Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, Plan271 posts split from witness thread

Mr. Marquis, you know that this is not true. Ms. Vignola was very clear as to the path and crash of the plane near the helipad. Also, you state on other forums that she was coached. You are misrepresenting what took place, and as you interviewed her, you had the opportunity to get it straight.

Ms Vignola contacted the first news agency that picked up the phone. This is very shortly after seeing a planeload of people die in a fiery explosion. Emotion would be expectantly high as is evidenced by the other eye witness in her apartment who was apparently so loud while she was attempting to communicate on the telephone, that she could barely hear herself think. The other witness, Mr. Timmerman is a long time pilot and aeronautical enthusiast (aka plane person) who could readily identify the make and model of most airplanes. He was deeply upset at what he had just witnessed and clearly was attempting to vent his story at the same time. Apply common sense folks. I'm sure you know how difficult it is to carry on a telephone conversation while someone is loudly babbling at you.

Ms Vignola was not coached. They both saw the same thing from the same vantage point. Timmerman just happened to know the type of plane and terms such as throttling, etc, which he insisted on inserting into the conversation. What you hear in the resultant telephone call is a blending of Dawn's account, interspersed with details excitedly and boisterously interjected by Timmerman. Incidentally, both Vignola and Timmerman were interviewed separately at a later time.

These two people continue to represent the best witnesses to the flight path and crash. It behooves the investigator to do their homework before offering up highly flawed conclusions. It also behooves the reporter not to selectively remove or alter certain statements of witnesses.

Dawn Vignola and Hugh Timmerman would have had a good view of the plane only on it's approach.

The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo. And the "crash" would be nothing but an explosion as the plane could have only been visible for a fraction of a millisecond as it came out from behind the building. Plus we know for a fact that nothing crashed on the helipad.

Here is the view from her apartment:


The explosion, fireball, and smoke plume would effectively divert and block their view of the flyover as it ascended up over the river like a normal departure out of Reagan.

So you are wrong about their view being the "best" of the flight path. They deduced the impact after the plane disappeared behind that building and they saw the explosion. They do have a panoramic view to the south so we believe that they could have seen the plane for quite a while on it's approach before it disappeared behind that building.

Dawn is 100% certain that the plane was "white" which corroborates virtually all of the previously unknown witnesses we found in the neighborhoods:



This proves the plane could not have been AA77.

Dawn most certainly was "coached" by Hugh on that interview.

That doesn't mean she is a liar.

We did our homework.

How come you know so much about Dawn's account?

Mr. Marquis, you know that this is not true. Ms. Vignola was very clear as to the path and crash of the plane near the helipad. Also, you state on other forums that she was coached. You are misrepresenting what took place, and as you interviewed her, you had the opportunity to get it straight.

It always benefits one to look before they leap.

Actually it is true. Do you know why? Because we went to her home and spoke with her. Not only that, but we filmed and photographed her POV from her apt. She and her husband were gracious people that allowed us into their home. She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.

She had a row of buildings in front of her, so when she caught the plane it was headed toward to Arlington National Cemetery [not the Pentagon] before it banked-which she did not see. Clearly she was looking towards the direction of ANC and did not see the flyover/flyaway-she more than likely only looked toward the Pentagon when she saw fireball shooting up from the Pentagon. She COULD NOT debunk the north side or the pull-up, and frankly seemed to yield to the fact that she COULD NOT debunk a flyover, because frankly it was pretty evident that she would have, could have, and more than likely DID miss the flyover/away. Hence why she was unsure of her final position on the matter. That is soley my impression.

As for the coaching aspect, many have said that and you can hear a man in the background, Hugh "Tim" Timmerman, telling her what to say. He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?

I, of course, only THEORIZED on this BEFORE I met her and was able to speak with her. But the fact remains, he says it, she repeats it.

Whatever.

Your spin on that matter doesn't change what it was. Do I believe Dawn Vignola is lying in anyway? No, at this point, I do not.

Again, whatever. It's all a moot point. You need to see that POV.

It also behooves someone to actually know the whole story.

Again, I did not alter or selectively change her statements. Her statement stands and it was scrutinized, we went to her home to perform a 'forensic study' on what she would have seen and experienced, and she does not debunk a flyover/away.

What about Timmerman? Will he talk to you guys? Why didn't he call and speak, when he was telling Dawn everything to say? What time does Timmerman talk to CNN and why does he say he sees the nose break up on the lawn?

Great questions.

We can't find him and Dawn said she doesn't know how to reach him any more.

We would love to interview Timmerman.

You posted a photo from Ms Vignola's apartment and state that she could not have seen much of the crash yet you do not reveal that the photo (which you took in 2007) includes obscuring structures that were not present at the time of the crash. That is essentially fraudulent reporting. You lied to make a false claim in order to remove credibility from a key witness whose account contradicts your own personal theory. You also failed to mention that you interviewed her husband who corroborated that, from his vantage point across the river, no additional aircraft flew over the Pentagon. He was looking in that exact direction at the time while speaking to Ms Vignola on the telephone. Thus your conclusion that Ms Vignola and Timmerman's view was obstructed by smoke, preventing them from seeing the theoretical second airplane (a bomber), fails to hold up. Your selective and untruthful reporting simply ruins your credibility, and it is very unfortunate because if their actually were a cover-up of some sort, you would not be able to serve the cause given your self-made lack of standing in the investigative community.

In an effort to end the ludicrous speculation and false conclusions about her eyewitness account, Ms Vignola is apparently in the process of providing full details of her account in a web site that cannot be manipulated or overwhelmed by unobjective reporting such as yours. The fact is, you did not meet with her to fact find, you met with her to further your personal theory about what happened that day. Again, your lack of objectivity has severely crippled you ability to be taken seriously. When you interview someone and then invite them to visit your web site, you should expect that any inaccurate reporting of the interview will be discovered. It's a Gary Hart moment, you invited it, got caught, and lost your credibility.

How amazing it is that people can listen to the recording, gripe and draw conclusions yet fail to hear the obvious. The TV was on in the background and tuned to the same station to which Dawn was speaking. She didn't expect that her call would be broadcast live, she was just reporting what happened (a good citizen). Timmerman heard the questions live on TV and spouted his own answers while Dawn was on the telephone. Notice that he answers the questions simultaneously or before she did. That's the key. This should have occurred to you. There is no prompting, coaching, etc. Do your homework before drawing silly conclusions. Yes, she included two technical details (make of plane, and the term throttle) that he, being a plane person, was knowledgeable about. Timmerman was interviewed separately at a different time.

Had Aldo and Craig actually been interested in true and truthful reporting, they would know this and not be foolishly claiming she was coached. Again, they do not seem to seek the truth, but only cherry pick and manipulate to support their personal theory. They never asked Ms. Vignola about this interview. I doubt that Mr. Timmerman would be willing to speak with Aldo and Craig regarding this event because I am quite sure he does not wish his for his statements to be cherry picked nor misquoted as seems to be the pattern, but mostly because he has already stated his case many times, as well as for personal reason that should be respected.

Plane person (someone very into planes), cat person (someone who likes cats), sports guy (someone very into sports), soccer mom (a woman who attends soccer her children's soccer games), surf dude ( a guy that surfs a lot), conspiracy nut (someones who enjoys fomenting conspiracies), etc. Go easy folks.

I have the original first hand account from Timmerman and will provide it along with Ms. Vignola's account. During my in-person interview of Timmerman, the day of the attack, he stated that it appeared that the airplane crashed at an angle, causing the wing to impact first, followed by the fuselage, both of which hit the ground before impacting the building. Regarding the crash specifically, Ms. Vignola stated only that she saw the airplane appear to hit near the helipad and explode. She made no claims as to what part of the airplane hit first or at what angle. Timmerman was standing slightly to her right at the time and may have had just enough additional perspecitve in order to make-out this detail. The fact that he is a plane person (I use the term to mock the mockers) adds further credence to the likelihood he would have noticed such details.

From the POV of Ms Vignola's apartment, it appears that approximately two or more full lengths of the airplane would be visible, unobscured. They would indeed have been able to see the full impact as they described independently. In fact, from the positions they were standing in their apartment at the time, they would not have had to turn their heads to see the approach and eventual crash, which again makes these two witnesses vastly more credible than anyone in a car, under a gas station car port, or otherwise under the rapidly passing airplane. A detailed interview and objective truthful reporting continue to maintain that Vignola and Timmerman are the best two witnesses available, that they saw more than anyone else regarding the Pentagon attack given their unique POV, and that what hit the ground and the building was indeed one passenger airplane.

Plan 271,

Everything you just posted is a guess.

They did not have a view of the plane at the Citgo.

If it is on the north side and pulled up, then it could not have hit the building. Everything that has been "documented" about the official story at the Pentagon is now thrown into serious question because of this.

We believe Timmerman and Vignola merely deduced the impact.

The plane was headed toward ANC their attention would have been in that direction. They have to be deducing the impact, unless they would like to testify to seeing an impact under oath or during a lie detector test.

Would you like to tell us who you are?

Or perhaps you've already told us...

Is this Mr. Vignola?

I'll get to your post later in detail.

Whooooaaa there buddy.

Step back.

THIS is the structure that I referred to that blocked her view of the final moments of the flight path:



That building most certainly WAS there on 9/11.

You didn't quote any "fraudulent" statements or "lies" from us because there are none.

I never denied that she could see the Pentagon or the ground immediately in front of it.

But with that apartment blocking the view of the last moments and considering the reported final speed of the plane at 535 mph both Dawn and Hugh could have only seen the plane for a small FRACTION of a second at most as it came out from behind that building and into the explosion.

None of this changes even if ALL the other buildings didn't exist.

You are making your best effort to diminish our credibility but failing miserably.

Perhaps you should tell Mr. Vignola that there most certainly WAS a plane reported that flew away from the Pentagon soon after the explosion.

It was a C-130. So if Mr. Vignola did not see this plane from across the river then it stands to reason he could have missed the decoy jet flying away as well doesn't it?

Scott Cook had virtually the best view possible from across the river:


http://www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm

He reports the C-130 in detail.

Here is the view from his office window:


Not all that great is it?

There is no place closer from across the river so at best Mr. Vignola could have only had as good of a view as Scott Cook.

So make sure to include images of Mr. Vignola's exact point of view on 9/11 and provide reasons why he did not see the C-130 when Scott Cook and others did.

His account does NOT disprove the notion that any other plane didn't exist especially since there most certainly WAS another plane that existed.

None of this changes the FACT that he WAS in the background helping her answer questions.

We were 100% accurate in reporting this as is evident to anyone who listens to it.

We never said WHY he was helping her nor did we even suggest there was any nefarious reason for it.

But the FACT is as you just admitted that he DID help her answer the questions.

You only helped to underscore how correct we were.

Here is your problem........this contradicts all the physical evidence AND the Pentagon security video.

Nothing hit the ground. There was no damage to the helipad, the lawn, or the ground, and the security footage (which we believe has been manipulated anyway)shows the object entering perfectly level and straight into the building WITHOUT hitting the ground AT ALL.



So in essence.......this hitting the ground claim by Ms. Vignola and even the "plane person" Hugh Timmerman completely contradicts the official story and is further PROOF that they deduced the impact and embellished these details.

It is you who is digging the hole.

First you need to consider the official angle of approach which is NOT straight left to right from that vantage.



THEN you need to consider the reported speed of the plane (from the NTSB released FDR) which is 535 mph or about 780 feet per second. The entire length of a 757 is 155 feet so 2 lengths of the plane is still less than HALF a second.

Factor in the significant distance that they were from the event and it is quite clear that they did NOT have the "best" view of the event or even a good one at all!

Granted the panoramic view in the apartment gave them an EXCELLENT view of the plane on the approach before it disappeared behind that high rise.

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

She can not use the excuse that it simply reflected white because unlike most people on the ground she would have seen the reflection change as the plane moved.

The fact that we had so many others corroborate this detail makes us believe that Dawn was telling the truth.

Make sure to not leave out this fact, the fact that no plane could have hit the ground according to the official story, and the FACT that they could have only seen the plane for less than a half a second before the massive explosion making it virtually impossible to tell specific details about what the plane really did after it came out from behind that high rise.

You really seem to have an emotional involvement with this account.

Your clear resentment is exposing quite a bias.

The fact is that we have NOT misrepresented her claims in the least.

We have not even accused her of being a liar.

There is no logical reason for you to react this way unless you have an agenda of your own.

Craig,

Can you put up a Google Earth map that shows Ms.Vignola's apartment, the Citgo and the Pentagon?

thanks
Don

Yeah sure but I will have to do it later tonight.

Here you go Don.



We have video from her apartment as well showing the full panoramic view.

I'll eventually make a youtube with it but I am too busy working on our new presentation right now.

It's clear to me that plan271 is Dawn's husband.

I tried explaining the north side evidence to him in person and we even pulled up our site on his computer.

They were nice and accommodating but it was clear he was skeptical.

Which is perfectly fine and understandable but he doesn't really have a reason to be mad at us.

We haven't published anything about his wife at all and we certainly haven't misrepresented her claims.

Frankly it sounds like her husband is mad because her account isn't getting enough attention!

So now he is going to make a website for it.

The "best" view? Hardly.

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.

Again though.....the other side of the apartment would have had an excellent view of the plane on the approach so her claim that it is white is strong corroboration of this fatal contradiction to the official story.

We have no need to misrepresent or misreport information.

The evidence we have is conclusive and NOTHING that Dawn or her husband said refutes this.

Fair enough, but you still need to note that the photo does not present the view as it was at the time. Your readers can easily interpret your statements and the associated image as evidence that she could not even see the helipad. Your failure to represent evidence with full disclosure paints a tainted picture. You must present the details to be objective. Even in your response you chose not to clear this up. It makes you seem suspect at that is damaging to any good work you may be doing.

As you can see from the Google photo, there is a very wide field of view from that apartment. Thanks for putting it up.

There is no basis for that statement and is proven incorrect by my statement of facts, directly from the sources.

They, nor I, stated that they had a view of the CITGO. What are you talking about? They didn't need to see the gas station. The gas station is irrelevant as they saw the plane approaching from some distance, turn, disappear for a moment behind some buildings, then emerge and crash.

Good point and it defeats your entire thesis. If the plane pulled up then it did not hit the Pentagon. But as no plane was seen pulling up yet many people saw it crash then, the sound conclusion is that an airplane hit the Pentagon.

You can "believe" all you want. But the fact remains that they DID see the plane impact, whether it fits into your theory or not. You, however, have deduced a second unwitnessed airplane and a massive conspiracy. They did not deduce, they saw first hand with an unobstructed view. You saw nothing yet claim to know more about what happened. You are claiming they "deduce" because it contradicts your preconceived notion. You claim other witnesses are dead on truthful because they do fit your theory. That selectivity invalidates your work. You have historically put words in witness' mouths to make unfounded conclusions. Your original video is full of such things, and that video alone, claiming to have the best witnesses, is further evidence of your failed investigation. The "best" witnesses would have included Vignola and Timmerman.

I am still in contact with Ms. Vignola who has been very willing to share her experience with me, despite her busy schedule. She finds the manipulation and distortion unacceptable and wants the true story told. There is no reason for her to make-up these things. She followed the path of the airplane readily as it would be expected to land at National Airport, which normally takes the planes over the Pentagon (from her apartment POV). Seeing airplanes pass over the Pentagon and helicopters land on the pad were normal fare for her. You would know this had you bothered to conduct a professional quality and real fact-finding interview. Incidentally, there is no "Mr. Vignola". If you cannot even get that piece of information correct then you are not much of an investigative reporter. Basic fact finding. Additionally, it is obvious that you didn't bother to recreate the scenario during your interview. If you had you would see that she needn't turn her head from where she was standing in order to see both the approach and the crash. But that fact aside, why would you conclude that she and Timmerman would stop following the unusually low plane on its course? That is a ridiculous conclusion that you have made and if applied to your select group of witnesses, would invalidate all of them because in your view they would not have attempted to turn their heads toward the passing airplane. Which is it, witnesses look or they don't look? Do you see how you invalidate yourself?

Incidentally, Ms. Vignola said, in no uncertain terms that she would be willing to take those type of tests. There is no reason for her to make-up these things. Neither of these witnesses has sought publicity nor gained from the event. Neither worked for the government or related agencies at that time. Neither seeks celebrity. You folks on the other hand are attempting to make money off of the event by selling your video.

As for who I am, I am a citizen investigation team (CIT). That makes us on even standing, excepting that I conducted proper, thorough, interviews and do not misquote witnesses, cherry pick witness statements, or simply leave out witnesses altogether. Also, I came into this without a preconceived conspiracy theory. My beliefs are irrelevant about what happened, that is the hallmark of truthful reporting.

You clearly entered this with a preconceived notion based upon nothing tangible, simply a pure fiction. Then you've attempted to fit and mold facts and witness accounts to give life to your story. My CIT came in with no conclusion until after all of the evidence was examined and applied the litmus test of common sense as well. For example, someone stating they came out from under the CITGO car port to see what was happening is not a credible witness. Anyone under the carport would not have time to hear the tremendous noise of the engines, get their bearings, and then move to a location to see anything but smoke after the fact. Simple common sense eliminates most in-vehicle and otherwise enclosed witnesses that were near the Pentagon in the brief seconds before the crash. They could not possibly have a POV to see both oncoming and going aircraft, nor give a precise vector of the airplane that struck the ground next to the Pentagon. You folks said it yourself. If Vignola/Timmerman, who saw the airplane approaching and could readily follow its path, which was very familiar to them, did not have time to follow the plane and see it crash then none of your witnesses are the least bit valid. Vignola/Timmerman had more time than anyone else to see, comprehend, and follow the oncoming airplane. Your claim that they could only have deduced the crash must therefore be a claim that none of your CITGO or other witnesses could have seen anything at all. This is your math, not mine. Having 10 to 15 seconds as Vignola/Timmerman did is far different than "WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT THAT JUST ROARED BY OVERHEAD WHERE I WAS NOT LOOKING AND COULDN'T"T TURN MY HEAD FAST ENOUGH TO SEE" witnesses that you hold on high.

