I'll take that as a NO! Man... you love this fictional tale, you keep spinning.
Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him
- Thread starter Totovader
- Start date
I'll take that as a NO! Man... you love this fictional tale, you keep spinning.
Like a piece of wood...
I think we should call what he is doing to the Pentagon attack account "whittling", as that is exactly what he is doing. Carve a piece off here, cut a gouge there, all to make it look the way he wants in the end.
TAM
I think we should call what he is doing to the Pentagon attack account "whittling", as that is exactly what he is doing. Carve a piece off here, cut a gouge there, all to make it look the way he wants in the end.
TAM
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Did you confirm that with your witness? Or did you just hear him mention the sign, look at the flight path he claimed, then film the sign you felt was the correct one?
I can't remember his name, but in your Smoking gun vid. you interviewed an Asian mechanic who saw the plane fly overhead. How does his statement line up with this yellow line you've drawn to describe Mike Walter's statement?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Wow. You got it. You accept these witness testimonies as accurate. I'm shocked!
Oh, nevermind. You screwed it up again.
They say it actually slammed into the building. You added "allegedly." Don't do that. Fair enough?
Now, was Sergeant Williams lying about seeing people strapped to airline seats in the Pentagon?
This is important. Think carefully, Lyte.
He is either:
1. Accidentally confusing charred bodies of Pentagon workers in office chairs as having been "strapped" into seats.
2. Embellishing without malice intent.
3. Lying to cover up the crime.
I have no way of knowing which but these are the only possibilities.
You forgot the most likely one.
4. He is telling the truth, and CIT are wrong, again!
Lyte, I have a question:
If the official story (which his account is part of) is not a possibility, than why have you not gone to someone who can do something about this with your amazing proof that shows, conclusively, that the official story is an impossibility?
TAM
I was right next to him.
He pointed out the sign.
He drew the flight path.
Originally over the phone he had specifically told us that he saw the plane "pull up" to the left of the bridge after passing by the north side of the station.
That is why we flew to Arlington to get his account on camera and see if we could corroborate it or refute it with the other witnesses that were at the citgo.
Well it was only corroborated.
We did not coerce all these witnesses to make this claim.
Watch the interviews again.
It's all quite clear.
Lyte, I have a question:
If the official story (which his account is part of) is not a possibility, than why have you not gone to someone who can do something about this with your amazing proof that shows, conclusively, that the official story is an impossibility?
TAM
We have and we will continue to contact others as well.
Thanks for your concern.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Lyte, the light poles... is it your claim that the plane was supposed to fly over the poles, and the secret agents were then to plant the poles to make it appear as though the plane hit them? But the plane then flew over the wrong area?
If you were doing a flyover, why not just have the plane go where you claim it did, and thus have no need to plant broken light poles?
Or better yet, just crash the plane into the Pentagon like they did at the WTC?
The whole thing is just nonsensical.
If you were doing a flyover, why not just have the plane go where you claim it did, and thus have no need to plant broken light poles?
Or better yet, just crash the plane into the Pentagon like they did at the WTC?
The whole thing is just nonsensical.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Including the citgo witnesses and Edward this flight path was estimated solely on the accounts of 9 eyewitnesses. All 5 that haven't been presented yet are previously unpublished witnesses that we found from canvassing the area.
The speed is 443 KIAS to 463 KIAS for 77 on 9/11. What g force and bank angle is required for your turns?
I hate repeating myself for you guys and typically ignore questions that were previously asked but I will answer this again since it seems like most of you didn't get it the first time.
The physical damage was staged.
They simulated a flight path with the light poles and simulated damage that mimics a plane impact in the building.
The plane was a diversion AND used to create an illusion.
But the illusion could not fool everyone so they had to have cover stories and many other factors to confuse everyone such as other planes circling the area before and after the event as well as fake reports of a 2nd plane that "shadowed" the AA jet and veered off over the Pentagon just after the explosion.
So the low flying passenger jet over Arlington was meant to fool people into being THE plane that made impact but at the same time get blended into the other accounts of a 2nd plane that allegedly followed it.
Get it now?
What is your source for the speed?
Okay, you tell me the speed and bank angle and g force. What do you have?