Mike Walter setting his story straight

Just thought I'd put this video on the boards (if it hasnt been put already).

Basically, Mike Walter (journalist) is setting his eyewitness account straight in a sincere manner about the Pentagon crash. He adds (which I havent heard from an eyewitness) that the plane continued into the building and the wings folded backwards.....

anyways, you be the judge.

Mike Walter Eyewitness Account

^^*Video of Mike Walter Pentagon eyewitness account*^^

^bump^

*this is the only bump I'm doing because I wanted to see if I can get a response(not neccessary), and to get more people aware of this video if they haven't already*

The Mike Walter episode is so dumb. People caught on to this early on - only IPS and a few others ever bothered pretending he actually meant missile. In case you still don't know, anybody, he said it was an AA jet that was LIKE a missile, I guess in that it was being used as a weapon the pierce a bunker. Mt favorite thing about this was the Power Hour folks sending me a free copy of CNN's "America Remembers" when I bought IPS (I was curious, okay?) so I could see for myself that CNN also only played that part of his interview! Anf they showed the pods, right there in "plane site," which is actually a rare visual and mental disroder.

Very very very interesting.

For the record I had dinner at Mike Walter's house.

This claim of the wings "folding" and entering the building is new.

Why does he claim this yet this was not what was asserted by the ASCE report?



Or Purdue?


And wouldn't the center of the hole be larger than 16 feet if the wings and engines were added to the width of the fuselage?




An interesting thing that he told us was that plane made a "graceful bank" before lining up with the pentagon and increasing speed.

According to the official flight path that lines up with the physical damage there would be no bank whatsoever that was visible to Mike Walter on route 27.

Our witness flight path north of the citgo, however, most certainly does require a bank.




Physical damage flight path (no bank)




Also.....the notion that so many high level USA Today/Gannett Publishing reporters and editors were all stuck in traffic within this tiny less than a quarter mile stretch of hwy that was the best possible view of the incident isn't even a coincidence is ridiculous.

9:38 is not a typical time to be driving to work.

Were they all coincidentally late at the exact same moment that day?






This stretch of hwy would be the commute for many many thousands of workers with many other organizations.


This is in the very least an amazing coincidence and for them to brush it off like it's nothing is indicative of having something to hide.

Okay, so we've got a new flight path based on eywitnesses and apparently the NTSB's FDR path, and a "damage pattern" flight path consistent with the original story? So clearly this means two planes ala Eastman's overflight theory, right? Hmmm... and as for the damage pattern, I'm curious what the question and graphic here mean - do you mean to show the damage IS consistent with a 757 and the hole IS bigger than 16 feet? I guess I'm wondering which - if either - of the two were 757s or something looking and behaving very like that. This is all new of course and will fall into place shortly I gather...

Interesting.
Thanks for the link and the bump.
I wouldnt have seen it otherwise.

Why does the Purdue Sim start at the collums and not at the Kevlar reinforced wall. The composite nose section would have been destroyed at the wall. Also the wings would have hit the wall first and probly not made it into the collums and with the engine found outside its a good sign the wings were damaged before hitting the building.

I would guess that you should e-mail Purdue and ask them that very relevant question.

In this interview with Bryant Gumble shortly after 9/11 Mike Walter contradicts his latest detailed claim of seeing the wings fold:

Mr. WALTER:...and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon"
...
"GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and..."
...
"GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away."
members.iinet.net.au...

He wasn't so confident about the details back then!

But he most certainly WAS correct in the fact that trees would have obstructed his view.

So maybe he wanted people to get off his back then with his new video?

Apparently he knew he didn't see it all, so he made this video to go with the official story, ad-lib what he saw that made sense in his mind, don't say anything about what was in front of him (trees), and leave it at that... AND tried people to buy the journalists book so we can check the FACTS.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by BigMoser]

He knows about our film.

I don't believe there is anything coincidental going on here.