Pentagon Strike Alleged Witness Account: Mike Walter

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
"There are several of these links that bring up errors, they no longer exist on the web. It would be useful if anyone could find them archived somewhere and if a thread has not been created for that witness, to create one in the same style.
This source is the second, S02-NW, in the WRH list. There is another witness in the article just before Mike Walter. I have added her entry as it appears in the article and also given the sound link.
[S02WP00=The reporter]
[S02WP01=Barbara]
[S02WP02=WRHW02=Mike Walter]
The next sound files are links in the original article: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/index.html The article excerpts of the interviews are approximate transcriptions of the audios:

[S02WP00=The reporter]
Witnesses to the moment: Workers' voices
September 11, 2001 Posted: 9:11 PM EDT (0111 GMT)
[A photo of the smoking towers next to the beginning of the articles.]

By Porter Anderson
CNN Career


(CNN) -- Here are several of the most compelling remarks made by witnesses on Tuesday as everyone struggled to understand what was happening in New York and Washington.
[I skip the New York story]

[S02WP01=Barbara]
The next quote appears on the left side of the web page in a small window.
AUDIO
CNN heard from a woman who was driving into the capital city on Tuesday morning at the time a plane was nearing the Pentagon.
232K / 21 sec. WAWsound
Returning to the main article:
Washington, a woman who was driving into the city on Interstate 395 as the Pentagon was attacked:

'Coming too fast, too low'

"As we were driving into town on 395, there was exit -- we were trying to get off the exit for the Memorial Bridge. Off to the left-hand side was a commercial plane that came in -- it was coming too fast, too low. And the next thing we saw was it go down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that."
The reporter continues with the WTC before ending with:
[S02WP02= WRHW02=Mike Walter]
The text below is found in a small window to the right of the text column:
AUDIO: USA Today's Mike Walter
tz.usatoday.jpg
was driving near the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet fly directly into the country's military nerve center. 544K / 48 sec.WAV sound
'It was just sheer terror'

Washington, Mike Walter, USA Today, on the road when a jet slammed into the Pentagon:
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'

"And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.

"Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward.

"We had a lady in front of me, who was backing up and screaming, 'Everybody go back, go back, they've hit the Pentagon.'

"It was just sheer terror."
 
thorbiorn said:
I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'

"And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.
Odd choice of description for a jet. I'd describe it as a humungous tube of destruction with wings. If it was a Global Hawk painted with AA colours, his statement makes sense. However, we should keep in mind what Dave McGowan had to say about many of these witnesses:

Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization.

Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack):

* Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.
* Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.
* Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.
* Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.
* Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.
* Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.
* Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today.
* Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.
* Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.
* Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times.

Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here?
Perhaps it will be a good idea to do as Dave has done: take Eric Bart's list (or in this case, Rivero's), and by process of elimination get rid of all questionable witnesses. For those that are left, focus only on their exact words, not the MSM cushioning saying, "here's [witness's] account of flight 77, blah, blah."
 
Other people have worked on the problems with Mike Walter as an informative witness, one is http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_vague.htm who refers to:

Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined.

[ Original page source for all 13 postings: http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast ] T: I tried the original link but was not succesful, it is becoming history

by Gerard Holmgren
2:00am Mon Jun 17 '02 (Modified on 2:19am Mon May 5 '03)

Examines the apparent contradiction between photographic evidence and eyewitness evidence.

http://www.911dossier.co.uk/pen07.html has an anlysis of several witness accounts with maps ect, about Mike Walter I just found this:
"'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."

- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words/
CNN, 11 Sep 2001

A check of the original transcript ( 4.58 pm) shows that Walter does refer to seeing an American Airlines jet. His only quote with regard to the collision was the section quoted above. He doesn't actually say that he saw it slam into the Pentagon, but that might be what he meant. We can't tell from this quote, but we should be able to find plenty of media references to his testimony, because by an extraordinary coincidence, Mike Walter also happens to work for "USA today."

Bloomberg news reported on Sept 11 at 3.26 pm and again at 4.23 pm (so this interview is the earliest record of a Mike Walter statement, preceding the CNN quote by about 80 minutes)

Mike Walter, of USA Today, watched the plane descend as he was stuck in traffic. "I said 'that plane is really flying low,"' he said in an interview. "It disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw a ball of fire. It was an American Airlines plane. You saw a big silver plane and those double A's."

So in his first interview he clearly states that he did not see the collision.

The press association reported

Eyewitness Mike Walter, a journalist, said he had seen the flight crash as he drove to work.

