Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him

uk_dave said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_122954620692ccf354.jpghttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_122954620691d7a971.jpg
Click to expand...

That green line means nothing.

The flight path of the plane is established by the ANGLE that he drew.

How do you not understand this?

The path is not a random static moment of your choosing.

It is depicted by a serious of lines that connect geo coordinates on a map which depict a certain trajectory.

Edward estimated that angle for us on illustrations with 3 different points of view and in all of them he demonstrated how the entire plane passed over to the north side of Columbia Pike which is irreconcilable with the phyiscal damage and corroborates the citgo witnesses as well as the witnesses further back on the path south of columbia pike.
 
Lyte Trip said:
That green line means nothing.

The flight path of the plane is established by the ANGLE that he drew.

How do you not understand this?

The path is not a random static moment of your choosing.

It is depicted by a serious of lines that connect geo coordinates on a map which depict a certain trajectory.

Edward estimated that angle for us on illustrations with 3 different points of view and in all of them he demonstrated how the entire plane passed over to the north side of Columbia Pike which is irreconcilable with the phyiscal damage and corroborates the citgo witnesses as well as the witnesses further back on the path south of columbia pike.
Click to expand...

Which of the two pictures I posted was closest to the witnesses view of the flightpath?

1. the view across the roof of the navy annexe?

2. the top down google earth view?
 
A W Smith said:
Hey LOOK!! a flight path north of columbia pike !
Click to expand...

Sure.

If the witnesses had reported such a thing we would have as well.

But alas they did not.

They all place it NORTH of the citgo station no matter how much you fantasize the opposite.
 
uk_dave said:
Which of the two pictures I posted was closest to the witnesses view of the flightpath?

1. the view across the roof of the navy annexe?

2. the top down google earth view?
Click to expand...

The top down google earth view because that puts it closer to where Robert, Chad, and Bill place it.

But BOTH are irreconcilable with the physical damage path.
 
Lyte Trip said:
The top down google earth view because that puts it closer to where Robert, Chad, and Bill place it.

But BOTH are irreconcilable with the physical damage path.
Click to expand...


No, wrong answer.

The view showing the roof of the navy annexe is closest to the actual view the witness would have had on the day.

And when you look at that view you clearly see the structure (green line) connecting the wings of the annexe, running towards the pentagon.

The witness places the estimated flighpath to the south of that structure.

So, which of the lines drawn by the one witness is most likely to be the more accurate?

1. The line drawn looking over the roof of the annexe and relative to the connecting structure?

2. The line drawn on a sattelite photo?
 
Lyte Trip said:
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that any of these pictures are of remains of people that were on the plane as opposed to victims inside the building.

These could very well be the exact remains that Williams was talking about.
Click to expand...


You really don't think they did DNA analysis on these bodies to determine if they were employees at the Pentagon?

There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were employees of the Pentagon. Please correct me if I'm mistaking. Or maybe, if you were the researcher you fancy yourself to be, you'd have contacted the appropriate people to determine if the bodies were in fact employees of the Pentagon or on Flight 77's manifest. Please tell me you've at least done that. I mean, before you accuse Williams of mistaking the bodies. Please tell me you've done that, at least. Then maybe I could pay credence to what you say. You have done that, haven't you? Confirmed the identities of the bodies? You have done that, right? You're not just speculating to win argument points on a message board, right. Since this issue is so obviously important to you (I mean from a human perspective) certainly you've done at least that.

You have confirmed the identities of those bodies, right Lyte?
 
Lyte Trip said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6449&d=1176513714


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???
Click to expand...

Right here i have proof that Edward Paith's flight path north of columbua pike could most certainly have cause the light pole damage
attachment.php
 
uk_dave said:
No, wrong answer.

The view showing the roof of the navy annexe is closest to the actual view the witness would have had on the day.

And when you look at that view you clearly see the structure (green line) connecting the wings of the annexe, running towards the pentagon.

The witness places the estimated flighpath to the south of that structure.

So, which of the lines drawn by the one witness is most likely to be the more accurate?

1. The line drawn looking over the roof of the annexe and relative to the connecting structure?

2. The line drawn on a sattelite photo?
Click to expand...

Why do you spell it "annexe"?

Both images are simply different perspectives for him to estimate with.

But NEITHER remotely resemble his actual point of view.

But in BOTH he is clearly showing the entire plane crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike headed straight for the north side of the gas station and completely contradicting the physical damage flight path which is REQUIRED to remain on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times.

Period.
 
A W Smith said:
Right here i have proof that Edward Paith's flight path north of columbua pike could most certainly have cause the light pole damage
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6455&d=1176530797
Click to expand...

Ok I will concede that.

Without the testimony of the citgo witnesses Edward's testimony alone would not serve as proof that the plane didn't topple the light poles etc.

It WOULD however still serve as solid evidence that the plane crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

And IN LIGHT OF the testimony from the citgo witnesses it becomes PROOF that the plane was fatally off the physical damage flight path.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Since of course I am merely reporting the eyewitnesses claims I would have to say that it is horrible and despicable for you to speak of eyewitnesses to 9/11 in this way.
Click to expand...


So which eyewitness claimed this, Lyte:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2518918&postcount=87

?

Can you kindly provide a link to the eyewitness who made such claims about Williams? Thank you in advance.

I find it horrible and despicable that you would characterize Williams so. Furthermore, I find it tragically ironic that you would take issue with such characterization, especially since it was a mere echo of your own unfounded characterization of Williams.
 
Last edited:
Lyte Trip said:
Why do you spell it "annexe"?

Both images are simply different perspectives for him to estimate with.

But NEITHER remotely resemble his actual point of view.

But in BOTH he is clearly showing the entire plane crossing over to the north side of Columbia Pike headed straight for the north side of the gas station and completely contradicting the physical damage flight path which is REQUIRED to remain on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times.

Period.
Click to expand...

oh dear, it just gets worse doesn't it?

You have an eyewitness attempting to indicate the path of a plane at altitude relative to buildings, roads etc, and you're using photographs which don't even represent his point of view on the day?

Really?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Ok I will concede that.

Without the testimony of the citgo witnesses Edward's testimony alone would not serve as proof that the plane didn't topple the light poles etc.

It WOULD however still serve as solid evidence that the plane crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike.

And IN LIGHT OF the testimony from the citgo witnesses it becomes PROOF that the plane was fatally off the physical damage flight path.
Click to expand...

So now you only have three witnesses?

crikey!
 
uk_dave said:
oh dear, it just gets worse doesn't it?

You have an eyewitness attempting to indicate the path of a plane at altitude relative to buildings, roads etc, and you're using photographs which don't even represent his point of view on the day?

Really?
Click to expand...

Seriously bro....watch the movie before you continue discussion with me.

The entire interview is FILMED with his point of view.

The illustrations were to simply clarify even further what he already describes for you on camera on location.

I am so detailed that it becomes quite boring yet you guys STILL say it's not enough!
 
uk_dave said:
So now you only have three witnesses?

crikey!
Click to expand...

Now the witnesses to the west of Paik become irrelevant unless they discredit Paik. And one of the three witnesses Robert at the Citgo puts it over the canopy. which in all probability is the shadow of the plane. which I illustrated by using the shadow thrown to the northwest by the pentagon security cam security gate shadow. (approx 1 1/2 its height in the video)


Oh and Lyte I watched your video. twice.
 
Last edited:
Mince said:
So which eyewitness claimed this, Lyte:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2518918&postcount=87

?

Can you kindly provide a link to the eyewitness who made such claims about Williams? Thank you in advance.

I find it horrible and despicable that you would characterize Williams so. Furthermore, I find it tragically ironic that you would take issue with such characterization, especially since it was a mere echo of your own unfounded characterization of Williams.
Click to expand...


Nevermind. I found the link of the eyewitness who made those claims about Williams (in my own post nonetheless).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2518918&postcount=87

Turns out it was you, Lyte.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Huh?

We will present 13 when it's all said and done.

All but 2 are on camera.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word for that.

But since the RE isn't finished yet, why don't you just publish the testimony you will be presenting?

Why does it have to be another video?

A well presented paper would be so much quicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom