Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman

Research and investigation regarding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11

Dawn Vignola and Hugh "Tim" Timmerman

plan271
Curious Citizen
plan271
Curious Citizen
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 09:53

21 Jan 2008, 10:03 #1

Dawn Vignola (INTERVIEWED by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)


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.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

21 Jan 2008, 15:51 #2

plan271 @ Jan 21 2008, 10:03 AM wrote:
These two people continue to represent the best witnesses to the flight path and crash. 

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?
Reply
Like

A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 31 Aug 2007, 20:26

21 Jan 2008, 16:05 #3

Dawn Vignola (INTERVIEWED by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)


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.

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.


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.

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. 


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

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.


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.
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
~Emperor Haile Selassie I, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Ras Tafari)
Reply
Like

Hayden
Concerned Citizen
Hayden
Concerned Citizen
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 21:28

23 Jan 2008, 02:44 #4

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?
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

23 Jan 2008, 07:30 #5

Hayden @ Jan 23 2008, 02:44 AM wrote: 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.
Reply
Like

plan271
Curious Citizen
plan271
Curious Citizen
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 09:53

04 Feb 2008, 16:40 #6

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.

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?


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.
Reply
Like

A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
A. Marquis
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 31 Aug 2007, 20:26

04 Feb 2008, 22:14 #7

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.

During my in-person interview of Timmerman, the day of the attack,


Would you like to tell us who you are?

Or perhaps you've already told us...

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.


Is this Mr. Vignola?

I'll get to your post later in detail.
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
~Emperor Haile Selassie I, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Ras Tafari)
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

04 Feb 2008, 23:21 #8

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.

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 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.
Reply
Like

Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Craig Ranke CIT
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: 30 Aug 2007, 02:01

04 Feb 2008, 23:36 #9

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.


Reply
Like

DonM
Curious Citizen
DonM
Curious Citizen
Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 04:52

04 Feb 2008, 23:52 #10

Craig,

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

thanks
Don
Reply
Like