CIT BLUNDERS

[Ruby Gray]

While praising Citizen Investigation Team for their impressive and valuable work, I find numerous errors in it.

The major error is their hateful treatment of Lloyde England, the most genuine and well-attested North of Citgo witness they ever interviewed.

Four other North of Citgo witnesses were also slandered, misrepresented and defamed by CIT:

Father Stephen McGraw
Mary Ann Owens
Vin Narayanan
Joel Sucherman.

But apart from these failures, CIT became over-confident in their own opinions, and regularly squashed the comments of others on their forums, who had interesting suggestions to contribute.

This page is an example of the overweening control exerted by Craig Ranke when he (wrongly, as it happens) disagreed with a member who commented about the "white car" whose driver helped Lloyde remove the pole.

Ranke jumped on him, insisting that Lloyde had never said the van was white.

He then nastily stated that nothing that came out of Lloyde's mouth should be believed.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/mysterious-white-car-t811.html

 

[Ruby Gray]

Here's the beginning of that brief discussion:

KD7ONE
I think I remember the cab driver said that a guy in a white car helped him remove the light pole from his cab. In one of the pictures, I see a white car with the license plate clearly visible. Would it be possible to see who owns that car? One place to find out is http://govdmvrecords.com/Default.aspx?SearchBy=1

CRAIG RANKE
Sep 30 '09#2
Hi kd7one welcome to the forum.
The cab driver claimed that the silent stranger who helped him "remove" the pole was driving a van, not a car, and he never described it as "white".
It's more likely that this entire story is fabricated.

As we now know, Ranke was dead wrong here.
He should have remembered that in his own first videoed interview, Lloyde confirmed that the van was white.

This was "First Known Accomplice? Featuring Lloyde England".
Also Marquis, Lloyde England and seasoned researcher Russell Pickering interviewed Lloyde that day.

But the previous day, before Marquis and Ranke arrived, Pickering did a preliminary interview with Lloyde.
That was when Lloyde famously drew in the pole on the sketch of the cab made by Pickering.
Lloyde also told Pickering that the silent stranger's van was white.
(I have Pickering's interview notes recorded somewhere on my computer.)

This is why, the next day, when Pickering was trying to reconstruct the act of removing the pole from the windshield with Lloyde in front of his cab, Pickering said,

"So then the man pulls up in the white van-like vehicle."

And Lloyde replied,

"Right."

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx26f7uCw45eriLd-kbESKcck6rKGXsGf1?si=3ADHOx4ur0hwbmip

 

[Ruby Gray]

KD7ONE actually was looking at the white Fire Department sedan parked near Lloyde's taxi on the bridge, in a Jason Ingersoll photograph.
So he had misidentified the white van, but was trying to be helpful.

Another member though, had spotted the several Ingersoll photos showing a white van parked on the bridge, then another white van driving past it when traffic was briefly allowed to file past the taxi and staged lightpole.
This guy was on the right track!

But he did not have the advantage of having seen the arrival and departure of the first white van near Lloyde's taxi beside the cemetery as seen on the Residence Inn CCTV.

Also, the amateur video showing the White Van parked in front of the taxi as Lloyde walked back to his taxi, had not yet been released.
That video shows the white van driving uphill to the bridge, after they had removed the pole, and before Ingersoll took the photos of it on the bridge.


CRAIG RANKE
Could be but we will never know one way or the other.

Bottom line there is {sic} logic in accepting anything that comes out of Lloyde's mouth as fact in any way whatsoever.

Voskhod3
Oct 01 '09
When he says there was a white van that at least is true.

The van was standing still there for at least 2 minutes according to the Ingersoll pictures.

Strangely an identical white van passes behind it at one point, did they use two? One in front, one behind?

What happened with the white van(s) is another question because I don't believe it's driver didn't say a word to Lloyd. That makes me think that the people who moved the pole were in the van.

Craig Ranke CIT
Oct 01 '09
He never said the alleged van was white.

There isn't a reason to suggest that this confirms the veracity of Lloyde's mention of "more or less a van".

That's exactly how he said it.

It's impossible to link the van in the photograph to the staging of the event let alone identify it in any way.

It's just as impossible to link the 2nd van to the staging of the event as it is the first.

Unfortunately speculation regarding the notion that these vans had any involvement will lead nowhere.