-----

That is clearly enough to see it crash. You can see the crash in the Pentagon video footage you posted. They had more time and a greater field of view to see it. Thus, they could have seen it. There is no reason to doubt them. However, your conclusion also invalidates all of your witnesses as discussed above. You can't have it both ways. Your fraction of a second conclusion somehow gives your witnesses validity but yet the two who watched it longer than anyone else are not valid.

It is very difficult to miss a C-130. It is a very large, slow, and not so maneuverable aircraft. Anyone looking in that direction would have seen it and heard it. They are loud. Where are the dozens of witnesses to that? They don't exist. Honestly, common sense tells you that a C-130 did not strafe the ground and pull up at the last minute without being seen by a huge number of people. It simply doesn't make sense. But to the point, you make a conclusion based upon an unproven assumption. It is not a fact that a C-130 was there so you cannot use lack of spotting it as evidence that a second unproven plane was not spotted. By that logic one could also argue that an armored tank fired a nuclear weapon at the Pentagon but because none of your witnesses saw that then they may also have missed the wildebeest stampede that destroyed the side of the Pentagon before they self detonated. Your logic is unsound and embarrassingly ridiculous. In short, you cannot make up something as a basis for proving something else. Have you actually seen a billion dollars? More likely, your C-130 witness saw the plane as it circled over head much later. They were confused about the time, and saw the smoke and falsely concluded that it had just happened from their perspective. You need to understand what was taking place in DC that day. It was rumors and speculation all over the place. I did not notice any discussion of that in your postings or video. It is a key fact, especially to DC based witnesses. Your report lacks this context.

Oh yes, again, an earnest response would have included you recognizing that there is no Mr. Vignola. Your lack of thoroughness even here in your own forum speaks tremendously.

That is your incorrect interpretation, spate to invalidate her individual account. By now stating that he was "helping" her, you infer a direct and purposeful relationship with respect to the telephone conversation. There was not. Timmerman merely shouted out his own answers to the same question he heard over the television. She only adds the make of the plane, not the general type, and the term throttle-up, the sound of which she too heard. So his jabbering in the background in response to the live questions does not alter the validity of her account no matter how many times you infer it. He wasn't coaching nor helping her. Of course she heard him yelling a few feet from her, and she shared two details that Timmerman yelled out independently. Essentially he was talking to the TV like people do when watching football.

Think about it. If she hadn't used the term throttle-up but instead said only that it sped up and got louder would that change the fact that it throttled-up? No. If she only stated that it was a large passenger airplane would that change the fact that it was a large passenger plane, regardless of the model number and airline? No. So any conclusion that in any way appears to diminish her account is poor and unthorough journalism. Her inclusion of two details that Timmerman yelled out does not change the facts that she saw exactly what she stated in her initial interview prior to that television interview or in subsequent.

You stated "helping" as fact and it is incorrect. If you fail to get this simple and important fact correct, not having even bothered to inquire about it, then we cannot trust anything you state as fact.

You have done nothing to insert reason into some respondent's statements that fully suggest she is not a valid witness for the reason of "coaching". Yet you jump to defend YOUR witnesses. That behavior is unprofessional because it is unbalanced. And while your certainly don't claim to be professional, it is still expected if you are to be viewed as credible reporters. Also, you failed to ask why she used some of Timmerman's words and that invalidates your reporting. Why would you not ask about something that in your posts seems so prominent? You seem hell bent on invalidating her account based upon Timmerman's background chatter but you never asked what it was about. So rather than seek the truth and present a true picture, you are satisfied with presenting a distorted view in an attempt to suggest that she didn't really see anything and that Timmerman fed her the information. Why not just state the facts and let people decide?

No, this is your problem. They reported what they saw. For the umpteenth time, they never said that anything hit the helipad. They said it looked like it did, which from their POV is an obvious conclusion. As you said, a millisecond crash and explosion, so they would see the plane impact then the almost immediate explosion would obscure the view of the helipad, not allowing them to know if it was indeed the impact point. Whether the wing hit, tipped, broke off, or whatever is irrelevant. The plane did hit the building eventually. And if you decided that the film was manipulated, as you did with the CITGO footage, which also happens to contradict your yet to be supported claim of a massive strafing airplane, then you must also, by your own logic, accept that everything, every witness, every blade of grass may also have been manipulated. Therefore all of your witnesses can be discounted and you have no case. This is how your own logic plays out. You can't decide what is genuine and what is not simply because it does not fit your theory.

