Meet Mike Walter: Watch Him Lie About 9/11.

Mr. Walter says in this interview that he heard the roar of the engines of the plane over head and looked up to see, quite clearly, the AA logo of American Airlines on the side of the jet.

Then he says that the plane dove and increased speed toward the Pentagon. Well, if that is the case, then he must have seen the plane a mile or so out because according to the FAA and Norad, that plane was flying low for quite a ways before it struck the Pentagon. How did he hear the “roar of the engines” so far out?

Then he adds the new story-line that he saw the wings of the plane fold back into the body of the jet when it hit.

Look at the pictures from the only release 5 frames of the actual video from the attack.

How did someone “see” the wings “fold back against the plane” in that millisecond of impact that was obscured by the fireball? He couldn’t have. It’s impossible.

But even more telling than all of this…

His original interview with CNN on the day of the attacks.

(This is a follow-up to Aidan Monaghan's blog entry)

This is about Mike Walter. Mike is a liar. He is lying about what he saw on 9/11. And here is the proof.

In a new video out at 9/11 Blogger that details the Mineta testimony excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report, Mike Walter is re-interviewed about what he saw that day.

The troubling part is that his statements now are not the same as when he was originally interviewed by CNN the day of the attacks. In fact, they are vastly different. Mr. Walter needs to be interrogated about why his story has changed; who has made contact with him; and whether or not someone within the FBI or the administration has compelled him to change his story.

“I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,” eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex.

“Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,” he said.

Nothing about the wings folding back. Nothing about the AA logo. In fact, he said it was like a “cruise missile with wings“.

Now here he is, pawning off the latest story from the administration that the wings “folded in” and that explains why the wings didn’t break off and they didn’t leave an outline of a plane in the side of the Pentagon, like what happened at the Trade Center.

Mike Walters is a pathetic liar. He is lying about a terrorist attack on U.S. soil which claimed thousands of lives. In the interest of national security, he should be held for questioning.

Thanks Joe...

great find. Funny he didn't mention the folding wings then. Guess those guys in suits picking up debris had a little chat with him between takes.

He changed his story?

Actually he didn't change his story, only
the truthers who want to believe a missile hit the pentagon
changed his story. That is rather unfortunate.
Watch the unedited clip of what he says only minutes
after the event

In fact, he did change his story...

to include the "folding back wings" meme.

Show me where he talks about seeing that in the first video. Amazing how that little trick slipped his mind that day huh? You would think that something strange like that would stand out in his story.

Pentagon Eyewitnesses

Mike Walter should be asked about his previous statements and why they conflict. Maybe he could explain what he said what he said, and if he cannot, that might be telling.

In general, the first statements of witnesses should be taken as more accurate than later versions. This is because memory is less reliable with time. For example, there are witnesses (being used to promote a particular theory) that get the location of the light poles wrong (i.e. claiming that OTHERS were knocked down), and getting their location as seen on the CITGO gas station wrong (showing up on a different side). In fact, these particluar witnesses have changed their stories too, but that doesn't mean that they are "liars", it can simply mean they misremembered what they saw. Errors like these are common the later after the event, but if you want to understand what witnesses really saw, eyewitness testimony should always be evaluated on the whole--not on individual parts. Of course, you can make conclusions about individual parts, but they don't affect the overall picture. Taken as a whole, the statements tell us what happened, and the odds of "fabrication" become exponentially less plausible. Especially when no compelling contradictory accounts exist (i.e. "I saw a plane fly over the Pentagon", "I saw a global hawk", "I SAW a missile").

But if you take the time to actually read the complete body of eyewitness statements, they are all in agreement about what happened, regardless of what theory you actually believe happened.

I've compiled live TV interviews from witnesses at the Pentagon attack here:

“Engine 101… saw the airliner plow into the northwest side of the Pentagon. The radio crackled, ‘Engine 101—emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon.’”

“I just watched it hit the building. It exploded… I could actually hear the metal going through the building.”

“I saw it fly right into the Pentagon… ‘It just was amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.”

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. [Note: this eyewitness claims he watched everything in ‘slow motion’ due to ‘adrenaline’]. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again—only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon…… I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building”

“The next thing we saw, the airplane crashed into the Pentagon… [It] sucked in the airplane.”

"My people who did see it enter the building described it as entering the building and then there being flames coming out immediately afterwards.”

“[It went] inside the side of the Pentagon. Obviously, it was going in the Pentagon purposefully. I told my husband ‘he’s going into the Pentagon.’ We heard the direct hit—huge crash, saw this fireball, flame and smoke.” Reporter: ‘so you actually saw the plane impact the side of the building?’ [Isabel:] “Yes I did.”

“I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge… The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.”

“I saw it hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next…”

“It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere… It was very sort of surreal.”

“The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky."

“The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. “The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake…The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.”

“I think I actually heard it accelerate—and then it disappeared and a cloud of smoke started billowing.”

“It hit the pentagon. It happened so fast… it was in the air one moment and in the building the next… I still have a hard time believing it, but every time I look out the window, it seems to be more real than it did the time before.”

“A groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon… The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.”

“We watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building.”

“The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon… the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.”

“The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon’s wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud. Its ability to withstand the initial impact of the jet probably saved thousands of lives.”

"He also recalled seeing the tail of the plane as it entered the building, followed by a fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact.”

“The nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact. An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me. The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under coal-black smoke, three-storey tall flames and intense heat.”

“[It] headed for the Pentagon “at a frightening rate… just slicing into that building…”Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon… he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane.”

“It was pretty horrible… he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust… the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport.”

"It] crashed into the west side of the building…It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone.” Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside.”

“It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense… A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. ‘Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?’ That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work… There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building.”

“[it veered] sharply and then slice into the Pentagon… [he] watched the plane slide silently into the Pentagon ‘like a car entering a garage’ [note: witness was far from Pentagon causing a delay before the explosion could be heard].”

“I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building…I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red.”
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Let me explain something

I don't care if you parade 60k witness statements that say they can identify every signle person on the plane because they could see them through the windows.

Not a single one of those witnesses mentioned the wings folding back like an accordian. And that includes Mr. Walter.

It fact, they didn't mention that because its just simply impossible.

Momentum is a relationship between velocity and mass.

Attached to those wings that happened to "fold back" is the real weight of the plane: the Rolls Royce engines; all 9 tons of them. They were also providing the "thrust" that moved the plane.

Are you suggesting that a composite nose-cone bust thru the wall of the Pentagon while each 9 ton ignited jet engine bounced off the wall and "folded back" into the body of the plane?

If anything, the wing structure would have peeled off and the engines and body of the plane would have continued into the structure of the Pentagon.

Let's not be affraid as 9/11 Truthers, to really about physics, and the implausability of the official story.

You think that they would have put a idiot "hijacker" behind the controlsof that plane and let him crash into the Pentagon... where Rumsfeld was on the other side?

What if he had missed a bit and hit the top of the building or the middle?

No, they needed precision. And Hanjour wasn't a "precision" pilot by any accounts.

The story doesn't add up and the fact that Walter's now adding the "folding wings" aspect to his story proves he was lying about what he saw.

He should at least be reinterogated to figure out exactly why his story is changing.

Let me ask you something

Imagine you are Mike Walter.

Now imagine (even if you don't believe this) that a plane has just flown into the Pentagon.

Question #1: How fast was it going? According to the official story, it was going at about 500 m.p.h.
Question #2: Based on this information, how much DETAIL do you expect to be able to remember (years later) when you watched the plane impact the Pentagon at such a velocity? How much detail do you think you would remember?

I completely agree that Walter's description is odd, but the point is, how could he ACCURATELY describe what happened to the wings when the plane flew at such a speed? Isn't is possible he is making a generalization based on something that is difficult to describe?

Can you honestly expect Mike Walter or anyone else to be completely accurate in their description of a plane impacting a building at around 500 mph? Isn't a POSSIBILITY that such an event is hard to describe due to the incredible speed of the impact? Well I think it is, and this could explain his strange account of what happened.

His account should be understood for what it is. A generalization of something that happened at 500 mph.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

You can call it what you like to support your argument...

... but to me, when someone says they saw the wings "fold back" into the body of the plane, and they are purporting themselves to be eyewitnesses to the event, I must take them at their word.

That's what he said he saw, so that's his line. Period. Now you can argue it's a "generalization" all you want...

But when he said he saw that physical impossibility take place (because he is simply a stupid talking head whose job it is to say WHAT THEY TELL HIM TO SAY EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE) he loses ALL CREDIBILITY to me.

He said he saw the 'wings fold back into the plane" ... that is a physical impossibility...

... ergo... he is a liar. And if he is a liar, then NONE of his statements should be believed. None of them.

Now, you call it what you want. i call it a lie from a guy who isn't smart enough to know that 9 ton engines that are pulling the plane through the air, wouldn't "fold back" against the side of the airplane.

Apparently you are smart enough to know that, yet you still make excuses for him.


Oh nice. copy and paste replies...

One thing you don't include here or on your site, unless you take the time to read the reference material... is just exactly who all these "witnesses" worked for. many of them are Pentagon contractor employees or media execs. But, you leave that out of your copy and paste up here.

Your argument is not evidence, it is only opinion

This is a bogus argument, since all government and non-government witnesses agree on what happened. On top of that, there were witnesses who did NOT leave reports. And none of them have come forward to claim that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. 8 years later. Perhaps this point of view is good enough for your opinion, but it is not evidence. It certainly isn't worth arguing over.

Interesting how there are MANY witness statements who contradict the official story of 9/11. William Rodriguez and many others are great examples. And yet there are NO examples of any witnesses claiming that they saw anything other than a plane impact at the Pentagon. Insinuations are not evidence.

"Now, you call it what you want. i call it a lie from a guy who isn't smart enough to know that 9 ton engines that are pulling the plane through the air, wouldn't "fold back" against the side of the airplane"

This all depends on the accuracy of a witness who witnessed something at 500 m.p.h. Absolutist understandings of this nature are setting up straw-men. I don't think my explanation is "apologizing" for Walter at all. It makes perfect sense to me that describing an event at 500 mph is going to be difficult to describe--let alone remember accurately years after the event.

If you want to understand eyewitness testimony you look at all of it--not small parts of it. Otherwise, this is just a biased interpretation of the total evidence. The total body of eyewitness statements create the total picture.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Tell you what, just post where they work...

how about that? Is that asking too much? Just post where they get their paychecks?

"This is a bogus argument, since all government and non-government witnesses agree on what happened."

Wrong. Several Pentagon Police Officers reported on the record that the flight path was different.

At Patriots for 9/11 Truth several people working there that day reported that they thought it was explosives.

And MANY witnesses reported that it looked like a "small private jet".

So, no, that statement is just false. Why would you make such a claim, that all witnesses agreed on what happened? That is absurd.