Mike Walter and the Amazing Banking Plane

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Mike Walter and the Amazing Banking Plane
Topic Started: Feb 14 2008, 03:27 AM (534 Views)
bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 03:27 AM Post #1
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig, I understand you had dinner with Mike Walter, during which he was candid with you concerning his account of witnessing a plane impact with the Pentagon. You have indicated that Mike Walter described the plane in a banking maneuver over the Navy Annex. Your exact words were *"He described the bank in detail to me, Aldo, Dylan, and Russell."* My question for you... Did he say the plane banked to the left or the right? Edited by bileduct, Feb 14 2008, 03:31 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 10:39 AM Post #2
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 14 2008, 03:27 AM Did he say the plane banked to the left or the right? To be honest I don't remember. We had dinner at his house before we talked to any other witnesses so we knew nothing of the north side claim. The conversation was of a casual nature (as opposed to investigative) and he did not agree to be recorded. But I do recall that he had the plane making a "graceful bank" as it approached, not directly in front of him. And I do recall instantly thinking how this doesn't fit the official story of a low and level approach at 535 mph. Of course there is no way he would be able to see any sort of bank at all as the plane passed directly in front of him at light pole level at 535 mph. What's also notable is that Walter said the FBI paid him a visit at work and grilled him about his "graceful bank" comment.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 10:41 AM Post #3
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Question for you....what led to your incorrect claim that he said it was over route 27 and that I was lying about this to fit the flight path we report?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Feb 14 2008, 10:40 PM Post #4
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Yeah Bile, help us understand where you're coming from. I'm all for listening to your info if you actually have something to say, but you have to make some kind of sense. Lay it on us.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:21 AM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: bileduct Feb 14 2008, 03:27 AM Did he say the plane banked to the left or the right? To be honest I don't remember. HOW CONVENIENT. Tell me, does this image ring a bell to you? Hint: Rhetorical question... I know it's yours. Now, please reconcile that image with Mike Walter's statement: MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. Edited by bileduct, Feb 15 2008, 12:21 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:25 AM Post #6
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account. In that image I used Mike Walter's word...."graceful"....to describe the bank that we report based off the totality of independent witness testimony that we present. I will fully admit that the fact that Mike Walter claims he saw the "belly" contradicts this just as it contradicts the ONLY bank angle reported in the FDR. Make of it what you will but Mike Walter does not look good for the official story no matter how you slice it. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 15 2008, 12:25 AM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:28 AM Post #7
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 14 2008, 10:41 AM Question for you....what led to your incorrect claim that he said it was over route 27 and that I was lying about this to fit the flight path we report? What led me to the claim? I don't know, maybe the fact that you misrepresented his statement into supporting your right bank/turn over the Navy Annex? From his position, how can Mike Walter see the underbelly of the plane if it has banked to the right over the Navy Annex, Craig? You do realise a right bank/turn would have the right wing facing downward and the underbelly of the plane would be facing away from his position, don't you? Your behaviour is transparent, Craig. You've cherry picked his "graceful bank" statement to support your ridiculous theory and completely ignored or thrown out the window everything else he says that contradicts you. Shameful.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:29 AM Post #8
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:25 AM I do not believe or trust Mike Walter Yet you have used him to support your ridiculous assertion that the plane banked to the right over the Navy Annex. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79377 Shameful.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:34 AM Post #9
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:28 AM I don't know, maybe the fact that you misrepresented his statement into supporting your right bank/turn over the Navy Annex? Excuse me? What does that have to do with YOU stating that HE claimed it banked over route 27??? Read his statement that you just posted and it is 100% CLEAR that he is describing a bank on the approach and not over route 27. Quote: From his position, how can Mike Walter see the underbelly of the plane if it has banked to the right over the Navy Annex, Craig? You do realise a right bank/turn would have the right wing facing downward and the underbelly of the plane would be facing away from his position, don't you? Yep. I agree. He could not see the underbelly. He did not see the underbelly. He could not have seen the underbelly or a bank on the official flight path as well. This is just ONE of many fatal contradictions demonstrating how Mike Walter's statements are not truthful. Why do you think that is bileduct? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Quote: Your behaviour is transparent, Craig. You've cherry picked his "graceful bank" statement to support your ridiculous theory and completely ignored or thrown out the window everything else he says that contradicts you. Shameful. BS. I highlighted a fatal CONTRADICTION in his account. The fact that he reports a bank at all contradicts the official story. The fact that he reports the WRONG BANK contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses AND the FDR. You better believe that needs to be focused on. You don't have to worry about CIT suggesting that Mike Walter is a legitimate witness to anything. We simply highlighted how he CONTRADICTS the official story.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Feb 15 2008, 12:35 AM Post #10
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	reconcile this for Mike Walter
Posts: 1,978 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:36 AM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:29 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:25 AM I do not believe or trust Mike Walter Yet you have used him to support your ridiculous assertion that the plane banked to the right over the Navy Annex.<br /><br />http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79377<br /><br />Shameful. BS. I highlighted a fatal CONTRADICTION in his account. The fact that he reports a bank at all contradicts the official story. The fact that he reports the WRONG BANK contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses AND the FDR. You better believe that needs to be focused on and thank you very much bileduct for helping clarify this. You don't have to worry about CIT suggesting that Mike Walter is a legitimate witness to anything. We simply highlighted how he CONTRADICTS the official story.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:39 AM Post #12
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: The fact that he reports the WRONG BANK contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses AND the FDR. NONE of your other witnesses have reported seeing the plane bank, Craig. NONE. Shameful! Edited by bileduct, Feb 15 2008, 12:39 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:40 AM Post #13
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	To be perfectly honest bileduct, I never realized that his statements could only support the opposite bank angle reported in the FDR and by the witnesses. I really do appreciate you pointing that out. I simply never thought of him as credible and didn't put the "underbelly" statement together with the bank angle. That was a brilliant catch on your point. Now we have even MORE reason to doubt Mike Walter's account. Excellent catch!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:42 AM Post #14
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:39 AM Quote: The fact that he reports the WRONG BANK contradicts all of the other eyewitnesses AND the FDR. NONE of your other witnesses have reported seeing the plane bank, Craig. NONE. Shameful! Ummmm... The only one who was in a position to see it was Sean Boger and yes he does report it. You are in fantasy land. No matter how many times you repeat the word "shameful" it simply reflects back on you as I pummel you with facts and evidence and you flounder with hollow accusations.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:44 AM Post #15
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:35 AM reconcile this for Mike Walter More dishonesty. Yet another example of CIT twisting the words of witnesses to suit their ridiculous theories. The trees that Lagasse is talking about at the start of this video are the trees to the right of the southbound lanes in Route 27. He clearly describes that those trees would have blocked the view of the oncoming plane for people north of the Pentagon until it crossed Route 27. Walter was to the south of the Pentagon travelling northbound on Route 27. The trees Lagasse is talking about are nowhere near Walter. The trees you have identified only partially block the view of the Pentagon, which can still be seen to the right of the trees and through them if you look carefully. Easily reconciled. Shameful! Edited by bileduct, Feb 15 2008, 12:44 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:44 AM Post #16
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Furthermore the entire body of eyewitness testimony we present requires the bank angle that we first reported based on this evidence. Sean Boger simply confirmed it for us beautifully.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:46 AM Post #17
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: The only one who was in a position to see it was Sean Boger and yes he does report it. And due to the fact that you won't release the video of his statement to be independant verified, it must not exist. Produce the evidence, Craig. Can you do that? No? Doesn't exist, eh? Would you prefer we just took your word for it? You have no witnesses that report seeing the plane bank over the Navy Annex, Craig. Stop pretending. Shameful! Edited by bileduct, Feb 15 2008, 12:47 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:48 AM Post #18
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: Sean Boger simply confirmed it for us beautifully. Produce the evidence Craig. At the moment all we have is your word that he told you. Your word as the perpetrator of a lie is worth exactly nothing. Produce the evidence, Craig. Can you do that?
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:50 AM Post #19
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:44 AM The trees you have identified only partially block the view of the Pentagon, which can still be seen to the right of the trees and through them if you look carefully. Wrong. While you are correct that Lagasse was referring to different trees...... The trees COMPLETELY block the view of the alleged impact point from Walter's confirmed location. This is a fact. We have video and photographic proof. If you don't believe that then go there yourself. If you don't believe that read the transcripts from Walter's interview with Bryant Gumble on 9/12/2001. He did not and could not have seen the alleged impact.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:51 AM Post #20
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:48 AM Your word as the perpetrator of a lie is worth exactly nothing. Prove a lie or retract the statement or expect to be reported again.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:52 AM Post #21
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:40 AM Now we have even MORE reason to doubt Mike Walter's account. So is Mike Walter an official accomplice to this inside job now, Craig? Would you tell that to his face?
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Post #22
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:51 AM bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:48 AM Your word as the perpetrator of a lie is worth exactly nothing. Prove a lie or retract the statement or expect to be reported again. LOL! Your ilk run around calling people traitors and cowards and you get all uptight about being called a liar. Problem is, you are a liar, Craig. You told a good one yesterday, what was it? Oh that's right, you have no idea what direction Hubbard was looking when she saw the plane. Even though she sat there and told you it went between the house with the umbrella and the big house, and pulled up to get over some trees, with you offering the occasional "uh huh" and "ok", and finally adding that it had to have come from back of I395 and not up Columbia Pike... you had no idea what direction she was looking to have seen all of those things. That's evidence of your lying right there, Craig. Shoe fits.... wear it. Edited by bileduct, Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM Post #23
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:52 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:40 AM Now we have even MORE reason to doubt Mike Walter's account. So is Mike Walter an official accomplice to this inside job now, Craig? Would you tell that to his face? 1. I did not say that. 2. You better believe we would confront him regarding his fatal contradictions to his face. In fact we have called him for that very purpose and the coward refused to call us back. We exposed him in "The USA Today Parade" and we will expose him further in the Researcher's Edition. The point you made about the "underbelly" claim will only help. Thanks again. Great catch!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 15 2008, 01:00 AM Post #24
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 15 2008, 12:50 AM you are correct that Lagasse was referring to different trees...... So you agree that your video is dishonest then. Shameful!
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 15 2008, 01:04 AM Post #25
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 15 2008, 12:58 AM You told a good one yesterday, what was it? Oh that's right, you have no idea what direction Hubbard was looking when she saw the plane. Even though she sat there and told you it went between the house with the umbrella and the big house, and pulled up to get over some trees, with you offering the occasional "uh huh" and "ok", and finally adding that it had to have come from back of I395 and not up Columbia Pike... you had no idea what direction she was looking to have seen all of those things. That's evidence of your lying right there, Craig. Shoe fits.... wear it. YOU are the one being deceptive. I stated how just because her window faces east there is no reason to suggest she could only see east. I said I do not know the EXACT direction she was facing and that it doesn't matter because EYES MOVE and human vision is not directionally linear. You are taking my claims out of context and twisting them in a desperate effort to paint me as dishonest. Shameful!
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2