"It was like a Cruise missile with wings," he said.

"I saw parts of the plane. The debris was on the overpass. I saw these military units run out with stretchers and set up a triage."

As we have already established, Walter has not actually made any statement to the effect that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This report has nothing to change that, but paraphrases in such a way that this misleading impression is conveyed.

On sept 12, the Baltimore Sun referred to Walter and but only quoted "I saw a big ball of fire". The same day the Boston Globe reported

Mike Walter, a reporter with USA Today, was stuck in traffic during his commute to work, listening to the radio reports of the World Trade Center catastrophe when he saw the American Airlines jetliner fly over too low and too fast. Still it took him several moments to realize what was about to happen. "At first it didn't register," he said. "I see planes coming into National [airport] all the time. But it was so low."

He watched the plane pass over a hill separating him from the Pentagon and disappear. Then the boom and the flames climbing into the air.

Again, an explicit statement that he did not see the collision, although this time stated by commentary, not Walter himself.

Also on Sept 12, The Milwaulkee Sentinel Journal quoted "It was typical morning rush hour, and no one was moving. I said to myself, that plane is really low. Then it disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw the fireball."

The Washington Times of Sept 12 picked up the CNN quote, almost word for word (without sourcing it) but added that Walter was on his way to work at "USA today's television operation". So where is USA today's TV report, featuring Mike Walter?

So all the interviews which Walter gave on Sept 11 clearly indicated that he did not see the collision. What did he say on Sept 12?

On Sept 12 6.00am ET, Bryant Gumbel from CBS interviewed Walter. Mr. MIKE WALTER (Witness): Good morning, Bryant. GUMBEL: I know we spoke earlier, but obviously, some folks are just joining us. Take us through what you saw yesterday morning.

Mr. WALTER: Well, as--as we pointed out earlier, Bryant, I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--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. There was no doubt in my mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what he was doing. It was full impact, a huge fireball, thick column of smoke and, you know, pandemonium after that. I mean, bedlam. Everyone was trying to escape the area; people very, very frightened.

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--and you knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that plane was dead. It was completely eviscerated.

And from the same show

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. I mean, some people were going on the emergency lanes, and they were going forward while others were trying to back up. But one woman in front of me was in a panic and waving everyone back, saying, 'Back up. Back up. They've just hit the Pentagon.' It was--it was total chaos.

Walter spoke to NBC at 7.00 ET the same day Mr. MIKE WALTER (Eyewitness): It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road.

So, on Tuesday afternoon, Walter was explicitly stating that he did not see the collision. It seems that he had a think about it overnight, and at 6.00 on wednesday morning, confidently told Bryant Gumbel that he had, but was so flustered by the simple question of whether he actually saw it hit the Pentagon, and what angle the plane was on, that he immediately backed off preferring to concentrate on the fireball and the panic, and by the time he spoke to NBC an hour later, had retreated to his earlier story that he didn't see the collision.

This is why eyewitnesses must be identifiable and available for questioning. It also demonstrates why extensive interviews carry more weight than short quotes which can't be subject to critical scrutiny. Who would have guessed the tangled mess of Walter's statements, if they had only seen this quoted ?

I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--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. There was no doubt in my mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what he was doing. It was full impact...

And let's take a closer look at this statement, made to Gumbel.

"I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic."

An hour later he contradicted this with "It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment "

But if the 6.00 statement was true, then lots of other people, stuck in the same traffic, should also have had a very good view. So presumably there should be plenty of other eyewitnesses who saw it " as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon." Keep this in mind as the search continues.

I searched about 100 more media reports of Mike Walter,and couldn't find anything different. Incredibly, I couldn't find a single interview with him or reference to him on USA today. This account is too confused and contradictory to have any credibility, and he explicitly stated several times, including his earliest statement, that he did not see the collision. On the one occasion when he changed this, he backed off under questioning. Mike Walter does not qualify as an eyewitness to a large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.
T: I had an idea that one could put all these witnesses in a wall chart and spread sheets. Like that one should have a better chance of harvesting something useful. True many of the witnesses are not that fantastic, but is also really very difficult to catch details of a low flying fast object. If it goes 360 km per hour it is 100 m per second. But those who see it from a little distance may catch some detail better than those right next to it.

