularities" in the NTSB data that would not only also implicate a cover-up but establish a precedent of evidence manipulation. Given the fact that he just admitted the very purpose of his entire "research project" was to consider the government a suspect in a false flag terror operation this type of skepticism makes perfect sense. But, instead of staying true to this logic and insisting on independent verifiable evidence, Farmer hypocritically chooses to focus on the Citgo security video that was also sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the same suspect.
Before he would get into the details that he wanted to go over regarding the Citgo security video VHS tape he got from Scott Bingham, Farmer felt the need to awkwardly interject this flat statement to show ironic but steadfast support for the official version of the event, "According to the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses, American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL 77) flew down from the south side of the Navy Annex (on Columbia Pike), passed within a few hundred feet of the Citgo gas station at between 100-150 feet above ground level (agl), then struck the tops of five light poles along Route 27 at Columbia Pike, and then impacted the Pentagon at an approximate heading of 60 degrees from north." (paragraph 6)
But what's notably absent are any sources! Not a single witness is referenced. Apparently he expected the reader to simply assume that he is correct and to trust him as some sort of honest authority on the matter. This is where the schizophrenic nature of the article starts to set in. After professing strong skepticism against the official story and data we are supposed to now come full circle and simply accept his claim that the exact official flight path and exact identity of the plane has been fully established by the eyewitnesses perfectly matching what we have been told by the authorities. All just because John Farmer says so.
He then starts to get into all the details of the government provided: ultra-low-quality, grainy Citgo video that had the camera views of the Pentagon removed. Farmer said, "After receiving the VHS tape, I took it to an independent video firm here in Memphis, TN to have it evaluated and reproduced in DVD format. The original VHS was then shipped back to Bingham along with a DVD copy for his use. At that time, no significant issues with the VHS tape (symptoms of alteration) were found by either me or the technician processing it." (paragraph 7)
Here he tries to preempt the notion that the video could have been manipulated by telling us that he checked and everything looks good to him. He expects the reader to assume his authority on the matter and believe that since he was supposedly unable to detect alteration, that it must be 100% legitimate. It's also comical for him to suggest the company who converted the VHS to DVD corroborates him on this! How is converting video formats akin to forensically analyzing it for alterations? If Farmer actually did commission an independent forensic analysis of the tape obviously he would have provided the report and the name of the company he commissioned. He has provided no evidence.
What's even more egregiously deceptive about this passage is that previous articles and graphics by Farmer (that have since been removed from the web) indicated that he was well aware that the most relevant camera views of the Pentagon were manipulated out of the released data. He had actually gone to the Citgo and documented and reported on all the camera views that were missing. He was also well aware that former 757 impact theorist Russell Pickering had reported that the manager of the Citgo pointed out a camera location that would have had a perfect view of the alleged impact point as well as the plane from the north side of the station. She said the FBI confiscated the video tape on 9/11 but even went so far as to come back and completely remove this one critical camera days later never to be replaced. This extremely important detail shows a direct cover-up of the most relevant information (and reveals that the released data Farmer was citing had to have been manipulated to remove this view) but was ignored by Farmer in the article.
We know for a fact that Farmer was already aware of all this when he visited the Citgo yet he completely failed to ask a single question to the manager (or witness Robert Turcios) about this or anything at all for that matter. Farmer has used the video in an effort to discredit witness Turcios' claim that he saw the plane on the north side even though Turcios is corroborated by 12 other witnesses in this critical area, including two Pentagon police officers who were also at the station. It's worth noting that the video was quietly released a mere 10 days after we first announced the north side account of Robert Turcios online. Coincidence? Given the explosive nature of his account of a north side "pull-up" over the highway it would be naive for anyone to assume so.
Not surprisingly Farmer would completely fail to mention Robert Turcios all together in the final version of the article.
Considering the alleged motive behind Farmer's research project, his stated skepticism for other government controlled data, and definite knowledge of the removal of these critical views, Farmer's militant commitment to the veracity of the Citgo video is entirely illogical. The fact that he would go so far as to use it in a campaign to discredit Robert Turcios' confirmed and corroborated account is unconscionable.
He completely ignored the hard evidence that the data had been manipulated to remove this critical view and he chose to represent the Citgo video as 100% valid while positioning himself as the ultimate authority on every flash and artifact visible in it. Despite supposedly being able to confirm the alleged "shadow" of "AAL 77" on the south side, he also claims he found a "flash" that he said was consistent with an airborne "reflective surface" on the north side! Farmer wrote, "Further, this line-of-sight does not cross the flight path of AAL 77! Since light on the wall is relatively contained and localized, the light source would have to be reasonably close to the station. Quite frankly, none of this made sense to me with the information available at the time." (paragraph 17)
Next he moves on to the witnesses. Apparently his timing when initially doing all this research was really convenient since he just happened to be working on his in-depth study of the Citgo security video immediately after "The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version" was first released in February of 2007. Farmer explained, "An Italian researcher (who wishes to remain off the record) alerted me to the work of a group called Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). CIT had gone to the area and interviewed a number of individuals, among them Defense Protective Services (DPS) SGT William Lagasse, who is seen on camera number 3 fueling his car. SGT Lagasse asserts that he saw the plane pass by the north-west canopy, corresponding to a flight path that would account for a reflective body in the right path to explain the lighting observed on the wall." (paragraph 18)
Once again the schizophrenia starts to surface as Farmer struggles to characterize the north side accounts of Lagasse and Brooks as valid yet invalid at the same time. Farmer qualifies his Lagasse statement, "SGT Lagasse, however, describes the plane as doing a yaw maneuver that significantly changed its alignment. He asserts that the jet wash from the plane knocked him into his car as it passed to his left. Then he states that it approached the Pentagon at another angle consistent with the actual flight path of AAL 77. In other words, when he first saw it, he was looking at the right side of it, and then at the end he was looking at the left side of it (as he would have a plane passing the south side of the station where he shadow is visible on the ground). So his account is inconclusive." (paragraph 19)
So although he deems Lagasse's account "inconclusive" Farmer obviously chose to use it in his article as support for a north side flyover anyway. This is a clear effort to morph Lagasse's account into supporting two planes. It's one heck of a stretch but Farmer shamelessly goes for it. Lagasse never describes two planes or two approaches. His entire point of describing a "yaw" is to suggest that he saw one plane that he believed shifted on its own axis. That's what a "yaw" is. It's also interesting how Farmer would bring up Lagasse's previous "jet wash" statement even though Lagasse admitted on camera during our 2006 interview that this didn't happen and that it was a prior incorrect statement or innocent embellishment on his part and that he actually reacted by jumping in the car out of "fear". It's as if Farmer was deliberately setting up Lagasse to be "debunked" because obviously if Farmer watched the interview he would have to be aware of this. Lagasse’s frightened reaction would clearly impede his ability to see, remember, and report the precise details of what the plane did when it reached the building. But naturally it would not have an effect on what side of the station he would initially see the plane before he reacted.
What's clear is that no honest person would say that Lagasse's north side account is "inconclusive" or that he could possibly be describing two different approaches of two separate planes. Whatever Lagasse thinks he remembers the plane doing when it reached the Pentagon thousands of feet away from him as he jumped in his car out of fear really doesn't matter since the plane passing on the north side of him just dozens of feet away is proof that it did not hit.
Farmer's deception gets even worse when he starts talking about Sgt. Chadwick Brooks. Farmer would be forced to directly lie about Brooks' claims in order to use him to support this 2 plane lunacy. Farmer wrote, "SGT Brooks was parked across Joyce Road from the station in a parking lot. He asserts that his car was parked in a northerly orientation and that he saw the plane fly past the north side of the station exactly as described by SGT Lagasse." (paragraph 20)
Brooks has never asserted that his car was parked in a "northerly orientation". This is why Farmer failed to quote Brooks making such a claim. In fact the parking spots in that lot face east west, not north south.
Farmer lied about what Brooks said because this is the only way he could cast doubt on his initial recorded account from 2001 hosted on the Library of Congress website. In that account Brooks says nothing at all about which direction he was parked, is vague about his exact position, and vague about the location of the plane as he merely suggests it was to his "left".
Of course all of these details were definitively cleared up by us on-camera on-location in 2006. With our camera being deliberately oriented to show Brooks' POV facing the Pentagon on 9/11, he confirmed his 2001 claim that the plane was to his "left" but was able to elaborate while pointing that it was "to the left of the station" which would be north. Nothing ambiguous or vague about that.
Furthermore in the 2001 interview Brooks claims he heard the noise of the plane coming "behind" him. If he was facing the Pentagon, north would be to his left and the plane would approach from behind him.
So while his 2001 audio interview was vague, our 2006 video interview was not. Brooks confirmed that to his "left" at the time was north and that he only saw one plane on the north side just like everyone else.
Farmer's tendency to dismiss the confirmed and clarified statements in favor of the more ambiguous statements that can be easily spun is repeated in his article. But the fact that he would stoop so low as to deliberately lie about what Brooks said reveals a more sinister agenda. Brooks never said he was facing north when he witnessed the plane. Not in 2001 and not in 2006. Farmer even included a deceptive graphic in the book depicting Brooks facing north.
Just in case the reader wasn't yet clear on what Farmer's point was in all this, he erased all doubt by spelling it out in detail: "When SGT Brooks and SGT Lagasse’s accounts are taken objectively, they both seem to be describing two different plane approaches simultaneously." (paragraph 22)
Naturally Farmer didn't bother to ask Brooks and Lagasse about this 2-plane conspiracy theory because he already knew this is not what they reported in the least. But this didn't stop Farmer from forging ahead with his agenda and blatantly lying about their accounts to support it.
The lies only get worse when he starts to discuss the Arlington Cemetery witnesses.
Farmer's original article was released in May 2008, and the title of this article, "You All Just Haven't Talked About It" is actually a quote from the at the time anonymous transcript of CMH interview "NEIT 428". Apparently we were supposed to have gotten excited that Farmer allegedly found a flyover witness and apparently supports this notion himself but we did not take the bait. Just two weeks after the transcript was released by Farmer we proceeded to identify the witness as Russell Roy and interview him on-camera on-location as presented in Part 2 of The North Side Flyover. Russell turned out to not be a flyover witness or a witness to the attack jet at all as he only saw the C-130.
This wasn't supposed to happen and it wreaked havoc on Farmer's plans. What made matters worse for Farmer is that the CIT interviews with Russell Roy and all the other ANC employees were released before Gaffney's book went to print.
Farmer needed the CMH transcripts to remain anonymous and ambiguous because that was the only way he could use them in support of his theory. Because of the fact that Russell Roy had described the plane as being very low, Farmer was able to use his more ambiguous interview with the CMH to suggest that he wasn't referring to the C-130 and that he must have seen the same north side flyover as the Citgo witnesses.
But as usual he contradicted himself by suggesting that "NEIT 428" (Russell Roy) must have seen a plane that was altered out of the radar data because the same altered radar data shows an altitude and location of the C-130 not consistent with what Russell Roy describes.
Just think about the inherent contradictions in such a claim!
But as I said Russell Roy would go on to describe a military aircraft with propeller engines entering the scene shortly after the attack. Even more notable the location and northerly direction he saw it approach from was corroborated by all the other ANC witnesses yet fatally contradicts the 2007 released 84 RADES alleged radar data -- data which Farmer was forced to accept had been altered to facilitate his 2-plane theory in the first place.
This very real and substantiated contradiction was ignored by Farmer in favor of his proven false 2-plane conspiracy theory (not to mention the fact that all of the ANC witnesses who did see the attack jet approach perfectly corroborate the Citgo witnesses and Edward Paik, further supporting the north side approach of one plane.)
But the most blatant lie to bolster his disinfo conspiracy theory was yet to come. While Farmer was now completely aware that the only plane Russell Roy saw was the C-130 turning away before the Pentagon and never flying over the river to DC, he deliberately let this proven false 2nd plane north side flyover notion go to print anyway as planned. He wrote,"The witnesses at the ANC claim the plane turned back to the left towards the Washington, DC area." (paragraph 29)
This was a blatant lie and we have proof that he knew it when he sent it to print. Note how he changed it to the plural form "witnesses" to include the other ANC employees. The fact is that none of the ANC witnesses reported such a thing, yet Farmer flatly claims that they all did! Although he was fully aware of their names and had even sent us an email congratulating us on their interviews, he refused to mention them by name or inform the readers that the interviews exist. He did, however, reference a link to the CIT presentation "The North Side Flyover" buried in his end notes, proving that he was fully aware of the interviews and their names and had no excuse for pretending otherwise in the article.
To tie it all in with Gaffney's book he even went so far as to suggest that this north side flyover 2nd plane may have been the white "mystery plane". He wrote, "Mark Gaffney and 'Pinnacle' have documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area, which was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capitol Building. Further, Peter Jennings reported a plane over the White House at 09:41, 2 ˝ minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 9:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane?" (paragraph 29)
We have pointed out the importance of a 2nd plane cover story in the operation for quite some time. We have said all along that reports of the E4B and the C-130 were used ambiguously as cover for the flyover. The fact that Farmer would follow the script so blatantly even in light of the fact that we had already revealed he was play-acting is really just a testament as to how correct we really are.
When confronted about this Farmer has remained extremely evasive. He has gone so far as to deny that he has ever put out any 2-plane thesis at all! Farmer posted in an internet forum,
"I have no '2 plane theory'. [...] There are NOT 2 planes, nor is the thesis that there is."
He did not announce the release of Gaffney's book, and he publicly unleashed an obscene emotional tirade cutting off all connection to the "truth movement" (which of course would include Mark Gaffney) and deleted his website hosting all his articles. He now claims that he simply changed his mind and that it was merely an inconclusive thesis to begin with. He has referenced alleged artifacts from the explosion shown in the alleged radar data that he now claims could account for the Citgo video north side "flash" (again conveniently ignoring the fact that he had to assume the radar data had been manipulated to assert his 2-plane theory to being with). So he has been forced to completely change his position while stepping up his attacks against us on internet forums literally on a daily basis from behind a screen-name and a goofy avatar. While he had no problem asserting a north side flyover in the context of a 2-plane theory when there were only 4 confirmed north side approach accounts and the ANC transcripts were anonymous, ambiguous, and unconfirmed; he now furiously argues that all 13 of the currently available first-hand north side accounts (including the ANC witnesses) are wildly and drastically mistaken in the same way and that the official narrative of a single south side impact of "AAL 77" is completely correct.
The point here is that while he can suggest his 2-plane conspiracy thesis (that was meant to be a summary of all his work up to that point) was "inconclusive" it most certainly was very conclusive that it had already been proven false before he sent it to print in the book. He refused to update or re-write the article because he wanted this proven incorrect thesis to go to print anyway. That is what disinfo is all about. It is false information that is set up to be debunked but will always linger and be out there to help confuse the issue. No doubt the debunking courtesy of CIT happened much too early for Farmer's liking but he knows it doesn't really matter in the end. Even though his credibility is shot and he personally has been exposed as a liar, the bogus info is now forever out there in the public domain as planned and no public retractions or corrections have been issued by Farmer or Gaffney for that matter.