That's an assumption but irrelevant. The airline has jets of different colors. Also, silver reflects white under many circumstances. But again, irrelevant from the main point that they saw a large passenger airplane approach, turn, speed up, and crash into the Pentagon.

But now again you are being selective. You are concluding that she is telling the truth about things you like but not about things that don't fit your theory, or at least that she is incorrect about the crash. By that same assumption, your collection of witnesses, all fraction-of-a-second witnesses, may also have "deduced" what they saw. So again, you have invalidated your case by invalidating your own witnesses. If you reduce all of the witnesses to the same, how much could they see in X-time filter, then you must conclude that those who saw the most are the most credible and those who had the least amount of time are the least credible. Your logic. Thus Vignola/Timmerman rank as number one, and your primary CITGO, Columbia Pike, and in-vehicle RT27 witnesses rank at the bottom. Add this to the discussion. If a C-130 were also present, a slow moving, loud and barely maneuverable aircraft, then everyone who saw the speeding passenger plane would have had plenty of time to see and hear the C-130. But they did not report having witnessed it. The only sound conclusion is that it was not there.

It is a fact that there was damage to the ground that most certainly could have come from the wing of the airplane. But again, irrelevant. Even if Timmerman was mistaken about the wing and precise impact point, a few feet does not change the extensive damage that was in fact witnessed and that it was a large passenger plane that caused it. What is relevant is that they tracked the airplane's approach, turn, acceleration, and crash. No other witnesses can do that.

That further supports their ability to see the airplane for a longer period of time. Otherwise it is not a relevant statement.

The key to constructing a rational logical argument is to identify the best information. The best pre-crash information comes from eyewitnesses. The best witnesses would logically be those who had the most time to view the actions, the widest range of vision to see what happened, and the least obscured view. In all three accounts this points to Vignola/Timmerman.

You guys seem to be wildly emotionally attached to the event you were not directly a part of. I do understand that your emotional posts have had you booted from at least one website. You need to maintain objectivity. In fact, your latest post has further wild conclusions which makes you just seem silly because you could have first checked out the facts but once again chose not and drew incorrect conclusions.

The timeframe for her posting project, if it ever happens, is so open ended that it will likely be years before it gets done. Does that seem like someone wanting attention? Ms. Vignola told me that she begrudgingly allowed you to interview her, off camera, because she wanted to put an end to the nagging. She regrets that she allowed your interview now that she has seen how you have couched her testimony and how you conducted your analysis.

Frankly, from what I've seen, it stands to reason that perhaps you guys are the hired conspirators, jabbering away with your 911 theories to distract the public (extreme minority that follows this stuff) from real issues such as the ill-gotten war in Iraq and other vastly more important issues. Prove that you are not the conspirators.

Incidentally, what is the point of a shadow airplane (which would certainly not be a C-130)? If the passenger airplane was already on its way down, why have a second plane there at all for everyone to see. And if "the government" was willing to sacrifice hundreds of passengers, why not simply have a military pilot (just following orders) fly the plane into the Pentagon. One more casualty, big deal, right? There really seems to be no need for a second airplane.

We have not released a presentation that addresses Vignola's account. We have plenty of data to compile and she simply is not at the top of the list. You are attacking us as if we should have done this or that in regards to her account but we haven't done ANYTHING yet. The image was posted in response to YOU. I'm so terribly sorry if I didn't relay her entire account in a quick response in a discussion forum but deal with it. No matter how you slice it Vignola could have only seen the plane for less than a half a second before the explosion and NONE of the new construction changes this fact. You have no right to attack our reporting credibility based on something we haven't even reported.

She could have only seen it "emerge" for less than half a second. Try counting that out and think about a big orange explosion and then consider how much detail of the event she could have REALLY seen.

Look at the image of her point of view and think about it.

The point is that we DO have a witness who saw it pull up and we have 6 others who all corroborate his north side claim proving the impact impossible.

They were all a few dozen feet away from the plane as opposed to Vignola and Timmerman who were 4,000 feet away.

There is no comparison.

Who are you and why are you spouting these baseless attacks against us? You do not know us or how we conducted this investigation. The theory is the RESULT of the investigation not the other way around. You are revealing YOUR confirmation bias by personally attacking with no basis, evidence, or provocation. You are not discussing the information we present logically or fairly. We do NOT and HAVE NOT claimed "other witnesses are dead on truthful" nor have we claimed that Vignola is NOT truthful so your point is completely moot.

We have NOT "historically put words in witness' mouths" and our video is NOT "full of such things" which is why you did not provide a single example.

You are spouting off nonsense in a desperate and hollow attempt to discredit us.

Where is your evidence? I defy you to back up your baseless accusations.

Our initial presentation focused on one smoking gun fact.....where the plane flew in relation to the citgo station.

For you to suggest that Timmerman and Vignola who could have only seen the plane for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away just before the alleged impact are remotely as good as witnesses who were right in front of the building with an unobstructed view defies all logic and reason.

WE NEVER SAID SHE MADE ANYTHING UP!

We never said she lied. Deducing is a normal human tendency and is exactly how this deception was carried out so successfully.

We have done NOTHING to manipulate her story. Interview her a million times but it still will not change the FACT that she could have only seen the plane before the alleged impact for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away while all the witnesses who were actually at the location saw the plane on the north side of the citgo.

Obviously you have not talked with her about where it approached from because it certainly was not a normal flight pattern and it certainly didn't fly over the Pentagon until the explosion happened.

Yeah so? What does that have to do with the fact that she could have only seen the plane before the alleged impact for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away? Sorry but Dawn's husband is not a witness to the plane. We simply did not get his name nor is it relevant to Dawn's account. This is not a "basic fact" that we needed to find out or report as it is irrelevant to our investigation. Why don't you just tell us his/your name if you don't like us using his/your wifes name? Why doesn't your wife share YOUR name? Fill us in on these "basic facts" since you find them so important.

What are you talking about? First off......Dawn declined to even give us an interview. She simply allowed us in the apartment to get images of her POV. Luckily she did because now people like you can't lie about her account because now we can prove that she could have only seen the plane before the alleged impact for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away.

Dawn answered questions for us but she was not very detailed and she kept claiming how she didn't remember specifics about exactly where the plane flew etc.

THAT is what she told us so if her memory all of the sudden gets better then THAT will be suspicious.

What types of tests? What are you talking about? She already explained to us how she was hazy on the specific details of where the plane flew. The POV already proves that she could have only seen the plane before the alleged impact for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away.

There isn't much else you can get from her but go right ahead.

We have never accused her of trying to make money and regardless of your additional baseless, accusatory, personal attack we have not made a dime in this investigation yet we have provided a massive body of evidence beyond what the entire mainstream media has accomplished since this world historical tragic deception took place.

Prove it! Show us some interviews you have done.

You are merely attacking us and shooting off your mouth. You are NOT on even standing and you have NOT shown that you are an unbiased journalist of any sort. You are anonymous and you have provided no evidence at all. You are simply making unsupported personal attacks against us.

We are real people with real names who have published real data.

You are NOT on "even standing" until you tell us who you are and give us examples of these interviews you are bluffing about.

Have you interviewed the citgo witnesses? If not doesn't that mean that YOU left THEM out?

Clearly YOU believe in the unsupported official conspiracy and have provided ZERO evidence for your faith based claim.

You have nothing to stand on. Back up your claims AND your accusations with facts or it's clear you are simply LYING.

Prove it. You don't know us and you have no idea what you are talking about. Back up your baseless attacks. You keep making these bold claims about our methods but have not provided a SINGLE example to back them up.

Prove it. Where is the evidence that you have provided and "examined"?

That is not evidence. That is you making up irrelevant information.

If you are referring to Robert Turcios why don't you use his name?

But you are wrong......Robert could have seen everything from where he was at the pump as the mound was smaller on 9/11. He did not have to run up to the mound to see the plane on the north side like all the other witnesses did INCLUDING 2 new ones that weren't even in our movie one of which was in the heliport control tower.

Who are you talking about? None of the witnesses we present were inside a car or "enclosed". The only need to know which side of the station the massive jumbo jet that was a few dozen feet away from them flew.

That's a few dozen feet.

Not 4,000.

Huh?

Your sentence does not even make sense. Nothing invalidates the citgo witnesses. They prove 9/11 was a deception and had an INFINITELY better view of the event then Vignola/Timmerman who could have only seen the plane before the alleged impact for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away.

The fact that she saw a white plane on the approach simply further proves the official story false.

That was white.

But they only had less than half a second to see the alleged impact from 4,000 feet away.

You stopped making sense again. The citgo witnesses were a few dozen feet from the plane and they all saw it on the north side.

Sean Boger was in the heliport tower so he watched it come right towards him.


His approximate POV:


What he said about where the plane flew:
""It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."

They ALL saw it on the north side.

15 seconds??

They only had less than half a second to see the alleged impact from 4,000 feet away.

It doesn't matter for how long they saw the white plane approach before it disappeared behind the apartment complex.




-----

Wrong.

The citgo witnesses were a few dozen feet from the plane as it passed right by the station. They were directly in front of the Pentagon and had an INFINITELY better view then Vignola and Timmerman who were 4,000 feet away.

Our "report" deliberately focused on one piece of evidence......the north side claim.

I am just about finished with our new presentation that covers all the details of the C-130 and ALL second plane witnesses.

You can simply wait for that because it is clear you have A LOT of learning to do and that you have done very little research if any in regards to the Pentagon attack.

The C-130 is very real.

The pilot's name is Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien.

There are plenty of witnesses to the C-130. Most say it showed up within 60 seconds but some even say that it "shadowed" the AA jet and flew away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

Do a few google searches.

You'll come up with quite a bit.

Come off it already.

We are not concerned with his/your name.

It is not relevant to any evidence or our investigation.

Come off it already.

This is getting old.

She repeats what he says.

It's a fact.

It really doesn't matter but it is a fact.

So?

He said stuff and she repeated it.

She got help from her "plane person' roommate.

Big deal! We don't care.

He helped her.

This is clear.

Except that we never said that she is not a valid witness so this entire statement is based on a fallacy.

We only claim that she deduced the impact.

This does not make her "invalid" just as it does not make the citgo witnesses invalid either for doing the SAME THING.

So prominent?

How so?

Because it was mentioned in passing in a comprehensive list of ALL previously published witnesses?

If this is ALL you have to discredit us it sure is a weak case.

This is an insignificant and irrelevant point that you are choosing to dwell on endlessly.

It doesn't matter WHY she used some of Timmerman's words.

We didn't have to ask about it because we can hear her doing it on the interview.

We have never suggested or believed that his invalidates her account so you have no point.

WE ARE NOT "HELL BENT ON INVALIDATING HER ACCOUNT"!

Why do you keep saying that?

You are going on endlessly over NOTHING.

No it didn't.

The saw it for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away.

They have no clue what the plane did and you just admitted it.

Yes it was an incredible deception.

The citgo witnesses were deceived as well.

The placement of the plane on the north side of the station by ALL the witnesses proves it.

Vignola and Timmerman do not change this.

If she saw it for such a long time as you claim she would the reflection change and the plane would have looked silver.

She definitively reports the plane as white.

We believe her.

We also believe that she was genuinely deceived into deducing the impact just like the citgo witnesses were.

The white claim is not "irrelevant".

You only say so because it contradicts your conspiracy theory.

You have preconceived notion that the plane hit the building even though you have zero evidence to prove it other than your wife's, I mean Dawn Vignola's account of seeing the plane for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away just before the explosion.

Yes they did. They all deduced the impact exactly like Dawn did.

They can't have "deduced" the massive jumbo jet passing right by them a few dozen feet away.

No it is not my logic.

The witnesses who were closer.....had a better view.

THAT is my logic and it is based on physical reality.

Believe me.....we KNOW that the C-130 account has been lied about.

But there was a C-130. Just ask the pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien.

It was there within 60 seconds.

But the notion that Vignola and Timmerman and the best witnesses even though they only saw the plane before the explosion for less than half a second from 4,000 feet away is sheer lunacy.

Prove it.

You are wrong.

You have clearly not researched the Pentagon attack.

The only reason this is irrelevant is because the plane did not hit the building at all.

They could not witness the alleged impact.

A half of second is not enough time for the human brain to register and 4,000 feet is a long ways away.

Wrong.

It means it would have been LESS time and at a more difficult to view angle.

Wrong.

We have talked to a lot of people who saw the plane on the approach.

The question is what happened once it reached the building and the fact is that Timmerman and Vignola are HORRIBLE witnesses to this because a big high rise apartment complex blocked their view and they were 4,000 feet away.

We provide facts. I am not "booted" from ANY websites.

YOu are the one emotionally involved with Vignola and Timmerman.

This is quite evident.

We never nagged her.

Now you are lying.

We probably talked to her a total of 3 times on the phone before our visit.

We have done NOTHING to misrepresent her and haven't even published anything about her account yet.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Prove you're not.

We don't believe the C-130 shadowed anything.

It came in within 60 seconds.

It's not our fault that some dubious eyewitnesses report such unsupported nonsense as cover for the decoy jet that didn't really hit the building.

Now unless you can provide examples of your research and your stellar completely unbiased professional journalism and perfect interviews that prove the official story correct you will have proven yourself a liar and we can end this discussion now.

Evidence supports CIT, interviews and video footage back up all critical pieces of evidence. North side "claim", more like the North side Fact. Plan271, only a brainwashed imbecile would believe what you try to push. You cannot argue it, and while you are arguing it anyway, who do you expect will listen?

It's worth reading all of this though, because CITs' responses are the best. Quash 'em!

Keep up the good fight CIT.