General Clyde Vaughn, Another witness to Navy Annex flyover

Mark Gaffney interviewed Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/0...-the-dark-side/

Mark Gaffney is a proven liar. This was evident from my personal dealings with him and is documented in my critical review of his absurd book on the E4B that you can read here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/MarkGaffney.htm

Notice how the article you reference only serves to reinforce the official impact narrative and how Gaffney fails to note the relevance of the plane being over the Navy Annex. Of course he also fails to provide any audio of this alleged interview with Vaughn.

But probably most importantly is that the article also fails to mention what we have always pointed out is important about Vaughn's previous statements. This is the fact that he had the plane flying over "Georgetown" which is across the river and NOWHERE near the official flight path.

Comparison of true Georgetown/DC approach to required official path:



If Vaughn's statements quoted above from two days after the event about the flight path are remotely accurate then it proves that all of the official data is fraudulent.

The fact that Gaffney doesn't bother to mention any of this is not an oversight. As explained in my review of his book Gaffney is well aware of our 2008 presentation The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off where we reference Vaughn in this context and lay out a whole host of other evidence in support of the DC approach.

This is exactly what his disinformation book on the E4B was designed to obscure.

Craig, i know you have problems with Gaffney, but i don īt care wether Gaffney is a liar or just biased. I just want to help you, and the easiest way would be to call Vaughn and ask him about the flight path. Many mainstream articles and detractor sources contain both NoC and impact, so Gaffney selling the official story does not devaluate Vaughnīs flight path.

Regardless Gaffney should not be sourced without the truth about him being cited.

We don't need more verification of the north side approach or even the DC approach for that matter. They have already been verified to the point of redundancy and as noted Vaughn's previous statements already support this.