Another analyser who is systematic is:
http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm :

Mike Walter, 46, USA Today reporter, said
"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words/
"I could read the "AA" on its side. It looked like it was 20, 30 ft. up in the air."
http://www.drama.uga.edu/livingnewspaper/america.html
"...I saw a big silver plane and those double A's."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/12/01 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=61f78aad6cd3ef7dd2ecc4b3afe49842%20&_docnum=120&wchp=dGLbVzz-lSlAl&_md5=731bf19a9f8e348a92f22b47bcdcf6f9 (Lexis Nexis) (text mirror) http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/walter.txt
"...It turned and then it went around ..it clipped one of these light poles."
"It went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight. ... It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank.
"...you could see chinks the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... it literally disintegrated on impact
As it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings....
... a cruise missile with wings?
"I said that as a metaphor. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode. ... It was an American Airlines jet. I watched it go into the building. .. I saw the big 'AA' on the side.."
http://trans.voila.fr/ano?anolg=65544&anourl=http%3A//digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/492/walter.ram
http://trans.voila.fr/ano?anolg=65544&anourl=http%3A//digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/492/walter2.ram
Some of the links do not work any longer. It is necessary to START BURNING CDs OF ORIGINAL SOURCES AND ARTICLES, otherwise we end up with copies and hearsays like with the 6 million holocaust history; an official version and some rumours that are hard to verify. - And then one day those who will dare to investigate or question the official totalitarian 911 version will go to prison, be silenced or ridiculed.

You mention a group of mystery witnesses. Sure they may not be good, they may as you suggest have been put for a reason, but to discard may not be wise either. Although there can be a strategy in highlighting witnesses who did not see much so that those who saw are suppressed by omission, if there is benevolence even in the darkest circles it is better keep that in mind. If one person is 80 percent useless or intentional mis or disinformation, then the art is to find the 20 % that are worthwhile. I do not have a formular, but that is how I think.

Thorbiorn
 
Excellent points. There are a number of things in the witness accounts that do not mesh with the photographs at the scene... see this: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1182

Having read all of the witness reports, and compared their descriptions to what was photographed, there seems to be a really big discrepancy. And the only explanation for that is that 1) some witnesses were so rattled that external suggestions took root and they are telling what they BELIEVE they saw, but didn't. 2) some witnesses are deliberately lying. 3) some witness testimony is misinterpreted and spin put on it.

In short, anyone who reads those wildly variant testimonies, and then looks at the photographic evidence, and does NOT conclude that there are problems with the witnesses, is either incapable of thinking straight (for any number of reasons), or has an agenda.

Therefore, we can conclude that folks like Mike Rivero and Jeff Wells fall into one of those two categories.
 
Regarding the Gannet connection:

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/september/nw0914-1.htm :
Gannett News Watch said:
IN THE TERROR AND TRAGEDY OF THE ATTACK ON AMERICA,
GANNETT PEOPLE RESPOND AS THIS DEMOCRACY REQUIRES
By Phil Currie, Senior Vice President/News
Mary Ann Owens, a newsroom assistant at Gannett News Service, was driving her car alongside the Pentagon Tuesday morning. Suddenly, an American Airlines plane hijacked by terrorists passed some 50 feet above her car and crashed into the building. Smoke and flames engulfed the west wall.
'At first no one moved,' she later wrote for GNS. 'Then the debris began falling over the cars.' Stalled in traffic, motorists pulled their cars aside to let emergency vehicles pass.
Mary Ann helped calm one woman who was screaming. Her own hands shaking, she called her husband. Then she turned to her role as a journalist.
'I went from car to car asking if anyone had a camera. Four cars down, a woman had a disposable camera. She asked for $20. I paid. An officer in uniform yelled for me to get back in my car. I snapped pictures of the carnage from my car as I was being directed away.'
Later, one of her photos from the scene moved on the wire for use in Gannett newspapers.
Maybe the photo that appears in http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/display.var.624436.Top+Stories.0.html :
mary_ann_owens2.23366.full.jpg

"A photo taken by Mary moments after the jet hit The Pentagon"
About photos taken by individuals the article I quoted above says:
"The shots were shared with Gannett newspapers under the exclusivity agreement."
There are other reports from Gannet on the events around 911: http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/september/nw0914-3.htm and http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/september/nw0914-2.htm which lists a lot of newspapers that brought reports on 911 - and how much more papers they sold!

About Gannett itself there is: http://www.gannett.com/about/ and the next link you can find a map of where they have offices and a list of all their publications: http://www.gannett.com/about/map/propmap.htm

Mary Ann Owens is the only woman on the Gannett list. Do you think she was silenced or volunteered. In her report in "This is local London" she does not speak of what kind of plane it was. She was only 125 yards away.

Thorbiorn
 
Back
Top Bottom