Although I agree it's certainly possible that one or both were involved.

What happened with the white van(s) is another question because I don't believe it's driver didn't say a word to Lloyd. That makes me think that the people who moved the pole were in the van.

Again this is speculation that can not lead anywhere even if it is true.


Voskhod3
Oct 01 '09#11
OK, maybe I mixed up "white car" and "white van".

But there is definitely at least one van (a white one) parked up in front of Lloyd for at least a couple of minutes and an indentical one passes behind it just before the one we see parked disappears.

It's worth bearing that in mind at least, there WAS a stationary van - what the significance is, is as you say just speculation at this point. But we can hypothosise.
****************

The White Van is a strongly documented factor in the staged taxi-bridge-lightpole tableau.

Ranke's dismissal was arrogant and ignorant.
His attitude led to justifiable antipathy towards CIT's methodology, and to formerly supportive individuals cutting ties with CIT because of their overbearing stance.
Ranke and Marquis' position was that they had uncovered all the evidence needed, and that further research was a waste of time.

Following these comments, 22205 (Christopher Taylor) posted a lot of information he had collected on the white vans, with links to his discussions about them on other forums.

 

[Ruby Gray]

22205 posted these maps showing the location of Steve Riskus as he took a series of photos.
He comments that Riskus could have photographed Lloyde and the taxi, but didn't use the opportunity, and instead exited off Route 27, taking a circuitous route to I-395.

He does not draw the conclusion I did, that this was because Riskus was an accomplice, engaged for the purpose of documenting the event from the north side (while Daryl Donley did the same from the south side), and to "prove" Lloyde was never at the cemetery location.
His task was easy enough. All he had to do was frame his photos to exclude Lloyde.

However, he begins the numbered photo sequence with "11", not "1", which raises my suspicions further.

Perhaps Riskus did actually take an unpublished series of Lloyde's taxi there beside the cemetery, pole lodged in the windshield.
It would seem to have been the obvious thing to do. For his own interest's sske. And possibly as insurance against being double crossed by his handlers.

After all, Lloyde was insistent that "photos were taken" of him and the taxi, at the cemetery wall.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Another interesting find on that thread from 2009!

Ranke describes the 3 men surrounding Lloyde during the Ingersoll photos session on the bridge.
He gets them mismatched with their vehicles.

But he shows photos of the 3 different men, saying that he does not know their identities, but would like to speak with them.

He must have forgotten about them, and neglected to delete the photos of Davis from this page, though he deleted them from his other webpage.

Craig Ranke
However we do suspect the driver of the white Saturn and brown Jeep Cherokee as potentially playing a role in helping to stage the scene.

A detailed photographic timeline of their arrival is available in this article:

Ingersoll Images Likely Reveal the Staging of Light Pole 1

The driver of the Saturn was likely the guy in the blue shirt or this African American man:

"We haven't been able to find out who they are although we would love to speak with them if we could."

Of course, Blue Shirt Guy is Detective Fortunato, who was driving the silver sedan parked across the lane divider from the taxi - at both locations.

Red Tie Guy drove the white Fire Dept Saturn.

Aubrey Davis drove the Jeep.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Below is the CIT thread from Tapatalk, on BRIGADIER GENERAL CLYDE VAUGHN.

He had attended a breakfast meeting at the Army Navy Country Club, and was driving back to the Pentagon, northwards up I-395, when he saw a plane high in the sky, far to his north.

Shortly after, Vaughn saw the 757 flying across the Navy Annex, and then the smoke plume from the explosion.

He equated these two sightings as possibly being the same aircraft, as neither of them was on a regular flightpath.

Craig Ranke was dismissive about Vaughn's testimonies unfortunately, and rejected the idea of interviewing any other witnesses.

I believe that was a big mistake.
Again, Ranke had failed to put 2 & 2 together, to fill in one of the blanks.

 

[Ruby Gray]

CIT Research Forum​

General Clyde Vaughn​

Posted: 5:16 AM - Jun 13, 2012
stevendabudgie

Mark Gaffney interviewed Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn:

Was the Pentagon accounting office destroyed because diabolical individuals planned it that way? No question, the west wing presented a much more challenging target than the east wing. Targeting the west wing required a difficult approach over the Arlington skyline. The final approach was especially dicey and amounted to a downhillobstacle course, skirting apartments and a large building complex about a quarter-mile from the Pentagon known as the Naval Annex; which sits atop a hill that rises from the flat ground along the Potomac River. In April 2008, I interviewed Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn, a credible witness to the events of that morning. Vaughn explained over the telephone that on 9/11 he was on his way to work at the Pentagon via Shirley Highway (I-395) when the strike occurred. The general told me the hijacked aircraft (presumably AA 77) just missed the Naval Annex and would have hit the US Air Force memorial that presently occupies the site, had the 270 feet-tall monument existed on 9/11.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/0...-the-dark-side/

***********
Posted: 8:57 AM - Jun 13, 2012

Craig Ranke CIT
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.

Vaughn said "I was scanning the air" as he was sitting in his car.

"There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank," he said. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern."

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.

************
Posted: 2:02 AM - Jun 14, 2012

stevendabudgie

Craig, i know you have problems with Gaffney, but i don´t 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 Vaughn´s flight path.

************
Posted: 3:57 AM - Jun 14, 2012

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.

************

 

[Ruby Gray]

Craig Ranke often failed to connect the dots linking separate witness testimonies.

Taking Vaughn's testimony at face value, it certainly supports the North of Citgo flightpath over the top of the Navy Annex, as Ranke stated.

But there is a further clue which he missed, that supports CIT's work on the flightpath of the C-130.

The plane seen by Vaughn above Georgetown, was "in a high LEFT hand bank".

This could not have been the 757, which must have been in a RIGHT hand bank, on the flightpath taking it over D.C. then looping around, across the river, over the Army Navy Country Club, and over the Navy Annex.

The flightpath of the C-130 calculated by CIT, according to evidence from the pilot Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien, was heading west when the 757 passed beneath it, travelling east.

Although the official story has both planes flying in a straight line from Southwest of the Pentagon, numerous witnesses place the 757 coming downriver then south around DC.

O'Brien stated that he flew north from Andrews AFB, then west with "a beautiful view of the Mall," before spotting the 757 crossing his path.

O'Brien was then asked to turn around and follow the 757.
So he would have been making a left hand bank to turn back towards the Pentagon.

It seems that Vaughn observed first the C-130 over Georgetown, then the 757 over the Navy Annex.

This confirms the northerly location of both planes about 3 minutes prior to the explosion.

But for some reason, O'Brien's co-pilot told a different story. He claimed that they had flown on the official flightpath, over a bridge to the south of the Pentagon.

 

[Jerry Russell]

O'Brien's co-pilot told a different story. He claimed that they had flown on the official flightpath, over a bridge to the south of the Pentagon.

Is it possible that the C-130 flew over Georgetown and then tried to catch up with the 757's flight path, but wound up a little bit to the south, as shown in this sketch in green?

 

[Blue_Windows]

22205 posted these maps showing the location of Steve Riskus as he took a series of photos.
He comments that Riskus could have photographed Lloyde and the taxi, but didn't use the opportunity, and instead exited off Route 27, taking a circuitous route to I-395.

He does not draw the conclusion I did, that this was because Riskus was an accomplice, engaged for the purpose of documenting the event from the north side (while Daryl Donley did the same from the south side), and to "prove" Lloyde was never at the cemetery location.
His task was easy enough. All he had to do was frame his photos to exclude Lloyde.

However, he begins the numbered photo sequence with "11", not "1", which raises my suspicions further.

Perhaps Riskus did actually take an unpublished series of Lloyde's taxi there beside the cemetery, pole lodged in the windshield.
It would seem to have been the obvious thing to do. For his own interest's sske. And possibly as insurance against being double crossed by his handlers.

After all, Lloyde was insistent that "photos were taken" of him and the taxi, at the cemetery wall.

View attachment 2091

View attachment 2093

Haven't seen this thread until now. Very good intuition! Yes, I wonder if Riskus took photos of Lloyde's cab head-on, initially. But the shattered glass on the road in his published pictures and the visible skid marks between the lanes, suggests he never wandered far from Lloyde's cab and simply framed the taxi out of his photos.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Haven't seen this thread until now.

Thanks for reading and commenting! I had forgotten about this thread myself.
There are many more examples I could include, and of course anyone else is welcome to add anything they find.

This belayed comment confirms my suspicions that many posts I've made over the past year or two, had never been noticed.

I wish there was a tagging option!