Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him
- Thread starter Totovader
- Start date
We had dinner at Mike Walter's house toto. We spent about 3 or 4 hours there chatting and drinking beer with him, his wife, and his friend.
Nice guy but he is most likely simply embellishing his account because he knows he saw a plane and was fooled into believing it hit the building so the "missile" theories got him mad enough to embellish more details than he really saw.
1. He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building.
There would be no "bank" in the official fllight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27.
But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!
(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)
2. He ADMITTED on an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television that trees blocked his view of the impact!
September 12th 6AM eastern on CBS:
He could not have seen the impact in the detail that he describes in this new video (that was released THIS YEAR) if at all. He has never said anything about wings "folding" in the past.
He told us a very interesting story about how the FBI interrogated him but was most curious about his claim of the plane making a "graceful bank" and specifically asked him about his use of the word "graceful".
I bet they did since this contradicts the official story!
He was very detailed in his description of this graceful bank to us but made no mention whatsoever about wings folding.
Nice guy but he is most likely simply embellishing his account because he knows he saw a plane and was fooled into believing it hit the building so the "missile" theories got him mad enough to embellish more details than he really saw.
1. He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building.
There would be no "bank" in the official fllight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27.
But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!
(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)
2. He ADMITTED on an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television that trees blocked his view of the impact!
September 12th 6AM eastern on CBS:
Here was his view:
He could not have seen the impact in the detail that he describes in this new video (that was released THIS YEAR) if at all. He has never said anything about wings "folding" in the past.
He told us a very interesting story about how the FBI interrogated him but was most curious about his claim of the plane making a "graceful bank" and specifically asked him about his use of the word "graceful".
I bet they did since this contradicts the official story!
He was very detailed in his description of this graceful bank to us but made no mention whatsoever about wings folding.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
What nonsense...
The official version also mentions a graceful bank, and it was done at high enough altitude anyone in the area would have noticed it...
Why do people lie in the face of overwhelming evidence?
What is going on in their brain to allow them to do this?
-Gumboot
The official version also mentions a graceful bank, and it was done at high enough altitude anyone in the area would have noticed it...
Why do people lie in the face of overwhelming evidence?
What is going on in their brain to allow them to do this?
-Gumboot
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
MIKE WALTER: "I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball." http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html
You are quite wrong.
He could not have seen the 360 degree loop in the NTSB flight path nor did he describe anything of the sort.
That loop is FAR from his field of vision and the topography of the area would not allow him to see it.
Plus he specifically described a "BANK" seconds before the plane picked up speed and hit the Pentagon.
He does not claim he saw the plane for a few minutes. It was seconds.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
What garbage...
You're reading things into people's statements that aren't there...
Do you know what a "bank" is? The turn performed by AA77 involved a bank, and everyone would have been able to see this turn because it was down at higher altitude.
-Gumboot
Yep.
Embellishment.
His interview with Russell Pickering was long after his interview with Bryant Gumbel.
He was quite clear with Gumbel that the trees blocked his view of the impact and since there most certainly WERE trees that blocked his view we know that he was being truthful at that time.
The "bank" would have been up by the Navy Annex and so the trees he was talking about with Russell that were "adjacent" to route 27 and the ONLY ones that could have caused him to momentarily lose his view are these:
The "bank" he was talking about was NOT the 360 degree loop as that would mean he would have seen the plane for minutes not seconds.
You seriously need to take a long hard look at that map......go to the area......drive where Mike Walter was on route 27 and look in that direction.
That loop is FAR from his field of vision and if that was the "bank" he was talking about he would have seen the plane for MUCH longer.
It's impossible and it is not what he describes.
The turns you show are impossible for a jet doing 500 mph without doing 7gs. SEVEN times gravity g-forces are needed to do your maneuver. A 757/767 can not do 7gs without 70 plus degrees of bank, and the plane could fail. A Gentle bank of 6 degrees would not give the turn radius you show. THIS is simple geometry and flight physics. You can run the numbers if you were not so challenged to find facts and just plan telling lies.We had dinner at Mike Walter's house toto. We spent about 3 or 4 hours there chatting and drinking beer with him, his wife, and his friend.
Nice guy but he is most likely simply embellishing his account because he knows he saw a plane and was fooled into believing it hit the building so the "missile" theories got him mad enough to embellish more details than he really saw.
1. He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building.
There would be no "bank" in the official fllight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27.
But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!
(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)
2. He ADMITTED on an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television that trees blocked his view of the impact!
September 12th 6AM eastern on CBS:
Here was his view:
He told us a very interesting story about how the FBI interrogated him but was most curious about his claim of the plane making a "graceful bank" and specifically asked him about his use of the word "graceful".
I bet they did since this contradicts the official story!
He was very detailed in his description of this graceful bank to us but made no mention whatsoever about wings folding.
The turns you show are impossible! Your whole story is a lie. Facts say you are telling lies. Proof is right here with your turn photo! Got you, you are telling lies.
A graceful bank at 500 mph would be basically a straight line as seen on 9/11, do the math! Stop telling lies lyte. Check out the FDR and the bank angle and the heading changes! Why are you telling so many lies?
Can you do the math? If you could you would see how you are telling lies. Learn how to do math!
Did you even read what was said? He said the plane went behind the 2001 trees and then he saw the impact; oops you are just telling more lies. Has anyone counted all the lies you have posted over and over again? Learn math and you really need some reading comprehension courses right away. Even you own witnesses agree with Mike!
Last edited:
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
am i missing something?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I've not seen a single statement from him that this bank lasted "seconds". Would you care to provide one? Secondly, in the statement Gravy quoted he sees the aircraft part way through its turn, thus it could have been turning for some time BEFORE he saw it. In addition, you don't seem to understand that we can see further away when things are in the sky.
When AA77 began its turn it was at 7,000ft, at the end of its turn it was at 2,000ft. At those altitudes, in the relatively open landscape of that area, any aircraft would have been clearly visible from virtually any vantage point for many miles.
-Gumboot
When AA77 began its turn it was at 7,000ft, at the end of its turn it was at 2,000ft. At those altitudes, in the relatively open landscape of that area, any aircraft would have been clearly visible from virtually any vantage point for many miles.
-Gumboot
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Graceful bank my ass...
Yes. The fact that he was WAY less confident with his embellishment on 9/12.
Plus you forgot the second part when Gumbel presses him further:
This is what he really saw. Trees and a fireball.
Are you calling Mike Walter a liar?
I told you that was a rough version.
It was probably closer to this:
Regardless.....you are splitting hairs.
He saw a "bank" and the plane pick up speed.
He would not have seen a bank at all, graceful or not, if the official story were true.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Are you calling Mike Walter a liar?
I told you that was a rough version.
It was probably closer to this:
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/finalflightpath.jpg[/qimg]
Regardless.....you are splitting hairs.
He saw a "bank" and the plane pick up speed.
He would not have seen a bank at all, graceful or not, if the official story were true.
Yes he would... the complete turn that AA77 would have produced a bank that EVERYONE would have seen. At the end of that "bank" it leveled out, went to full power, and dove for The Pentagon. Precisely what he described.
-Gumboot
Tell us all the g force your turns require? Either you can tell us the gs required to do the turns and how it was done, or you are telling lies. The plane can not do the turns you say it did with only 6 degrees or less bank as all the witnesses say the plane was doing. You have no clue, and you never will.
Do you have the g force required for your turns?
Last edited by a moderator: