Meet Mike Walter: Watch Him Lie About 9/11

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

***UPDATE*** I have found a video that gives more detail into the statement that Walter made that day. It turns out he was one of many broadcasters that happened to see the Pentagon attack, though they didn’t mention that in the interview. But what I found was another video of him explaining his comments that were taken out of context by the CNN story.

Again,there is a cut-away during the video that he shows, between where he talks about the AA jet and the “cruise missle with wings”. So I am not exactly sure what to think of that. But then he goes into great detail talking about the physics of the wings folding back into the plane.

In his mind, the wings were weak and so they couldn’t withstand the impact and therefore they folded back into the plane. But momentum doesn’t work that way.

A plane flies because the engines pull the body of the plane with them, not the other way around. And the engines themselves were massive, weighing 9 tons each. They had the momentum and they were made of steel and titanium, whereas the body of the plane was made from lightweight aluminum.

And according to this man’s story, the plane was accelerating when it struck the Pentagon, so the engines were in full thrust. They would have become dislodged from the wings and blown clean through the walls like massive cannon balls.

If anything, the body would have crumpled not the engines. There should have been three holes in the side of the building, not one.

Plus, he never mentioned the wings folding back during his original interview. Why is he repeatedly talking about that now? Did he just remember it? And how can this man have seen those wings “fold back” in the millisecond of impact before the explosion?

So I stand by my original conclusion: this man is lying.

(for the record: this officer was there that day and he reported a different flight path than the FAA reported with the flight recorder from flight 77, but aside from that, he points out the the ‘witnesses” from North 27 couldn’t have seen the impact (or the wings folding in) because from the location they claimed to have been at, the view is obscured by trees and the dip in the ground elevation. From that distance and that location, this officer says they could not have seen the impact. I will take this man at his word before I take the word of someone who’s story is still changing to this day. Again I stand by my conclusion: Mike Walter is lying about what he saw.)

Doesn’t giving false witness to a crime make you eligable to be charged as an accessory after the fact? Just a thought.

(but his story wasn’t the only one to change…)

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.

(see the video after the break)

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.

“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.

35 Responses

  1. They are forcing people to retell their experiences so that no accurate 9/11 investigation will ever take place. Wallace has lied ….. nice detective work, Willyloman.

  2. Its not necessarily lying. People misremember things all the time. Look at the research and you will realise that all eye-witness testimonies need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

    I’m not saying there’s no cover-up, but you’ve got to stay objective. Look for evidence that disproves your theory, not ‘proves’ it.

  3. Xoc

    You have a point, but I will tell you this. Not a single witness that day mentioned wings “folding into the plane” not a one.

    And here he is, talking specifically about that new talking point that explains why the planes wings weren’t laying next to the building and there was only one hole.

    The idea that the massive 9 ton engines (that were at full throttle, no less) bounced off the building and folded back when the nose cone (made of composite aluminum) pierced the building, just doesn’t add up.

    And now, Walter’s story changes to reflect this new “folding wings theory”?

    Sorry. That in itself goes a long way to proving there is something askew about his credibility.

    He should be re-interviewed by the authorities and asked about these changes in his story.

  4. Why did the Government confiscate all the video from surrounding businesses and never release them. All we ever saw was a worthless 4 second stop action clip from a single vantage point. Afterall, we were bombarded with the images of planes flying into the WTC for weeks on end. Why not the Pentagon? Just release the videos and then everyone can make a decision based on the evidence.

  5. Your updates and added videos to this article are amazing… people are changing their memories of that day almost faster than you can post them. What is going on? All of a sudden the news is throwing these ‘new’ stories out…. They are working hard to take the heat off 9/11. Someone must be very close to forcing the truth out.

  6. If a 757 was used to hit the Pentagon, then they’d better refine that story.

    There’s a little aeronautical term called “Wing(s) in Ground effect that makes piloting most airplanes, especially the big ones, it makes flying those jets close to the ground damn near impossible, due to the wind turbulence from the wings hitting the ground.

    Like this article shows. It can be done, but only by speciallly designed planes like the one shown.

    And not 757’s

    While trailing vortices are the price one must pay for generating lift, their primary effect is to deflect the flow behind the wing downward. This induced component of velocity is called downwash, and it reduces the amount of lift produced by the wing. In order to make up for that lost lift, the wing must go to a higher angle of attack, and this increase in angle of attack increases the drag generated by the wing. We call this form of drag induced drag because it is “induced” by the process of creating lift.

  7. Both you guys make good sense…. we just have to realize that the 9/11 investigation committee does not understand how air flow works. Send them the information…..

  8. LeeAnn:

    Now that would be something now wouldn’t it.

    The 9/11 Committion was given a list of questions by the families of the victims. They attended amost every open hearing. And the vast majority of the questions they asked to be addressed were ignored. click on that link and scroll down to Mindy Kleinberg’s questions.

    There are alot of them that are much easier to answer than this one, and yet…. they didn’t.

    And we don’t have to send these questions, because people vastly more qualified than I am, already have…

    professional, commercial, and military pilots.

    “Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots.”

    Pilots for 9/11 truth is a great site. you will find it on the side of my pages over there on the right. They don’t point fingers or guess as to who did it…

    they just report about what planes can and can’t do in an attempt to generate momentum to open a new investigation.

    You see, unfortunately, many people, because this is what they are told by the MSM, think that the “truther” are just a bunch of people with no lives or malcontents who have too much time to make up conspiracy theory dreams before shuffling off to bed.

    In my case, that is true. But, I read the work of REAL people. People you would respect… everyday successful people who also care a great deal about what is happening to this country. So much so, they are willing to risk their professions and their incomes to let others know what they know.

    Those are the people I link to on the side of this blog and those are the people the MSM ignores.

    So, LeeAnn, the Commission understands physics. They just had a different agenda.

  9. thank you, Willyloman, for that explanation.

  10. The CIA recruits very young out of high school. They say we’ll pay your education and with us you’ll be very successful but one day we will need your services. I suspect this is the case with Mike Walters. Many in the media are CIA operatives. That’s why you had so many media witnesses on 9/11.

  11. Go to and watch the videos.
    Many witnesses which have recently been interviewed by the Citizen Investigation Team, say that the plane passed on the NORTH side of the Citgo Gas Station – and therefore couldn’t have hit the lightpoles, including the lightpole that allegedly went through the windscreen of Lloyd England’s taxi…

  12. Neither one of their stories changed. You’re an idiot, sir.

    • When you can link to the video from the day of the attack, that shows Mike Walter saying the planes wings “folded back and that is why there was only one hole…” then I will agree.

      Till that time, his story DID change, and you sir are a fucking idiot for opening your mouth when you don’t know the facts.

  13. Hi Willyloman I am researching 911 and just for the record I would like to know how close you were to the Pentagon on 911- it doesn’t have to be that exact , say to the nearest 10 miles.

    • It’s Mike Walters story that keeps changing that either proves him out to be a liar or not… not whether he was “closer” than someone else. Where that the case, there would never any need for investigations beyond what a “witness’ describes; the investigation would just ask “what happened” and that would be the end of that. Course, in Mike Walter’s case, the story would change and it would involve planes and wings doing things that are physically impossible. And of course there is the testimony of the two Pentagon who state that no one could have seen the strike from where Walters claims he was due to the cluster of the trees just off that off ramp. But to answer your question.. Richmond.

  14. Mike Walter certainly had a better view of it than did , or I did for that matter.
    Those police officers are unlikely to know where Mike Walter was exactly. There are just two trees up near the road and like most trees the branches don’t come down to the ground so sitting in a car they would not obscure your view of the lower part of the building. I think the idea that in a catastrophic impact with a reinforced concrete wall, the wings of a plane -made up of dozens of individual panels and components like flaps ,ailerons, spoliers- will go from a perfectly normal pair of wings to a pile of shredded metal in a matter of seconds without twisting distorting and bending at all in between those two states is not really a realistic assessment. Expecting someone to describe an event that took fraction of a second and years later to use the same words and phrases to describe it in exactly the same way is asking a lot of anyone-the human memory is not a simple thing like a digital recording.

    • and you know this… why? Because Mike Walters SAID SO?

      And you had better read your fake Mike Walters a little closer. He didn’t say they “evaporated” as you seem to suggest; he said he SAW them FOLD BACK INTO THE BODY OF THE PLANE…

      Odd that you would accept one part of his story and denounce my evaluation of it because, after all, Mike Walters… “was there’…

      and yet, in the same paragraph, you flat out denounce the part of Mike Walters’ testimony that is clearly ridiculous even though Mike Walters “was there” and you were not.

      What you are doing is selective validation. You pick and chose like a buffet, the parts of the story that you want to believe, while finding a “reasonable” excuse to dismiss the rest. You are doing this for YOUR own benefit, not for the benefit of getting to the truth and not for the benefit of Mike Walters.

      Once you get past that, and you start to look just at the evidence that is there, and only the evidence, about the entire affair, then you may start to come to a more rational conclusion. Or at least, you will make for a more challenging debate.

      Fact is, Mike Walters can be an liar AND the “official story” could still be true. He’s just a small little part of a much larger tapestry. Take the Pentagon and NORAD officials… members of the 911 Commission, including both Chairmen, say they both lied so much to the Commission, that they were going to file charges against them. This is a well known fact… yet you still believe. so you see, lying about what happened clearly doesn’t discourage your “faith”.

      Clearly Mike Walters lied. He wanted to be on every TV all across the nation telling his story. After all, he was a reporter. so, he sees what he thinks is a big commercial liner rush over-head, disappear behind the trees, and then a massive explosion at the Pentagon… and bingo… he is an “eye witness, on TV telling his story to everyone, and he gets promoted due to all the face-time.

  15. ..missing word….’you’

  16. I really can’t see where I ‘denounced’ anyone or anyones’ opinions, not even yours – I think saying your assesment wasn’t very realistic is pretty mild criticism. I certainly didn’t ‘denounce’ anything Mike Walter said. I’ll leave it up to other people reading this page to decide whether I used the word ‘evaporate’ in my previous post or suggested anything to do with evaporation. I can only assume you either imagined it or you don’t know what the word means. What I did say was that the wings are made up of a lot of seperate parts and components. So what impression someone going to get in that fraction of a second as the plane impacts the building in a catastrophic collision ?- your mind has only a fraction of a second to form that impression and I don’t presume to say how it would appear because I wasn’t there, and neither were you. What about the impressions that other eyewitnesses gave? the eyewitness who said the plane cartwheeled into the building? The one who said the plane hit the ground and he saw the nose break up and the wings fly forward into Pentagon. According to you he must also be a liar since he couldn’t have seen it – ‘It’s impossible” But that is the impression he had of the event. Is he correct or not? Is it the impression he got or not? Is it the impression I would have had?- I don’t know- I wasn’t there.
    You say in your article that Mike Walter didn’t mention that it was an American Airlines plane but that it was a ‘like cruise missile with wings’ – that was all part of the same interview on the day.
    “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.”
    Of course in some videos like ‘In Plane Sight’ they leave out the first part and only show the second part in order to decieve people into thinking there is a big mystery. And then people like you accuse him of ‘changing his story’. Reading some of the comments on your page it is obvious how easily fooled people are, about this and so many other things.
    What interests me about this attack on Mike Walter is why you are making it. Is he saying something you don’t like? You seem to imply in your article that there was just a ‘small hole’ in the Pentagon and that this is a big mystery that can be only explained by a cruise missile or a bomb or something that wasn’t a 757? Do you even think there was a plane at all? Your statement “he sees what he thinks is a big commercial airliner…” suggests you don’t believe there was. Do you also think Mike Walter is the only one who said it was an American Airlines plane and therefore if you attack his credibility then you don’t have to believe him when he says it was an AA plane?
    Judging by the links on your page you are possibly opposed to the abuse of power of the Government and use of anti-terrorism laws etc. to limit peoples freedoms – and then you blithly advocate arresting Mike Walter ‘ holding him for questioning’ and interrogating him ‘in the interest of national security’ over an issue like this. Talk about a police state. If some ‘truther’ was to be arrested in those circumstances we would never hear the end of it.

    • Yes, were I a DA… I would detain Walters, and question him. Not because I believe that he had anything to do with the crime, but if a “witness” at a crime scene knowingly gives a false statement to the police, yes… that is a crime isn’t it? And his statement is patently false…

      … as for your “fraction of a second” rationale… did you watch the videos of the planes hitting the towers? Did you see what happened? Did you see the planes go into the building and blow up inside? How long did that take? Did you see it?

      What I don’t like about his statement is that I can clearly tell he is lying. I can tell when Obama is lying. When Bush before him lied. Cheney is a bit harder, I don’t know why – I think because his are pathological… but Walters? I can tell when he’s lying because I can see it on his face. “Some people just aren’t good liars” Ever heard that expression before?

      Why do I care so much? Oh I don’t know, maybe because nearly 3,000 people died that day and many many more have died since. Maybe that has something to do with it.

      He couldn’t see the plane strike from his admitted location… trees got in the way…

      Wings don’t “fold back” into the plane in a crash like that, so maybe when it comes to that neat little 15 foot hole, maybe you would think about why Walters would modify HIS story to fit the facts…. how does that look in a criminal investigation when one of your “witnesses” does that?

      Walters “attacked” his own credibility when he made up other parts of the story and when he sat there and clearly lied on camera. Anyone can see that. More people would were it not for apologists who keep making excuses for his obvious actions.

      Lets turn this little scenario around, shall we? You are now defending someone who has given very shaky testimony about the attack of OUR PENTAGON…. why? Why wouldn’t you be at least interested in getting to the bottom of what he really saw or didn’t see? Don’t you want every single aspect of this horrible attack to be clear and understandable to all? The man lied… we know why he lied – he wanted attention and he figured something big flew over his car.. and a big explosion happened.. so why not say he saw it? It HAD to be the plane, right? What’s the harm?

      Problem is, it is harmful when witnesses generate conclusions on their own and then modify their statements to fit those conclusions.

      Put him under oath with the threat of imprisonment if he commits perjury, and see what his story is… see if he recant’s the “folding back into the body of the plane” story…

      It’ll do us some good and apparently will do him some good as well.

      “The truth shall set you free”…. get it? Any more questions?

  17. “… as for your “fraction of a second” rationale… did you watch the videos of the planes hitting the towers? Did you see what happened? Did you see the planes go into the building and blow up inside? How long did that take? Did you see it?”


    “Look at the pictures from the only released 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.”
    “Wings don’t “fold back” into the plane in a crash like that.”
    In a crash like that? Do you have some other examples to compare it with? Of large airliners crashing at high speed into reinforced concrete buildings?

    “he figured something big flew over his car.. and a big explosion happened”
    If it flew over his car then, he would have a direct unobscured line of sight to the point impact. Of course you are saying it flew over his car in order to give the impression that he couldn’t see clearly that it was an American Airlines jet with the big AA on the tail ,which as I pointed out to you is want he has said from day 1. In the video which claims to show his viewpoint the light poles- and therefore the aircraft – are ahead of his car; this is in order to put the bushes in the way of his view of the impact. Your assertion that the is lying is based on what he could see from where he was and neither you , the policeman and the people making the video know where he was.
    The policeman said on the video that the row of trees would block the view of anybody on 27 going southbound. Of the list of six people shown on the video four of them,including Mike Walter were going northbound.The quotes from the other two doesn’t mention which way they were going but since they worked for USA Today also it seems unlikely they would be going in the opposite direction.
    You say ‘Don’t you want every single aspect of this horrible attack to be clear and understandable to all? One of the comments ,from ‘Greg Bacon’, gives a totally misleading conclusion about ground effect which you do not correct and you then mislead ‘LeeAnn’ into the same false conclusions which you obviously believe yourself.
    And then you talk about ‘that neat 15ft hole in the Pentagon’. Coming up to 8 years on from the event and you are mistaken about a fundamental aspect of it , the actual damage to the Pentagon. There really isn’t any excuse for that. You might ask yourself how you were deceived into believing the ‘neat 15 foot hole’ nonsense and ask who mislead you about it. Very significant quote from the policeman “I’ve spent a little bit of time on these websites…”
    I shouldn’t really be defending him should I. It’s ok for you to attack him, anonymously, and for people to put up the names of five other people on a video inferring that they are lying ,but defend them? -how terrible. You invited comments on your page – did you expect everyone to agree with you and no one to challenge your views? If you had shown some objectivity or given the impression that you were interested in being objective ,or in the truth for that matter, I wouldn’t have bothered.

  18. Afework Hagos was another witness at the scene. The newspaper put him down as “computer programmer”. Now somehow he is the Senior Software Analyst at Lockheed Martin. Also registered a bank domain a few months after the event.

    “was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. “There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.”
    ”It created a huge smoke,” Hagos said, before a man in an FBI windbreaker whisked him off to get his eyewitness account.”

  19. You people are idiots…..anyone knows that the strongest part of a planes wings are the SHOULDERS from the body to the engines….this part of the plane was damaged severly before the engines even hit….also, just because the engines were made of steel and are the heaviest part dosent mean they will plow right through. How many cars have hit trees at high speed TOTALING the car but the tree is still intact ? Sometimes with the car spinning around the tree ? Lots! A car is heavier and more dense than a tree. take off youre tinfoil hat and figure out basic physics ! 9/11 was not an inside job!

  20. @George regan mccain: “A car is heavier and more dense than a tree.” Hmmmm. Last time I checked there are lots of different kinds of trees, from saplings I can hold in my hand to to giants 10 feet in diameter…and there are many makes of cars. Cars are designed to crumple on the outside upon impact. The inner passenger area is designed to withstand impact . Also, cars are not made of titanium. But please, I’m interested in learning more about ‘physics’ from you.

  21. mike walters = cia asset. yep

  22. My son went to a pre-school on Columbia Pike. One of the teachers of the school was on the playground and saw the plane go overhead. Planes don’t normally travel down Columbia Pike. I gave the teacher a ride to her son’s high school and we were listening to the radio. The radio announcer said “we believe it was an American Airlines plane”. The teach said right then, “oh yes, it was. I saw it.”


  23. I’m curious Jeff; how accurately do you think your friend could have identified AA Flight 77 from inside a vehicle, under the flight path, of a plane going close to 500 MPH some 50 feet off the ground?

    I guess that is the point of your comment.

    That’s how identification and the “witness” program worked… people saw something, they were told what it was, then they swear that is what they saw. The mind fills in the blanks.

    • I do agree with your point about memory filling in blanks. I believe that happens. But I also know that in the 44 years that I’ve lived in Arlington, VA there’s never been a low-flying commercial plane travelling eastward following the path of Columbia Pike towards the Pentagon.

      Sure, I could doubt that she saw an AA symbol on the plane, but I don’t doubt that she saw a low flying plane heading in the direction of the Pentagon on a flight path never before witnessed.

      willyloman, do you believe it was a missile or a plane that hit the pentagon? I’m just curious.

  24. Reading Mike Walters body language I would say he is making it up. There is just no sign of any emotional connection with the events he describes. He also shakes his head repeatedly from side to side, as if to say, subconsciously, “no, this didn’t occur”.

  25. Thank you for trying by maintaining this page. This gentleman in my view is clearly CIA. He is clearly lying. Though i dont think he is a good line of attack i am also upset since he contributed to the smokescreen so to speak of disinformation. I think the glaring problem here is the pentagon the most surveyed place on the planet cant provide a clear video. I also suspect this site has surface to air automated defenses…

  26. Watch MIKE WALTER video – notice he shakes head after EVERY lie he tells – this is classic body language giveaway… fucking liar

  27. DR JUDY WOOD . COM — please look

  28. The most defining feature of a conspiracy theory is that any contrary evidence is part of the conspiracy. Walter was a witness to it, but willyloman doesn’t like his account, so he dismisses it as part of the coverup.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: