16 November 2004:

Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills

Recent weeks have seen a lot of new and substantive developments in terms of 9/11 skepticism receiving coverage in mainstream media. Many 9/11 activists have expressed excitement about the appearances by Jimmy Walter, a millionaire who has financed his own advertising campaign in the NYC area calling for a new investigation of 9/11, on CNN's Anderson Cooper show, matched up against the notorious Gerald "lone nut" Posner. I don't share in the excitement.

For starters, the significance of the associated CNN online poll with 89% of respondents expressing belief in a "9/11 cover-up" is somewhat overplayed. The question is too broad, encompassing a wide range of ideas that have nothing to do with official complicity and/or "inside job" on 9/11 which have already been actively promoted in mainstream media, such as a cover up on the part of intel officials supposedly engaging in bureaucratic ass-covering over their "incompetence" and "failures", a notion of "cover up" which still completely supports all of the important official assumptions and myths about 9/11 and the "War on Terror". So in this regard, the high percentage, while encouraging, is not the great breakthrough it appears to be, sorry to say. After all, even Posner himself alludes to a cover-up of sorts in his writings alleging that the 9/11 Commission failed to properly investigate connections between the Bush Administration and Saudi royals, a position also representative of a larger pattern of official "get the Saudis" media spin which has long been pegged by many 9/11 researchers as a carefully targeted "limited hang out".

The truly serious matter, however, is that Walter has set about promoting some of the most dubious and questionable claims that have emerged of late — many of which are already denounced by a wide range of 9/11 activists as obvious disinfo — and he has also shown himself to be reckless and inaccurate in his handling of the evidence.

At his new site, Walter gives top billing on his "books and DVDs" page to the dubious 911 In Plane Site: http://reopen911.org/books_dvds.htm

A film that is hotly disputed by a great many 9/11 skeptics, from an already controversial source, and which is not at all representative of any broad consensus views within the 9/11 "Truth Movement", is an extremely poor choice for top billing. The annotations added on the promotional page reveal a hornet's nest of dubious claims:

'What is this "pod" attached to the bottom of "Flight 175" and why is it there?'

Debunked: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

'If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex?'

DEBUNKED!!! It is horrible and unforgivable for anyone still to be promoting this widely-exposed B.S.:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

'How does a plane 125ft. wide & 155ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16ft. across?'

This is false info — the ground-level entry area (where the walls were missing and support columns were missing or severely damaged and severed) was about 90 feet wide. Only the second floor area of the hole was small. Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious.

'What is this bright flash seen right before impact of both the North & South Towers?'

The flashes did not occur before the impacts; they occured precisely AT the moment of impact. This is another of the rather obvious mistakes in In Plane Site. And thus far, no one that I am aware of has shown they can conclusively rule out natural, spontaneous causes. There is some discussion at http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#flash.

'Why is there no wreckage or crater from "Flight 77" on the lawn of the Pentagon?'

The crater issue is a red herring. And there IS wreckage, not on the lawn (another example of deceptive, selective choice of photographs) but all over the South parking lot and part of the Heliport (easily visible in the photos taken by Steve Riskus), which were in fact closer to the impact point than the area of lawn that is shown (severe telephoto foreshortening illusion makes the lawn area look close to the building). Sure, one might attempt to debate whether the existing debris field is consistent with an airliner impact, but not acknowledging its existence at all (or the existence of the ground-level 90 foot entry hole) as is the case with In Plane Site and Pentagon Strike, only serves to make 911 skeptics look like conniving liars.

'Why did an eye witness report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner?'

This dude, the ONLY witness on record with such a claim, was watching from BROOKLYN! He also claimed to see an anomalous, non-United Airlines paint scheme that does not appear in photos of the airplane. See discussion at http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#cargo

'How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's 3rd ring & leave a hole approximately 16ft. across with no visible wreckage?'

The C-ring exit hole is a real anomaly, but there was some apparent wreckage photographed in that area, and has been much discussed & debated. So, this is yet another misrepresentation of the evidence.

In his two appearances on CNN, Walter has done a reasonable job discussing WTC7, but there are some serious problems with his claims about the Pentagon. For example, here's one excerpt from the transcript of Walter's second interview (Nov. 11):

POSNER: The question on the Pentagon, which I am still not clear. What about the dozens of witnesses outside the Pentagon who saw the plane fly into the building? Are your saying that all those people are part of a conspiracy.

WALTER: Those dozens of witnesses said it was a commuter aircraft. We have at least four witnesses who said it wasn't big enough to be an airliner.

To see what an outrageously embarrassing misstatement this is, it is worth the time to read through this compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, the most comprehensive one available on the web:
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html

Only two observers describe a "commuter" jet, and both were a considerable distance from the scene.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/jetliner.html

Walter is apparently just making stuff up. Or, he has been duped by someone coaching him with bogus info. It might worthwhile to investigate which "9/11 activists" have been working closely with him...

In any case, I'm really perturbed to see so many 9/11 activists rally around Walter in a knee-jerk way just because he's being picked on by Posner. Wake up folks! How much of a fool does one have to be to MAKE GERALD POSNER LOOK GOOD? Even worse, the fact that he is focusing so strongly on the WTC7 issue means that this substantive and powerful part of the 9/11 skeptic's case will be discredited by association with the faulty claims he's promoting alongside it.

I'm willing to believe that he is a well-intentioned "eccentric", but thus far, Jimmy Walter's newfound status as a figurehead of 9/11 skepticism is shaping up to be a disaster. Frankly, there are times when good intentions just aren't enough, and this is one of those times.