• 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

16.5 said:
Hey, how is the National Security Alert coming? heh heh heh.
Click to expand...



From their stupid website they're so proud of, this has been up since June:
This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability efforts. For now please contact us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.

Ha Ha! Jackasses. Goes to show they don't even take this stuff seriously.
 
sorry, denial is the what the you an the truth movement practice, not us.

As shown by the fact that you've ignored EVIDENCE since 9/11/2001
 
mudlark said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I should add this quote from Craig Ranke.

To be fair you should say that she refused to go on record.

She did answer our questions in person so you did qualify it as "interviewed by CIT" in the witness list.

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...".
Click to expand...

No apology necessary mudlark.
 
BCR 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...

They had an ´off the record´ talk with her and that´s how it remained.
Off the record.

You say that they ´distorted and misrepresented´ what she said in an interview.
Where is this ´interview´ on record? Where?

No more smoke and mirrors Farmer cryptology on the meaning of the word ´interview´ please. Back your claims up.

psst..I´ll not hold my breath
 
mudlark said:
They had an ´off the record´ talk with her and that´s how it remained.
Off the record.

You say that they ´distorted and misrepresented´ what she said in an interview.
Where is this ´interview´ on record? Where?

No more smoke and mirrors Farmer cryptology on the meaning of the word ´interview´ please. Back your claims up.

psst..I´ll not hold my breath
Click to expand...
Actually wasn't it Dawn herself that said they "distorted and misrepresented" what she said? Why don't you ask her what she meant?
 
mudlark said:
There was NO interview. So how could CIT contort a fictional dialogue?
It never took place!
Click to expand...

I think we should be taking note here that mudlark is breaking new ground in truthiness. We've all seen the "If it wasn't on video, it never happened" argument before, but that's generally couched in terms of the video being the only acceptable standard of proof. There is no doubt that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis spoke with Dawn Vignola, and by any rational definition of the term this constitutes an interview. However, mudlark is saying that this conversation never took place, by definition, because it was not filmed and hence was off the record. Rather than saying "Without video, you can't prove it happened", the truther line can now by "Without video, by definition it never happened". That's a big step further away from sane and rational, and I think we should recognise the achievement.

Dave
 
Good grief. I have "interviewed" people for various publications with no recording being done other than a pad of paper and a pen. I even quoted them in the article that was based on the "interview". However, since it wasn't recorded electronically, does this mean that the "interview" never happened? That is was off the record?

I never thought I would say something like this, as it does make me sound like a grumpy old bag, but jiminy, some people need to get off the computer every now and then.
 
DGM said:
Actually wasn't it Dawn herself that said they "distorted and misrepresented" what she said? Why don't you ask her what she meant?
Click to expand...


I don't know that. All I know is that BCR claims that's what she said to him and he is unwilling to prove it. Since there is no interview that was published by CIT at all it is impossible for them to have distorted or twisted her words. So either BCR is lying, Vignola is lying, or both are lying. Which do you think it is?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think we should be taking note here that mudlark is breaking new ground in truthiness. We've all seen the "If it wasn't on video, it never happened" argument before, but that's generally couched in terms of the video being the only acceptable standard of proof. There is no doubt that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis spoke with Dawn Vignola, and by any rational definition of the term this constitutes an interview. However, mudlark is saying that this conversation never took place, by definition, because it was not filmed and hence was off the record. Rather than saying "Without video, you can't prove it happened", the truther line can now by "Without video, by definition it never happened". That's a big step further away from sane and rational, and I think we should recognise the achievement.

Dave
Click to expand...

You know very well what I meant by that statement.
BCR made an accusation that CIT had ´distorted´ her words in an alleged ´interview´
He obviously has insinuated that this ´interview´ is publically available.
There was no interview in the way he described it.
Three pages into this thread and we are bogged down on the obvious meaning of the word ´interview´ and not on the slightest shred of evidence to back it up.
THAT is the ´achievement´ that should be recognised.
I´ve noticed this from day one of posting here.

edit:typo
 
mudlark said:
I don't know that. All I know is that BCR claims that's what she said to him and he is unwilling to prove it. Since there is no interview that was published by CIT at all it is impossible for them to have distorted or twisted her words. So either BCR is lying, Vignola is lying, or both are lying. Which do you think it is?
Click to expand...

HINT: Physical evidence trumps witness statements. Who's statement is consistent with the fact that the jet that was flight 77 was found inside the Pentagon?
 
Hokulele said:
Good grief. I have "interviewed" people for various publications with no recording being done other than a pad of paper and a pen. I even quoted them in the article that was based on the "interview". However, since it wasn't recorded electronically, does this mean that the "interview" never happened? That is was off the record?

I never thought I would say something like this, as it does make me sound like a grumpy old bag, but jiminy, some people need to get off the computer every now and then.
Click to expand...

That is why police interviews are electronically recorded.
Sorry, given the standards of journalism nowadays I take what was written on a ´pad of paper´ with a pinch of salt.

The very fact that an accusation has been made in this thread without backing it up should be getting your back up more.
I suppose it depends on who is making the claims, huh?

I´m getting grumpy too having to repeat the same request and seeing nothing but English Grammar topics.
 
BigAl said:
HINT: Physical evidence trumps witness statements. Who's statement is consistent with the fact that the jet that was flight 77 was found inside the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

HINT: What has any of what you just said got anything to do with what you just quoted?
Someone tell me, honestly, am I asking too much? Or should I try another language?
 
Until someone actually links me to where CIT twisted Dawn Vignola´s words, I´ll take it that this thread is done.

Later.
 
mudlark said:
Until someone actually links me to where CIT twisted Dawn Vignola´s words, I´ll take it that this thread is done.

Later.
Click to expand...
Take your delusions with you, they are rotting after 8 years of idiotic fantasy killed by reality.

CIT witnesses say 77 impacted the Pentagon; CIT says 77 overflew the Pentagon; CIT witnesses saw 77 impact the Pentagon. You were done 8 years ago and when you decided to side with terrorists who don't want your apologies except to show the world how a fringe few can come up with stupid ideas based on hearsay, lack of logic, and moronic delusions.

No Pulitzer for 911 truth, just failed ideas.
 
mudlark said:
That is why police interviews are electronically recorded.
Sorry, given the standards of journalism nowadays I take what was written on a ´pad of paper´ with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...


Heh. Spoken as only someone entirely unfamiliar with both police work and journalism could speak. This made me laugh. Out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom