• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dawn Vignola Account

BCR

Master Poster
BCR
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
2,278
A few years ago I had an exchange with Dawn Vignola who was extremely upset, claiming that Craig and Aldo of CIT had distorted and misrepresented her account in an interview she provided for them. I have not had the opportunity to visit her since that exchange, but Erik Larson has done so recently. He also conducted an number of other interviews, but I'm waiting on him to complete his summaries of them before saying much more (I already jumped the gun with the Paik photo).

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.
Click to expand...
Dawn Vignola Interview



An interesting aspect of the interview is that Dawn claims the plane definitely passed between them and the Sheraton such that she "seen it cross 'in front' of the Sheraton".

I estimate the Sheraton Hotel to be between 180-200 feet agl at the roofline. This is of course a rough estimate and perhaps others have a better one. The ground elevation at the hotel is ~150 feet and in the area that corresponds to the line-of-sight for Vignola, the elevation below the aircraft would have ranged between 120 - 130 foot. The Warren decode has a radio altitude of 233 feet at this time, which is just about the right elevation (within reasonable error) for the plane to 'cross in front' from Vignola's vantage point.

What is certain about not only her account, but also that of Timmerman who was with her at the time, they were perhaps best suited to see any 'fly-over'. They did not, and instead observed the plane slam into the Pentagon. No wonder CIT wanted to dismiss her account.
 
They discount the crush marks on building facades, the cut-outs of aircraft in the sides of the towers and an airplane-shaped hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and live footage of the aftermath of the strikes.

Naturally, they are going to dismiss any accounts of the people on the ground or on good observation points.
 
Here is Larson's article.

I love his comment later in the thread

After sending the link to Dawn and Dan, Dan corrected me on a couple things, which I've corrected in the article and video, 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.
Click to expand...


Oopsie. His writings sure match his facial expression.
 
Show me your enemies and i tell you who you are. Another coordinated campaign after Ashley/Hoffman so desperately failed last time. If it wasn't for you guys, i would never have revisited CIT's work. They must do something right.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Show me your enemies and i tell you who you are. Another coordinated campaign after Ashley/Hoffman so desperately failed last time. If it wasn't for you guys, i would never have revisited CIT's work. They must do something right.
Click to expand...

Amen, they are consummate scam artists, preying on the weak minded and the gullible.

I mean, what balls it must take to publish highly edited and completely staged videos. Most of us see right through it, but there are a handful of people who are suckered in by it.

Fortunately, their theory is so stupid that it in fact infects every thing it touches.

No wonder the Truthers hate these No Plane nit wits.
 
18987

adam syed said:
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

comment on 911blogger
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
18987
Click to expand...
Wow, 911Blogger, a great source for woo. No surprise you present hearsay refuted by real evidence called RADAR, FDR, and damage made by flight 77 people witnessed. ..., real evidence proves your support useless and unable to turn dirt dumb delusions into reality based conclusions.

Anyone interviewing the witnesses with proper procedures will find CIT failed. Anyone watching CIT videos will see major errors and leading the not the witnesses but the gullible into agreeing with the dumbest ideas I have seen. Not matter how many times Craig says north the witnesses are pointing to the south flight path; hilarious comedy from incompetent investigators.

911Blogger, not a source for reality, a source for moronic conspiracy theories and a forum to post stupid about 911. It is hard to find more moronic ideas than those posted at 911Blogger; pure stupid. Sourcing 911Blogger makes your post a failure.

No Fly Over; now what, 8 more years of failure?
 
A few years ago I had an exchange with Dawn Vignola who was extremely upset, claiming that Craig and Aldo of CIT had distorted and misrepresented her account in an interview she provided for them.
Click to expand...

Care to link us to this interview and point out this alleged "misrepresentation"? Of course you can't because it does not exist.

Dawn and her husband had already seen The PentaCon before they invited CIT into their home and had already made up their minds that she was not going on camera. Dawn never gave CIT an interview which is why neither you, Larsen, nor Vignola are able to cite where they allegedly misrepresented her.

Why do you think she lied about that and why are you pushing that lie here when you are well aware that there is no CIT interview of Dawn Vignola?
 
mudlark said:
Care to link us to this interview and point out this alleged "misrepresentation"? Of course you can't because it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Actually, they were email correspondence and I do have the emails in my files. However, unlike some I don't make it a habit of posting confidential emails on internet forums without people's consent unless they are a participant on the forum and can respond for themselves. However, Craig and Aldo were aware at the time of my communications with Vignola. Is that your response to the eyewitness account, everyone is a liar?
 
mudlark said:
Care to link us to this interview and point out this alleged "misrepresentation"? Of course you can't because it does not exist.

Dawn and her husband had already seen The PentaCon before they invited CIT into their home and had already made up their minds that she was not going on camera. Dawn never gave CIT an interview which is why neither you, Larsen, nor Vignola are able to cite where they allegedly misrepresented her.

Why do you think she lied about that and why are you pushing that lie here when you are well aware that there is no CIT interview of Dawn Vignola?
Click to expand...
If I was her I wouldn't be thrilled with the "alleged" insinuation on these two videos. By Craig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhUhExuv6vk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s&feature=related

Just saying.
 
blog nonsense said:
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.
Click to expand...


This person does realize the difference between granting an interview and granting recording of the interview, yes?
 
Reading comprehension problems? I didn't ask for your emails to her nor do I care about them. You said......



A few years ago I had an exchange with Dawn Vignola who was extremely upset, claiming that Craig and Aldo of CIT had distorted and misrepresented her account in an interview she provided for them.
Click to expand...


So please provide us with a link to the CIT interview with her where they allegedly did this or admit that it is a lie. If you can't source the interview it means either you're lying about what she said or she is lying. So which is it?

Jesus man, do you really not care about other people reading these threads where you have repeatedly LIED.

It´s a simple request. put up or shut up..it´s embarrassing and a waste of my and other people´s time.
 
DGM said:
If I was her I wouldn't be thrilled with the "alleged" insinuation on these two videos. By Craig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhUhExuv6vk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s&feature=related

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Does it change the FACT of what I just posted? No.
There was NO interview. So how could CIT contort a fictional dialogue?
It never took place! Another bare-faced lie.
I hope any of these witnesses that have ALLEGEDLY been interviewed are aware of the cointel/liar accusations made by others of them?
It´s just a link away too.
 
mudlark said:
Reading comprehension problems? I didn't ask for your emails to her nor do I care about them. You said......






So please provide us with a link to the CIT interview with her where they allegedly did this or admit that it is a lie. If you can't source the interview it means either you're lying about what she said or she is lying. So which is it?

Jesus man, do you really not care about other people reading these threads where you have repeatedly LIED.

It´s a simple request. put up or shut up..it´s embarrassing and a waste of my and other people´s time.
Click to expand...

I know your world is falling apart, but please pay attention.

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
Click to expand...

My statement is what she claims, and you are claiming she is lying. Suddenly I am lying because I am reporting what she claims. They did grant you an interview, but declined to have it recorded. The only person wasting anyone's time is CIT in childish efforts such as yours to call people liars without foundation to do so. Let's see, a priest is a devil and government agent. A cab driver is a brainwashed FBI agent. I lost track of what the USA Today folks were supposed to be, and now Dawn is a liar. We can always tell when you guys get backed into a corner because the first thing you start screaming is 'liar, liar, pants on fire' like a kid in a playground.
 
leftysergeant said:
Naturally, they are going to dismiss any accounts of the people on the ground or on good observation points.
Click to expand...

And the NOC, Navy Annex and right-bank witnesses? Oh wait, they all ¨misremembered¨.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom