Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him

[defaultdotxbe]

That is STILL 100% irreconcilable with the physical damage path!

all your witnesses arte still irreconcilable with EACHOTHER

how can you say they cant be mistaken about the plane goign north of citgo when it when south, when you have witnesses who who north, farther north, even farther north, and directly over citgo?

at some point in your investigation you will have to settle on a single flight path, which means all but one of your witnesses will be wrong

are you willing to build a case on the testimony of only one witness?

 

[Alt+F4]

Send me their contact information.

I would certainly forward them the testimony of the citgo witnesses.

You're the CIT...are you saying that you can't find that information yourself?

 

[A W Smith]

yes its reconcilable if the plane starts its bank just as it crosses the navy annex. It could bank south and just miss clipping the sign gantry and VDOT camera to the south of the bridge. Interesting you point out the steep slope from the annex downhill toward the citgo. would this account for a 185 foot spike in the FDR altitude? Also if we repeat the margin of error of your sweeping flight path you drew on the google map in yellow but instead of the north we err to the south. Then your own witnesses testimony would support a south of Citgo flight. Especially now that I know theres a hill and the shadow from the suns azimuth that day would appear to be heading northerly away from a low altitude shadow in the same path. very interesting.

 

[Brainache]

So none of your witnesses flight paths agree with any other witness' flight path and none of them agree with the physical damage.

I think the only thing you have proven is that witness recollections of what happened in a couple of seconds five years ago are unreliable.

Well done.

 

[Lyte Trip]

It is nothing of the sort. Please, do not use a legal term to describe the content of your video, as (a) you know not what it means; and (b) the content of your video is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of anything.

Also, I notice that you continuously call the content of your video "testimony" and I notice that you repeatedly try to frame the content of your video in a manner suggestive of legal constructs. You do know, do you not, that in legal terms, "testimony" is evidence given under oath? There is nothing in your video to suggest that the interviewees were under oath.

It appears as though you are trying very hard to lend your video some semblance of credibility by deliberately framing your descriptions of it in terms that you know full well are inapplicable - because you realize that it has no credibility with respect to the premises upon which it was based.

I understand how difficult it must be for you to accept that not even your fellow conspiracy theory believers accept your video as even remotely compelling evidence of anything, but does that not give you pause to re-think things and consider that you just may be dead wrong? If not, it should. I mean, if even the diehard, heavy gauge tinfoil members of your group don't buy it... well...

Spin as hard as you can but you cannot refute the facts.

Use semantics to deny what you want but you cannot refute the facts.

Lagasse and Brooks have both told us AFTER viewing the film that they back the north side claim and would willingly testify in court in this regard.

Sorry that you refuse to accept this but it is reality.

 

[Lyte Trip]

You're the CIT...are you saying that you can't find that information yourself?

It is not relevant to our investigation but we are not adverse to presenting the information to them if someone were to provide us with their contact information.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

again.. why do you embellish your north of citgo flight path?

You post this as the path
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon folder 2/finalflightpath.jpg

when paiks path

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-1.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-3.jpg
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/911-2.jpg

is closer to THIS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6449&d=1176513714

If you feel like spending the time you could add polygons centered on the different flight paths on that image that are the width of the flight's wingspan +/- x% margin of error and see how much they overlap then. By just presenting the centerline of the fuselage it makes the lines appear further disparate than they actually are.

 

[Alt+F4]

Spin as hard as you can but you cannot refute the facts.

The DNA evidence is irfuetable.

 

[Lyte Trip]

all your witnesses arte still irreconcilable with EACHOTHER

how can you say they cant be mistaken about the plane goign north of citgo when it when south, when you have witnesses who who north, farther north, even farther north, and directly over citgo?

at some point in your investigation you will have to settle on a single flight path, which means all but one of your witnesses will be wrong

are you willing to build a case on the testimony of only one witness?

Eyewitnesses can only provide us with approximate placement bro.

Approximate.

But ALL corroborate eachother 100% in the FACT that the plane passed to the north side of Columbia Pike and/or the gas station making it IMPOSSIBLE to be what caused the physical damage.

Dig?

 

[pomeroo]

Spin as hard as you can but you cannot refute the facts.

You don't deal in facts.

Use semantics to deny what you want but you cannot refute the facts.

Lagasse and Brooks have both told us AFTER viewing the film that they back the north side claim and would willingly testify in court in this regard.

Sorry that you refuse to accept this but it is reality.

The reality is that the remains of the passengers on Flight 77, killed when that plane crashed into the Pentagon, were identified. That is a fact.

What really happened to Flight 77? How many conspirators were involved in just this small part of the overall scheme?

 

[beachnut]

Quote where either of them ever contradicts the north side claim or drop this repetitive irrelevant post please.

William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

I think hitting the poles as Brooks saw and tells us in this interview blows away the north Citgo junk, and hitting the building pretty much blows away your fly over.

Their old testimony alone would ruin you court of law try, as would 5 or 6 different lines showing 5 or 6 different paths would take your credibility to ZERO and impeach their new statements. You are guilty of witness tampering! Sorry.

You need to listen real carefully and slow so you will understand what your own witnesses are saying 5 YEARS ago. Sorry again.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Eyewitnesses can only provide us with approximate placement bro.

Approximate.

But ALL corroborate eachother 100% in the FACT that the plane passed to the north side of Columbia Pike and/or the gas station making it IMPOSSIBLE to be what caused the physical damage.

Dig?

how many other people saw f77 that day? did you interview anyone else? how many others would confirm a path closer to what the FDR shows?

 

[A W Smith]

If you feel like spending the time you could add polygons centered on the different flight paths on that image that are the width of the flight's wingspan +/- x% margin of error and see how much they overlap then. By just presenting the centerline of the fuselage it makes the lines appear further disparate than they actually are.

Know what I wish? I wish google had a sun shadow angle tool that you could plug altitude and azimuth over a polygon onto a 3d landscape THATS what I wish. boy would THAT be revealing.

yes Lyte i meant robert at citgo not annex. I became confused with the station name change. Its not a citgo now correct?

 

[LashL]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6449&d=1176513714[/qimg]


Ok fine!

That is STILL 100% irreconcilable with the physical damage path!

Don't you see?

There is ZERO room for error in the physical damage flight path.

Edward DEFINITIVELY has it crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike making it IMPOSSIBLE to hit the light poles and damage the building as outlined in the ASCE report!

Nobody has suggested that his estimated flight path is 100% mathematically accurate.

He couldn't even see the Navy Annex let alone the citgo station or Pentagon.

But the fact that he definitively has the ENTIRE PLANE crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike completely contradicts the official story and puts the plane on course with the BANK that Mike Walter and many other witnesses saw before the plane passed over the north side of the gas station.

GET IT NOW???

So, it's 100% positively absolutely correct when it agrees with what you want to believe, but it's not 100% accurate when it disagrees with what you want to believe.

Oh, yes, everyone gets that, Lyte.

In fact, most people always did get it, Lyte, although there were some "truthers" that still didn't get it until you made it obvious, even to them, by way of your little video. Even those "truthers" get it now, Lyte.

 

[Totovader]

Ok mister contributes nothing of substance to the discussion but a single sentence filled with hollow hyperbole.

I don't get it- are you referring to yourself, here?

Pomeroo actually INTERVIEWS people- actually allows them the opportunity to have their conclusions challenged, criticized, and dare I say- refined.

What have you done in the face of criticism? Nothing. You have refused to change your story- you refuse to even ADMIT the contradictions. It's gotten to the point where your claim has so many broken branches and fallen leaves that it doesn't even represent a claim anymore- it's dead.

 

[beachnut]

Eyewitnesses can only provide us with approximate placement bro.

Approximate.

But ALL corroborate eachother 100% in the FACT that the plane passed to the north side of Columbia Pike and/or the gas station making it IMPOSSIBLE to be what caused the physical damage.

Dig?

Sgt Brooks saw flight 77 hit the posts in 2001 and said so in 2001. Sgt Brooks say flight 77 nose dive into the Pentagon, no fly over.

Darn your 1000 percent is just wrong. Your witnesses need to stick with a story. If it was not for all the physical evidence and the fact I worked with people in the USAF on 2001 who know flight 77 hit the Pentagon I would go talk to Brooks and your other witnesses to prove you wrong. But I have over 1000 pieces of evidence that prove you wrong and you ignore all of it to make up lies.

You are just trying to make money on 9/11.
How much do your lies cost a gullible human? How much is the Researchers Edition; how much is JDX taking off the top?

The better story is the fraud of the CIT of the Pentacon. You guys are a con job to make money. The real film is the one which will show how LC, CIT, PFT have all perpetrated a fraud to make money off of 9/11 lies. That day will come and I hope I live to see it. Expose all the liars of 9/11 truth movement just as Nixon was exposed doing Watergate. You guys are the CT, you guys are the ones everyone will be mad at when they learn you are telling lies. However the CIT seems to have the worst reputation of all truthers out there. You guys have chosen the easiest lies to prove wrong just by using your own evidence. Sad stuff, sorry you are not very good at fraud, you could make money if you had not chosen such a obvious fraud.

Except for the PFT, there is not one pilot who will be fooled by your story. There goes millions of people who will see you as fraud if they come across this junk. The millions of engineers can be added also as those most likely to see you as fraud in just a few minutes.

 

[Totovader]

Eyewitnesses can only provide us with approximate placement bro.

Approximate.

But ALL corroborate eachother 100% in the FACT that the plane passed to the north side of Columbia Pike and/or the gas station making it IMPOSSIBLE to be what caused the physical damage.

Dig?

Approximate.

Approximate, and then not?

Which is it? You concede that witness may not be exact- and indeed your witnesses aren't- but then you claim they are 100% correct- despite the MOUNTAINS of physical evidence and ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES which contradict their claims.

You cannot have it both ways- you cannot hand-pick your witnesses, and then hand-pick certain parts of their testimony to fit a predetermined conclusion for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence.

I know you have been told this at least 6 dozen times, but it bears repeating.

This is the reason people laugh at you, Lyte.

 

[A W Smith]

Want to see more of Lytes intellectual dishonesty?

Hey Lyte why not post that birds eye view you have of the annex and citgo? you know the one with the last two or three wings of the annex broken off and pointing more south than the rest of the building? Go ahead. Post it right under my post here, Include the paths you drew on it

 

[Lyte Trip]

I don't get it- are you referring to yourself, here?

Pomeroo actually INTERVIEWS people- actually allows them the opportunity to have their conclusions challenged, criticized, and dare I say- refined.

Oh really?

Please post links to any interviews with eyewitnesses to the plane that he has conducted.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Want to see more of Lytes intellectual dishonesty?

Hey Lyte why not post that birds eye view you have of the annex and citgo? you know the one with the last two or three wings of the annex broken off and pointing more south than the rest of the building? Go ahead. Post it right under my post here, Include the paths you drew on it

You mean this one?

What's wrong with it?