Diary: Erik Larson's Methods vs Dawn Vignola's account - A Rebuttal by CIT

Note: An audio break-down of the general details in the following rebuttal can be found here. It is an MP3 file, 13.4MB, and also contains a discussion of Larson's interview with Ed Paik.

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.

(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

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 (the day after this rebuttal was first published he released his first and only known recorded witness interview with Edward Paik). 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."

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:

(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

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:

(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

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?

(rebuttal continued at below link)

___________________________

Complete rebuttal:
Dawn Vignola's Account vs Erik Larson's Methods by CIT

Formal challenge to debate:
Craig Ranke challenges Erik Larson to debate

3rd party summary:
Summary to "Dawn Vignola's Account vs Erik Larson's Methods" by Adam Syed