plan271 @ Feb 4 2008, 04:40 PM wrote: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.
Whooooaaa there buddy.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.