Support 911Blogger


Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

*Revised and corrected 1/24/10

From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.

On September 11, 2001 Dawn Vignola shared a 16th floor apartment with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman, in Arlington, VA, which overlooked the Pentagon and the surrounding area. They were both at home, and Dawn was on the phone with her husband, Dan Ferrigno, because of what was happening in New York. She saw the plane approaching out the West window, over the top of a line of trees, and then it turned East. She could see the AA, and in the bright sun the plane appeared to be white. (See here for photos of the Boeing 757 N64AA, the plane that was American 77 on 9/11; notice how it appears white in the photos where there is direct sun on it). It was flying above the line of trees and buildings, and seemed to be over 395 or Columbia Pike.

As the plane disappeared from view past the window's North edge, she went over to the window on the North side and watched for the plane, which she had noticed was flying unusually low; she and Tim were accustomed to seeing airplanes flying over the area, including over the Pentagon, as Reagan National Airport is close by. She saw the plane cross in front of the Sheraton Hotel on Columbia Pike, then it disappeared from view behind some nearby buildings. She watched for it to appear in view on the other side of a neighboring apartment building; it did, and she and Tim saw it impact the Pentagon, about 3/4 of a mile away. They did not see the plane fly over- in fact, it hit so low at the base, it looked like it hit the heliport first.

At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan's office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.

This is a short video of the view from Dawn’s apartment, with my narration based on the above points: The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT

This photo gives an approximate idea of how large the Pentagon appears from Dawn and Dan’s apartment, but still does not accurately convey how clear everything appears in person (also note that the shorter buildings in the middle were not there on 9/11; the view of the heliport was not obstructed):

This Google Earth image shows Dawn Vignola's apartment and the line of sight to the Pentagon, as it was on 9/11/01. As can be seen from this photo, the area between her apartment and the Pentagon was largely vacant, with some construction going on:

Photobucket

Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone. Later, Tim was interviewed by CNN. Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me. Dawn is no longer in contact with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. There are a number of hits for ‘Hugh Timmerman’ online, but I did not attempt to track him down for comment; CIT has said they could not locate him.

Since 9/11, various people have claimed that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. As there are numerous witness accounts of an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon, some crash skeptics have questioned those accounts. For instance, in the case of Dawn’s account, blogger Steven Welch alleged that Tim was ‘coaching’ Dawn in her account, and claimed neither testimony could be considered credible. And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct. (For 2 sides to this story, see the ‘Plan271’ thread at CIT’s forum)

CIT insists they’re objective and have not done anything improper in their investigation and reporting. For instance, in a 12/12/09 podcast interview by Paul Tassopulos, Craig Ranke said, "Citizen Investigation Team, myself and Aldo Marquis, have been to Arlington, Virginia several times to interview dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” (2:05) However, it is clearly not the case that they went to Arlington with “no pre-conceived notions about what happened”; as early as 1/11/06, before Craig and Aldo joined the Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis had posted an article online titled “Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)". Lloyd England says the plane knocked a light pole through his cab’s windshield, and numerous photos place him, his damaged cab and a broken light pole at the scene. Aldo attempted to show that England could not be telling the truth about what happened, and that the scene was staged. If the plane knocked the light pole through the windshield of England’s cab, the plane was on the ‘South of Citgo’ path, (not on the ‘North of Citgo’ path, as CIT claims certain other witness accounts prove), and this disproves CIT’s ‘flyover’ theory. And according to Pentagon crash witness Mike Walter, when he met Craig and Aldo at his barbeque on the first trip to Arlington, "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios.”

Dawn and Dan invited Craig and Aldo into their apartment, talked with them at length and gave them permission to record the view from their apartment, but declined to be interviewed on camera, as Dawn was close to 9 mo. pregnant at the time, and felt it would be invasive of her personal privacy. CIT recorded conversation at the apartment anyway, (and their phone conversations), without Dawn and Dan’s knowledge or consent. In a comment thread at 911Blogger, Craig Ranke acknowledged this at least in part, saying, “Obviously while we video taped her POV with her consent after being invited to her home our discussion with her at the time was recorded by the video camera. And we most certainly did record our initial conversations on the phone with her as we do with EVERY phone call we make in our investigation.”

“One-party consent” is all that’s required in Federal jurisdictions and 38 states, but there are differing opinions on whether it’s ethical for journalists to record subjects without their knowledge or consent; “Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.” Craig Ranke defended CIT doing it, stating that in Virginia “one party consent” to a conversation being recorded is all that’s required by law (true), and that they do this “so nobody can falsely accuse us of behaving inappropriately or saying or doing something underhanded or deceptive.”

CIT also recorded a conversation with Lloyd England without his knowledge or consent, and released it (in part), claiming it was a “virtual confession” and that it supported their previously-issued charge that he is an “accomplice” to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent cover up. (See this discussion thread at 911Blogger for alternative views on whether Lloyd England’s statements are a “virtual confession”). It seems another reason CIT might record interviewees without their consent or knowledge is the potential for capturing bits of unguarded conversation which they can represent as damaging to the credibility of witnesses whose testimony contradicts their ‘flyover theory’; certainly they’ve demonstrated they will release recordings if they think it does. As CIT haven’t released their recordings of Dawn and Dan, it may be there’s simply nothing on them they feel would work to their advantage if released. CIT expert Adam Larson (no relation) has documented a consistent pattern of CIT attempts to dismiss or discredit witness accounts that support the ‘South of Citgo’ path or plane hitting the Pentagon; 33 cases, including Dawn Vignola, Tim Timmerman and Lloyd England: CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES.

On 11/29/07, CIT published an entry on their forum titled Details of our Nov 2007 research trip to Arlington, more data proving a deception, and included this statement regarding their interview of Dawn: "Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate [sic] Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio as an eyewitness declined to be interviewed on camera but let us into her Pentagon City high rise apartment to get shots of her POV and the one of the best possible views of the the event from high up. Dawn swears that the plane was white and although with her panoramic view she got a great look at it approaching from a ways away, once it got near the Pentagon it was obscured by the building in front of her until a split second before the explosion. She says it hit the heliport. We know this isn't true because there was no damage to the heliport so likely the explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did."

Following this, on 1/15/08, on CIT’s forum, Aldo Marquis posted an entry titled, Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses, and under a sub-heading for witnesses categorized as, “Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact”, he listed Dawn Vignola as “(TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)"

1/21/08, ‘plan271’ confronted Craig and Aldo on the CIT forum regarding inaccurate/misleading statements about ‘coaching’, the view Dawn and Tim had of the plane, the Pentagon and the crash, and what they had said about it. Craig and Aldo defended making an issue out of Tim interjecting comments during Dawn’s TV interview, although in dialogue with plan271 they referred to it as Tim ‘helping’ Dawn. They also denied accusing Dawn and Tim of lying, but continued to insist they could not have seen what they said they saw:

Craig Ranke, 1/21/08: "As soon as we saw the view from their apartment I knew instantly that there is no way she would have been able to physically see an impact and could only have deduced it based off the explosion."

Aldo Marquis, 1/21/08: "We believe Timmerman and Vignola merely deduced the impact."

12/5/08 (perhaps earlier) CIT posted this .gif of video from Dawn and Dan’s apartment:

Timmerman and Vignola's panoramic view on 9/11” (Compare this to the photo and video above)

Notice this was filmed wide angle, from the middle of the apartment (not from Dawn’s vantage point); this gives uncritical viewer’s the impression that Dawn and Tim could barely see the Pentagon, which is not true.

Dawn and Dan are aware of the allegations and misrepresentations regarding Dawn and Tim’s accounts. Dawn told me that after seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon, she felt it was important to alert the media, but hadn’t expected to be put on the air live, and had not wanted to attract attention. But now they’re part of the controversy over ‘what’ hit the Pentagon.* Dawn and Dan OK’d my coming to their apartment to record the view and spoke with me for over an hour, but due to their experience with CIT, they did not want the conversation recorded, and I didn’t. As Dawn explained in a January 2, 2010 email to Michael Wolsey, which she authorized for public release, "I am now hesitant to have a telephone conversation recorded or even to be interviewed since my experience has been that I cannot trust how it will loaded onto the Internet or whether others will be able to access it and then edit it, unjustly, for their own pursuits. The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said." In the near future, Dawn and Dan will be launching a website that will host photos, video, Dawn’s personal account written down shortly after witnessing the Pentagon crash, and other related material, in an effort to set the record straight.

For more information on Citizen Investigation Team, see the articles written by Arabesque and Adam Larson.

This article by Arabesque is a helpful overview, with information on many specific incidents and examples: CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

*NOTE: This article was written to shed light on Dawn Vignola’s and Tim Timmerman’s witness accounts, and the manner in which CIT has conducted its investigation and reporting. I support independent research and investigation of 9/11, and there are many reasons to question the official version of events. I take issue with selective interpretation of evidence, absolute claims regarding events for which contradictory or incomplete evidence exists, and the promotion of speculation as fact.

Certainly, the US government should release all photos, video and documentation related to ‘what’ hit the Pentagon. By withholding evidence, the US government is diminishing its credibility, as well as fueling the controversy about ‘what’ hit, and this in turn has distracted from larger questions, including the questions about why the Pentagon was hit at all; about the reason there was no air defense over D.C. more than half an hour after the second WTC impact, close to an hour and a half after the first signs of hijacking, after a ‘summer of threat’ that included warnings from different nations about an impending attack on the US using planes, when the CIA, FBI, NSA and SOCOM had developed their own intelligence on the impending plot, when the FAA, NMCC, NORAD and NEADS have procedures that enable quick interception of aircraft and had known for decades of attempts to use aircraft as missiles, and when the NSC and White House were aware of “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” (Aug 6 PDB)

The 9/11 Commission omitted and distorted facts that are part of the public record, including in its own and other government reports. The Complete 9/11 Timeline at HistoryCommons.org gives a comprehensive overview of what’s known about 9/11 and related entities and events, based on ‘mainstream’ sources. In addition, 9/11 Research, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, document many unanswered questions and disturbing facts related to the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and about NIST’s investigation of same. The big picture and thousands of details make the case that there needs to be a full, independent investigation of 9/11, before that day- or any other terrorist attack- are used again to justify increased funding for the military-industrial complex, foreign interventions, and draconian domestic security measures.

Originally posted here: http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/dawn-vignola-account-vs-cit-methods-by-erik-larson/

Sad...

Infuriating, upsetting, and any other adjective you can think of. Thanks Erik.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Great work, Erik!

It's a real shame that we have to combat not only the distortions and lies of the "official" 9/11 myth but also the ones from those ostensibly on our side. Thanks for putting the time and effort into shining some light on CIT's "investigation".

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

thx for the support, guys

What's the problem here?

Neither Dawn Vignola nor Erik Larsen has been able to cite where CIT misrepresented her account. CIT has never uploaded any audio of their discussions with Dawn at all. They have never even quoted her from their discussions. Now you have to agree, it is pretty hard to twist the words of someone that you have not even quoted.

The entirety of their report from their experience with Dawn Vignola is in an article detailing their 2007 research trip here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=26

You can clearly see that they did not say anything different about her account than what Erik just reported. She has no basis to attack them at all.

She states:

"The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said.".

Yet she refused to give them an interview. This means she obviously she did not trust them nor did they "distort" any of her words. This is why neither she nor Larson can cite a single example. Their experience with Dawn was a full year after they obtained the interviews with Lagasse and Brooks and The PentaCon had already been public for about 10 months.

In fact I was talking with Craig, and he told me that Dawn and her husband had told them over the phone that they watched The PentaCon before letting CIT into their home. So they knew full well what CIT had uncovered and had already decided that she was not going to go on camera.

But it can not be disputed, as now confirmed by Larsen, that they clearly would NOT have been able to see that critical final moment in the flight path where the plane flew north of the Citgo. So whether Vignola and Timmerman were distracted by the fireball and missed the flyover, or whether there is something else going on here, we will never know. We DO, however, know that they 100% can not refute the north side approach due to their POV. There is NOTHING cited in this long article demonstrating deception or misrepresentation on the part of CIT.

They will eventually publish a formal response to this but in the mean time if Erik wants to refute the north side approach evidence I suggest he focuses on witnesses who could actually see the Citgo.

Over and out

revised and corrected 1/24/10

After sending the link to Dawn and Dan, Dan corrected me on a couple things, which I've corrected in the article, in addition to adding the google map:

1) There was "vacant land and buildings under construction" in the area between them and the Pentagon, not "vacant land and trees"

2) He couldn't see the Pentagon from across the Potomac, only the airspace over it.

Adam: "Neither Dawn Vignola nor Erik Larsen has been able to cite where CIT misrepresented her account. ... There is NOTHING cited in this long article demonstrating deception or misrepresentation on the part of CIT."

Amazing that Adam can say the above, and continues to insist it's all about the N path and CIT's cherry-picked witnesses and cherry-picked statements. Dawn and Tim didn't need to see the North path to see the plane hit the Pentagon. And from their vantage point, they would have seen a flyover; if there had been one. The large pic I posted doesn't do the view justice- and CIT's gif is clearly a 'misrepresentation', which can be seen by my video and pic.

And this statement is also clearly a 'misrepresentation':

Craig Ranke, 1/21/08: "As soon as we saw the view from their apartment I knew instantly that there is no way she would have been able to physically see an impact and could only have deduced it based off the explosion."

And the claims that she was 'coached' by Tim Timmerman are absurd- as is CIT making a huge deal out of her saying she saw a 'white' plane, and completely ignoring when Brooks said he saw a white UNITED plane, as Jim pointed out below.

It's OK, Adam- we all make mistakes. The important thing is to acknowledge them, clean up any messes, and move on.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Erik:" by Adam Syed

The chameleon passenger jet

"This means that Dawn's definitive account of the plane being white is VERY STRONG evidence that it could not have been AA77." -- Inspector Ranke

"The white claim is not "irrelevant".-- Inspector Ranke
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=deb17a52e89c5b45d0544a7e4f078...

See? Inspector Ranke points out that it was a White plane that she saw, and certainly not AA passenger jet and certainly not flight 77. However Inspector Ranke has discovered something important that everyone seems to overlook. This was no ordinary plane. This plane has advanced super secret technology incorporated into it. It's the worlds first chameleon passenger jet. This is an amazing discovery.

Brooks and Lagasse described this same plane as well.......

38:20 mark
"What color did the plane look to you" -- Inspector Ranke
"A champaghn color like the color of that booth" - Sgt Brooks(the booth was white)
"So kind of like an off white"--Inspector Ranke
"off white, right" --Sgt Brooks
"Did you notice any colors or markings on it"-- Inspector Ranke
"Uh...(pause) I don't recall, I think it was United" -- Sgt Brooks
"what do you mean, what did you see?"-- Inspector Ranke
"Just the regular logo, it was in blue letters, United" -- Sgt Brooks
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802&ei=ebVbS4_8I...

Lagasse describes the same plane......

40:45 mark
"I made the identification immediatly as American Airlines, bright Silver" --Sgt Lagasse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4196580169348087802&ei=ebVbS4_8I...

As Inspector Ranke points out, no one could ever possibly describe an AA passenger Jet as white........

"This means that Dawn's definitive account of the plane being white is VERY STRONG evidence that it could not have been AA77." -- Inspector Ranke

"The white claim is not "irrelevant".-- Inspector Ranke

But as we see, Brooks described this same plane as white, but with the United Logo, and Lagasse described this same plane as a silver American Airlines Jet. This technology that was new on 9/11, is common now as Inspector Ranke found out several years later where in his own video he describes a passenger Jet as "white".......

20:40 mark while observing a passenger Jet in the sky in his own pathetic movie......

..... "Here's a plane making a typical approach, right here.....blue bottom WHITE plane headed right towards landing at Reagon National."---Inspector Ranke
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8176286327617173136&ei=xq5bS9jt...

So This plane has advanced super secret technology incorporated into it. It's the worlds first chameleon passenger jet. Or.....maybe....just maybe.....Ranke is a fraud, and this whole CIT BS is making fools out of those dumb enough to fall for it, because eyewitnesses are not perfect which is why physical evidence is so important, and therefor to be ignored by frauds like CIT. Because it confirms what these witnesses all agree on. The plane flew into the building, not over it.

Perhaps CIT and their supporters can argue that the apartment is paid for by the CIA, and Vignola, England, Walter, Wheelhouse, and Mcgraw all had the same CIA handler?

How Embarrassing.

the chameleon plane

it's funny, but apparently it's true; the shiny aluminum reflects sunlight and looks white, and it also reflects the colors of stuff nearby- which is why people reported it as different colors. From underneath, it looked dark.

It's not funny at all how CIT has created such a huge distraction over something for which there's no substantive evidence- witnesses that contradict themselves and other witnesses.

And there's so much other evidence the OCT is a fraud.

__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Why were my comments deleted in this thread?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

The comment was unpublished

and is under review by the moderators.

The comment was clearly off topic and blatantly inflammatory.

I think the site would be better served if you asked those questions via email, don't you?

You also linked to this comment on another thread, which is also a violation of the rules.

We are trying to maintain civility on the site, inflammatory statements or questions by anyone are not welcome at 911blogger.

Thank you.

Considering...

That his comment ended in "over and out," I don't think it was off topic at all, nor do I think it was inflammatory, but instead, justified considering the circumstances. Using sock puppetry should be an automatic ban, and be added to the rules, so these situations don't continue to happen.

Edit: Tell me LeftWright, when this pos accused Lorie Van Auken of being a fake family member, is that one of the times gretavo made you laugh?

What you are doing is DISGRACEFUL.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Sock puppetry IS banned on this site, Jon

I think you know that, yes?

And his use of the phrase "over and out" is pretty thin evidence, imo.

My main point here is that if you suspect someone has more than one user account on 911blogger, contact the moderators and don't post something in the comments about it.

As he has now made me a party to the conflict, I will recuse myself from the moderators decision on this matter.

Please address any questions or concerns you have about this to the moderators via email..

Please do not discuss this in the comments section, we may post a separate blog for an open discussion of the relevant issues.

Thank you.

Your article has been throughly debunked and

addressed here: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1011&st=0&#last

Please go there and address the numerous distortions, lies, and misrepresentations with your hit piece write up, Erik.

And for readers, it doesn't matter what side of CIT you are on, you need to see both sides of the issue regarding Dawn Vignola and Erik's hit piece, not fact piece.

I think what you'll find is that what Erik writes and what is the truth regarding CIT's interaction with these people are incompatible.

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.

Ranke: bogus assertions, misrepresentations, false statements

Craig Ranke included my photo in his article; irrelevant, stupid and juvenile behavior. They've also included my photo in their 'enemies list' "Face to the Name" thread, formerly known as "Know Your Enemy" http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=508&view=findpost&p=2...

Did CIT 'interview' Dawn Vignola?
Ranke: "[Dawn Vignola] declined to be interviewed by us"

Interview, definition: 2. "a meeting or conversation in which a writer or reporter asks questions of one or more persons from whom material is sought for a newspaper story, television broadcast, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interview It doesn't say it's not an 'on the record' interview if it's not recorded, does it? Interviews frequently aren't recorded, though reporters generally take notes- I didn't, so I didn't 'quote', but I sent the link to my published article to Dawn and Dan, and other than pointing out a couple minor inaccuracies, which I corrected and noted, they had no issue with it.
As I noted in my article, Dawn was close to 9 mo. pregnant and didn't want to be video taped when CIT INTERVIEWED them. And Craig even corrected Aldo about this claim of 'no interview' on their own forum: "She did answer our questions in person so you did qualify it as "interviewed by CIT" in the witness list." However, his statement, "To be completely anal and perfectly accurate you should change your witness list to say "met in person to document POV and spoke off the record with..."." is 'incorrect', as Dawn and Dan weren't 'off the record', i.e. providing info but declining to be identified and quoted as a source- they only declined to be videotaped. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89&view=findpost&p=13...

Coaching charges:
Ranke: "Larson went on to take issue with the word "coached" as reported by another blogger. Why he would be citing a random blogger in an article regarding our alleged "methods" I do not know"
Did Craig actually read the article? In it I explain the context for referencing Welch, who was the first one to make the coaching assertion. Furthermore, in my article, I quoted Craig making the same coaching assertion!!!: ""Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate [sic] Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio" I already explained in my article that Tim was offering his own input as he was hearing the questions asked on live TV; Dawn incorporated it into her account. Craig insinuates this means there's something untoward going on, in an attempt to cast doubt on her credibility.

Craig made the coaching assertion 11/27/07 as part of his write up of what they learned from their INTERVIEW of Dawn Vignola, in which he misrepresented their POV, and claimed her impression that it had hit the heliport "likely" meant the "explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did"- even though they they had a clear view of the Pentagon and the airspace over it, as can be seen in the photo I posted. Following that, Aldo misrepresented Dawn's statements 1/15/08, by saying she "seemed unsure of final position"; wrong; she saw the plane hit. Craig and Aldo were at the apartment, and at least one of them took photos and video. Presumably, they both looked out the window. It's possible they're delusional, that they just saw what they wanted to see- but I was there, and there's a clear view of the Pentagon, and about 2 plane lengths of visible space between it and the neighboring building which had obscured some of the approach. If they were looking in that direction, as they said they were, they could've easily seen a huge commercial airliner fly into the Pentagon, and they would've seen it fly over- if it had done so. It wasn't obscured by the explosion; they saw it hit, then the explosion- same as what Sean Boger and many other witnesses reported; it hit, then it exploded.

Photos:
Ranke: "The problem is that Larson is very careful never to mention throughout his entire article that in 2007 we also provided virtually the exact same image, only not zoomed-in as you can see here:", and he further says that by excluding mention of it I "deliberately lied."

I didn't mention the photo that Craig only had posted the photo to show that a building obscured the view of the approach, after being confronted by plan271 re: the misrepresentations i previously quoted; irrelevant. This photo, which Craig only posted to defend his claim Dawn couldn't see the approach of the plane until just before impact, also misrepresents the view as it appears to the naked eye. As anyone knows who's ever looked thru the viewfinder of a camera, the normal field of view makes objects appear much smaller than they appear to the naked eye; this is done so that more of the scene can be captured. In order to approximate the size objects appear to the naked eye, one has to zoom in. Unless Craig and Aldo are delusional, they know the view from Dawn's apt is better represented in the photo I posted, and that it still doesn't accurately convey how large, clear and 3-dimensional everything appears in person, compared to being viewed on a computer screen.

gif:
Ranke: "We were simply showing the full span of her view from both windows as it appears in their apartment. And besides, nobody knows for sure exactly where she was in the room when she allegedly saw the plane since she refuses to go on record with these details."

Wrong, and deceptive; Dawn was on the record with CIT and me, she knew where she was, and Craig and Aldo have failed to discredit her as a witness. And "showing the full span of her view"?!? Hardly anything can be seen in the gif- it conveys nothing of importance regarding the view, but to uncritical viewers it might give the impression there isn't a good view from the apt. It's worthless- except to give that impression. And considering CIT's history of deceptive claims, cherrypicking the statements of their own witnesses, grasping at the slightest inconsistencies in S path or impact witness statements as justification for tossing them but forgiving or explaining away any inconsistencies in witness accounts they rely on, implying w/o evidence that S path/impact witnesses (and CIT critics) are liars and/or agents, insisting w/o evidence that all the physical evidence of a 757 crash is faked, insisting w/o evidence that all evidence in possession of the govt must have been faked, and characterizing all critique of these deceptive and dishonest CIT methods as "attacks" - it seems probable the purpose of posting the gif was to mislead viewers. Certainly, the gif is misleading.

Supporting the OCT:
Ranke: "Demonstratively dishonest bloggers such as Erik Larson who try to pass themselves off as 9/11 truth activists are easily spotted by their propensity to push elements of the official narrative while focusing their energy on attacking others who fight to expose the deception. They tend to go to great lengths in their attempts to discredit us and the solid evidence we have uncovered without regard for their own credibility or reputation."

Hahaha. It may not be their intention, but by marketing their collection of cherry-picked, selectively interpreted, inconclusive and contradictory witness accounts as 'conclusive proof' of north path and flyover, CIT and their fans are discrediting themselves and distracting and disrupting the truth movement. People who do such things are in effect supporting the OCT by contributing to the perception that 'truthers' are irresponsible whackos, and it gives the Establishment media and pols an excuse for making that claim, and for avoiding the issue. In the "NOTE" at the end of my article I say the govt should release video and documents proving the plane that hit the Pentagon was AA 77, I document numerous reasons to doubt the OCT, and I advocate for investigation and accountability. I've been publicizing credible evidence and raising reasonable questions since 2005.

The banning of CIT:
Ranke: " ... 911blogger.com, where I am banned for no reason other than to prevent me from responding to these kinds of attacks) has now established himself as being at the forefront of this dishonest counter-movement as he has shown he is willing to do and say anything to cast doubt on the important work we have done, even if it means blatantly lying."

Anyone not familiar with Craig and Aldo's history here can read through the threads before they were banned; they were banned for attacking other users and generally being disruptive. Their material and arguments continue to be promoted here by other people.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I doubt the bandwagon will go to the site directly, so I'll

bring the rebuttal to you......If you want to see the user images, go to the site below:.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1011&st=0&#last

Lets remove the "flyover" controversy and simply compare the two accounts and I think astute thinkers will find an issue with what Larson is doing.

CIT rebuttal to Larson's Methods....
---------------------------------
Dawn Vignola’s Account vs Erik Larson’s Methods

By: Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team
February 1st, 2010

Dawn Vignola was the second person reported as a witness to the Pentagon attack on WUSA channel 9 during a phone interview in the first minutes after the attack. The broadcast can be heard here. We spoke with Dawn in 2007 and were allowed into her home to document her point of view on 9/11 from her 16th floor apartment. She declined to grant us an interview.

Erik Larson is an internet blogger and an alleged 9/11 truth activist who goes by "loose nuke" as a moderator on 911blogger.com and "Rancho Truth" at another forum. He used to be from Rancho Cucamonga, CA but has recently move to Washington, DC. Here is a close-up shot of his face that he often uses as an avatar and as far as I know is the only image of him that has been published.

user posted image

Larson has always been a critic of CIT but apparently now that he lives in DC he took it upon himself to do some checking up on us by going to visit Dawn Vignola himself. The notion that he would choose to focus on a witness who declined to be interviewed by us and was therefore not included in any of our presentations is rather odd. However we have always encouraged people who doubt us to go talk to the witnesses themselves and as far as I know this is the first attempt that has been made by anyone to do so. Mind you, this blogger and self-professed 9/11 truth activist has never published any original research on the Pentagon attack or interviews with any witnesses at all (and still hasn't). His entire goal in meeting with Dawn Vignola was to uncover something that would cast doubt on our credibility as is evident by the title, tone, and content of his "report" that can be viewed here: 911reports.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/dawn-vignola-account-vs-cit-methods-by-erik-larson/.

We would have been fine with this if he had reported honestly but this article will demonstrate that he hasn't.

Larson failed to find a single example of deception on our part and was unable to coherently make a case for this while blogging about his experience with Dawn. But this did not stop him from implying and stating that we had engaged in questionable behavior anyway at the very beginning of his article and throughout. He started it like this, "From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony."

The first sentence cites the official story as fact with zero skepticism or objectivity applied whatsoever (it would be impossible for any witness to definitively tell that the plane was "Flight 77" or specifically tail# N644AA) and the third sentence is a direct attack on us that he doesn't even bother to try to support with an example. We never attempted to "discredit" Dawn Vignola. We merely reported her point of view and revealed the physical fact that it would be impossible for her to tell on what side of the gas station the plane flew since that entire critical final point in the flight path is obscured by an apartment high rise building right in front of her.

For those new to this information the location of the plane in relation to the gas station is the primary focus because we have uncovered 14 independently corroborated witness accounts proving it was on the north side, which in turn proves it did not hit the light poles or the building. For full context and the witness interviews please see our video presentation National Security Alert for free at CitizenInvestgiationTeam.com.

Vignola did not provide Erik Larson with an interview either so his blog contains no first-hand testimony requiring the reader to simply take his word for what he reports about what she said. Again, Larson was unable to make a case for deception on our part throughout the entire article but instantly suggested that we had behaved inappropriately by falsely claiming we "attempted to discredit" her testimony without bothering to back this up with an example.

Next he set up another false claim regarding our "methods" by presenting a video (youtube.com/watch?v=qcUCrZETIb0) he took of the view from their window. He deceptively titled it "The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT" without bothering to explain how it contradicts us. This is because Larson knows full well that it does not contradict us because we published virtually the exact same clear image of her view that he did as explained below.

Before linking his video with the blatantly fraudulent title he prefaced it with this statement, "In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person."

After linking the video he posted this admittedly zoomed-in image from Dawn's apartment:
user posted image

The problem is that Larson is very careful never to mention throughout his entire article that in 2007 we also provided virtually the exact same image, only not zoomed-in as you can see here:
user posted image
Source: 2007 CIT research trip report

This is absolute proof that we were not deceptive about her point of view in our 2007 report (which was basically the extent of our formal public reference to Vignola's account at all). Since later in the article Larson references this same report it proves that he was well aware that we had published that image and therefore that he deliberately lied by refusing to acknowledge this fact and fraudulently titling his video "The View from Vignola’s Contradicts CIT".

Larson states that he zoomed in because the view is more clear in person and that he tried to compensate with a zoom. But on what basis is he able to determine what is the proper amount to zoom to compensate? Is it appropriate to zoom for that purpose at all? The fact is that Larson did not report anything different than we did regarding Vignola's view (and account in general) yet he is implying throughout his blog that we were deceptive or that there is something questionable about how we reported her account. The irony is that this most certainly is deliberate deception on Larson's part in a desperate attempt to cast doubt and malign us personally while staunchly defending the official story/narrative. What kind of an alleged 9/11 truth activist would work so hard to defend the official story while using blatant lies to attack researchers who have uncovered critical evidence exposing the 9/11 deception?

Larson continued and made some important admissions. He said, "Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone".

Larson admits that Dawn's roommate Tim Timmerman was telling her what to say while she gave the interview to WUSA as can be easily heard in the broadcast.

Larson went on, "Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me."

So he also admits that we reported the same thing about her account that he did! In other words, Larson simply confirmed what we had already reported to be accurate.

But the accusations were just getting started. After admitting that Vignola's roommate Timmerman was "offering input" that she repeated during the interview, Larson went on to take issue with the word "coached" as reported by another blogger. Why he would be citing a random blogger in an article regarding our alleged "methods" I do not know and making this point at all seems odd since he just admitted that Timmerman was telling her what to say, which means she was quite clearly "coached". This shows that Larson will go to great lengths to make pointless semantic-based arguments as a means to make excuses for peculiar behavior by the witnesses while deceptively and fraudulently attacking CIT in the process.

After that Larson made the following accusation allegedly based on the claims of Vignola herself, "And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct."

Since Larson presents no video, audio, or even quotes from Vignola and her husband making this accusation we are forced to take his word that they said this. However it is a false accusation so either Erik Larson is lying or misrepresenting what she said or else Vignola and her husband Dan Ferrigno (who was not there on 9/11 but was there when we documented his wife's POV) are lying about our experience with them.

I'll now explain for the record why this characterization of our "methods" during our meeting with Dawn Vignola and her husband Ferrigno is entirely false. We initially got a hold of Dawn over the phone weeks prior to visiting her, and that's when she first gave us the details of her account. We had about 3 separate conversations over the phone and she had agreed to let us come to her apartment to document her view, and she also implied she would give us an interview. On the third call she told us that her husband had looked us up online, visited our website, and had viewed our documentary The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version. She expressed unease and told us that we had a "bent" on what happened. Naturally we told her that it wasn't a "bent" and that we had merely reported what witnesses had told us and how it undeniably contradicts the notion that the plane hit. So at this point Dawn and her husband were completely aware of the evidence we had uncovered about a year prior. She agreed to let us come over and document her view anyway. We showed up at her doorstep and they let us in. We still hoped to get an interview but she declined. So we proceeded to take pictures and video of the panoramic view from their windows. Since she declined a formal interview we simply chatted and asked her a few basic questions that she answered with as little detail as possible. Her husband had our website up on his computer and certainly the discussion turned to the information that we had already uncovered and presented proving the plane was on the north side and did not hit. Not surprisingly they had already refused to accept the implications and suggested that she saw it hit. It was clear to me by looking at the view that it was quite possible that after the plane disappeared in front of the high rise in front of them, that the fireball would appear immediately after the plane reappeared from the other side. It seemed feasible to me that her attention could have been diverted by the fireball as the plane flew away. This meant that, in light of the north side evidence we had already uncovered, there was still no valid reason for me to assume she was lying about her account and that it was possible she could have been innocently mistaken. Although it was clear that Dawn and her husband were simply not going to accept the implications of the testimony from the witnesses at the Citgo station our entire exchange was very friendly and completely civil. We agreed to disagree and went on our way. So the notion that we "were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account" or that we "sought information that would support [our] theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of the exchange.

To say that we "dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory" is also false since the north side approach evidence is not a "theory", it's evidence. As objective investigators/researchers it is our responsibility to weigh the strength of certain evidence and rule out mutually exclusive claims based on this. It would not be reasonable or logical to dismiss the rock solid accounts from multiple credible witnesses at the gas station only dozens of feet away from the plane who definitively place it on the north side based on proven false statements from Dawn Vignola (that were clearly coached by Tim Timmerman) who was almost a mile away, could not see the gas station at all, and claimed the plane hit the ground in front of the building at the heliport which we know is false.

It also isn't fair when Larson says that we "attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and [our] theory was correct". Again, the evidence we have uncovered is not a "theory". However, while it is true that we discussed this evidence with them because they were already aware of it, after speaking with dozens of witnesses this is not typically the case. This was a unique experience unlike any we have had with any other witness since it had already been almost a year since The PentaCon had been released and they had actually viewed it before letting us into their home. This means they were clearly anticipating a discussion on that level. The notion that this particular circumstance is indicative of our "methods" is entirely contradicted by the fact that none of the other witnesses we have interviewed were aware of what we had uncovered before we interviewed them and we have never "tried to convince" them of anything during interviews as anyone can plainly see when viewing them.

Once again, it is not our "theory" that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station, it is what the witnesses we spoke with told us. We were very interested in Dawn's account and would have been happy to record it and report it independently but she declined. What's clear is that all objective researchers are forced to "dismiss elements of Dawn's testimony" because it is a proven fact that her claim the plane hit the ground at the heliport is false. Since it was immediately clear to us upon seeing the view from her apartment that she could not tell where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo, we simply made the obvious determination that it is therefore impossible for her to refute the evidence we present proving that the plane flew on the north side.

Larson then decided to transition into a fraudulent tirade about us personally that had nothing to do with our exchange with Dawn Vignola. He scoured the internet for statements of ours throughout the years that he could deem contradictory and had no regard for time-line or context. He failed to find anything significant and decided to reference a statement I recently made (December 21, 2009) in a 2.5 hour long debate with Australian activist John Bursill where I said that we initially launched this investigation with "no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind." He then referenced a thread created by my partner Aldo Marquis almost four years prior, way back in January of 2006, while he was still posting anonymously before CIT had ever existed or talked to a single witness. Aldo titled the thread, "Meet Agent Lloyd A England (Pentagon Plant)" and laid out all of the suspicious and questionable details regarding the cab driver's account known at that time. Most people are aware that we would eventually go on to interview the cab driver on two separate occasions as is laid out in detail on our November 2008 presentation Lloyde England and His Taxi Cab - The Eye of the Storm. Granted the title of Aldo's anonymously posted thread from over four years ago may have been presumptuous at the time, but of course evidence now proves that his suspicions were fully warranted. However, this is NOT a contradiction to my statement that we had no theory when we launched the investigation. Sure we had strong suspicions otherwise we would not have launched the investigation in the first place. But we had no specific theory of our own about what happened and we went there with the very deliberate mindset to dismiss ALL known theories and start with a clean slate, an open mind, and accept whatever it was that we could uncover. Even if it proved our suspicions false. It did not.

Larson then cited a previous mainstream media hit-piece against us by OC Weekly reporter Nick Schou who cited alleged Pentagon witness Mike Walter regarding our experience with him on the very first night of our first research trip to Arlington. If Larson was an honest truth activist he wouldn't have taken the word of the mainstream media in a blatant 9/11 truth hit-piece and would have checked our rebuttal to this fraudulent attack by Mike Walter that we explain is a blatant lie. Here is what we had published:

"Once again Walter proceeded to spin a complete fairytale that Schou was happy to publish without bothering to get our response. Schou quoting Walter; 'They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios'. When we met with Walter it was the first evening of our first trip to Arlington. We knew nothing of the north side evidence we would eventually obtain, and had no theory or "scenario" in mind at all other than a suspicion that the official story did not add up due to the anomalous physical damage to the building. Furthermore we have never suggested that we believe the plane landed at Reagan. This is a fabrication created by Walter and Schou that has nothing to do with the evidence we present or claims we have made to either of them. You will not find a quote from us in this regard in any of our presentations or anywhere for that matter. A lack of quotes from us regarding Schous' statements about our claims is prevalent throughout the article."
source

After that Larson went into a pointless dissertation regarding one party consent recording of conversations while implying that we are doing something "unethical" for having done this in the past while admitting that there is nothing illegal about it at all in 38 states of our nation, including Virginia where Vignola lives. However during our visit with Dawn we did not record her without her knowledge at all! Obviously she was aware when we had the video recorder out and were documenting the view from her window since she invited us up for that very purpose. And while Larson admits it's not illegal he also admits that we never published a single recording of Vignola when he says, "As CIT haven’t released their recordings of Dawn and Dan, it may be there’s simply nothing on them they feel would work to their advantage if released." So because Larson failed to find anything illegal or unethical published by us he chose to attack us without basis anyway as if we had something to hide. The absolute gall by Larson in these hollow baseless attacks is astounding.

Larson then cited a discussion we had on our forum with someone who signed up as "plan271" and said he intimately knew Vignola and her husband. His knowledge seemed so intimate that we believed "plan271" was really her husband Dan Ferrigno, however he never admitted this so we can't know for sure whether or not this is the case. He was unnecessarily antagonistic and defensive particularly since we had never published a single quote uttered by Vignola or referenced her in a single one of our presentations at all.

Out of that entire extremely intense online discussion with "plan271" Larson was not able to cite a single inappropriate or incorrect statement by us. However there are many inappropriate and false claims made by "plan271" that even include him lying about us editing an image that he posted, even though he was the one who edited it to try to cover up for an error he had made. To make matters worse, when he leveled this fraudulent accusation he said "Wow you even have the nerve to edit the photo's he posted", which means he either suddenly decided to refer to himself in third person or else there were multiple people operating the "plan271" account. This very odd and unprovoked encounter with "plan271" definitely raised a red flag for us when considering all the details surrounding Vignola's account. Although we had determined it was possible she was honest and merely deceived on that day like so many others, there is always a chance that she was simply used to put out lies to help sell the official story. Given what we know about the north side approach it would be foolish for us to completely dismiss this possibility. We highly recommend you read through this very odd exchange to see for yourself why it made us suspicious.

The only thing that Larson brought up about this conversation is that he implied we were wrong to suggest that Timmerman is heard helping or coaching Vignola during the WUSA broadcast. This is quite odd since Larson himself had already admitted in his article that this was the case! Again, he is trying to reduce it to an argument based on semantics by saying although she was "helped" she was not "coached". If you listen to it you will easily hear for yourself how she certainly was "coached" by Timmerman. In fact it would be accurate to describe her as literally "parroting" what he said. Listen to it here.

Larson then quoted a few statements where we announced our belief that Vignola "deduced" the impact, meaning we did not accuse her of being dishonest. We were merely giving our take on her account given the full body of evidence we provide. He was not able to provide a single quote of us accusing her of lying or saying anything inappropriate about our encounter with her at all.

He then cited this gif we created from inside her apartment while suggesting we were being deceptive by taking a shot that isn't from right up on the window.

user posted image

We were simply showing the full span of her view from both windows as it appears in their apartment. And besides, nobody knows for sure exactly where she was in the room when she allegedly saw the plane since she refuses to go on record with these details. But Larson was unable to find anywhere that we used this gif when discussing her account anyway because we pretty much haven't used it. To source the gif he linked to a thread I created over a year after our visit with Vignola called "Craig's insane gif collection" that simply contains ALL the gifs I have ever made (and there are a lot of them!) without any commentary at all.

As stated earlier Larson simply failed to acknowledge that in our initial and only report on Vignola (which was a general report from our 2007 research trip) that we posted an image with the exact same view that he reported but without the zoom. This proves that we were NOT deceptive regarding this at all.

It is a blatantly dishonest effort on Larson's part to suggest we were deceptive by somehow covering up the best possible view from their window. This is the most egregious lie by Larson in this article and in essence proves his nefarious "methods" and the entire purpose of his meeting with Vignola in the first place; to attack CIT. And he had no qualms lying about what we had or hadn't reported in order to do so.

Larson wrapped it up by addressing a statement that Vignola allegedly made to another blogger who regularly attacks us, Michael Wolsey. Larson wrote, "Dawn and Dan OK’d my coming to their apartment to record the view and spoke with me for over an hour, but due to their experience with CIT, they did not want the conversation recorded, and I didn’t. As Dawn explained in a January 2, 2010 email to Michael Wolsey, which she authorized for public release, 'I am now hesitant to have a telephone conversation recorded or even to be interviewed since my experience has been that I cannot trust how it will loaded onto the Internet or whether others will be able to access it and then edit it, unjustly, for their own pursuits. The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said.' "

Since there is no recording of this statement we don't know if it was really made by Vignola. What we do know is that it is patently false. So either Wolsey, Larson, or Vignola lied.

We know it's a lie because even Larson admitted that she declined to provide us with an interview and that we have not published any recordings of Vignola at all. We haven't even quoted her! The statement clearly implies that we uploaded an "interview" with her and that we "twisted" her words, took them "out of context", or insinuated that she meant something other than what she said.

Since we did nothing of the sort and had published no interview with Vignola whatsoever Larson was not able to cite an example to support this baseless accusation. So why would Larson and Wolsey publish this statement without being able to cite an example of us committing such an offense? The answer can only be that their agenda against CIT is more important to them than the pursuit of truth.

If they were honest truth activists they would have requested that Dawn back up her allegation by stating what it was we had distorted and point to where this had been allegedly "loaded on to the internet". What's clear is that they simply did not care and were more interested in publishing ANY attacks against us, regardless of how unsupported or untrue they might be.

Demonstratively dishonest bloggers such as Erik Larson who try to pass themselves off as 9/11 truth activists are easily spotted by their propensity to push elements of the official narrative while focusing their energy on attacking others who fight to expose the deception. They tend to go to great lengths in their attempts to discredit us and the solid evidence we have uncovered without regard for their own credibility or reputation. Erik Larson (aka "Rancho Truth", aka "loose nuke" - a moderator at 911blogger.com, where I am banned for no reason other than to prevent me from responding to these kinds of attacks) has now established himself as being at the forefront of this dishonest counter-movement as he has shown he is willing to do and say anything to cast doubt on the important work we have done, even if it means blatantly lying.
____________

Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.

Wow! That really convinces me ...

... that Ranke is dishonest.

He has to attack his challengers with personal attacks, and address the facts with more deceptive statements. I mean, who does that? I agree with the many activists I've spoken to about this particular incident, this CIT shit is really getting old. I hear there are much more CIT tactics to be exposed, and I guess good people like Erik will do it. After reading Ranke's response, I am offering full resources and support to Erik Larson to clear the record. But, what a waste of time for all of us.

oh, and puhleeeze

Ranke: "easily spotted by their propensity to push elements of the official narrative"

Nobody is buying this bullshit, Craig.

and not that "real truther" crap you guys throw around either. You need new talking points.