Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

CIT interviewed former DoJ attorney turned Opus Dei influenced catholic priest (ordained 3 months before 9/11) Stephen McGraw on our first research trip with Dylan Avery before we knew about the north of the citgo witnesses.




The entire interview is available in our 10 minute presentation here:

From the Law to the Lord
(Featuring Stephen McGraw)

Google Video Link

I'd like to first say that when investigating a psychological black operation of mass murder it makes perfect sense to question testimony that supports the official story while giving more credence to independently obtained evidence that refutes it.

McGraw is a perfect example of how previously published accounts are used to support the official story without confirmation and investigation.

He has been cited quite often as a witness to the light poles being clipped by the plane because of this quote:



But he is not saying that he literally "saw" it happen and in our interview he clarified how he did NOT actually see the plane hit any light poles at all and merely deduced this after the fact.

Now this would be quite odd since he was allegedly in the perfect position to see poles 3, 4, and 5 right in front of him. Here is his alleged point of view:



But it actually makes perfect sense since the plane was north of the CITGO station and could not have hit the poles.

Another curious point that we didn't bring up in the short is the fact that although McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery.....he chose to abandon this commitment to get out of his car and offer his prayer "services" to the chaotic rescue effort at the Pentagon.




What about the poor family waiting for him at the cemetery? How could he abandon them? Why would he bother getting out of his car at all with such an important commitment?

We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC despite the attack.




Caustic Logic has published another CIT hit-piece focusing on our analysis of Stephen McGraw available here.


I have posted a complete retraction to this deceptive attempt to cast doubt on our motives available here.

But it boils down to this.....

CL is insinuating that McGraw's testimony directly refutes the evidence proving the north side of the CITGO station approach even though McGraw specifically SAYS that he did not see OR hear the plane approach at all and only knew of it when he had a "sense" of it flying over his car.



Because the north and south flight paths virtually converge on route 27 McGraw does not claim to be a witness to what side of the station the plane flew.

CL's blog is pretty much devoted to casting doubt on CIT personally as this paragraph blatantly reveals:


He is leaving the reader with pure speculation that our investigation has been deliberately deceptive without presenting a bit of evidence to support such an outrageous attack.

He is deliberately shifting the suspicion away from the McGraw and on to us, the independent citizen investigators trying to fight for 9/11 truth.

What's odd about this is that CL himself has accused all of the CITGO witnesses as being deep cover government agents who were planted to spread disinfo!

So ultimately he is suggesting that we should trust witnesses who support the official story while writing off the ones who refute it as government operatives!

This is the entire basis of his argument.



[edit on 7-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

CL is starting to spiral out of control on his blog and at LC forum while ignoring me here. It's getting more difficult for him to "maintain vigilance and calm" as his campaign against CIT escalates.

He has added this to his blog about McGraw:




He claims he did not see the approach so he can not be a south or a north side witness. You have to actually see something to be considered a witness for it.



That is a convoluted graphic that does not make McGraw a witness to something he claims he did not see. It is merely YOU deducing things from his claims. He is not a north or a south side witness but other facts as outlined in the OP sure make him a suspect witness.



Clues? You mean your fantasy? He does not describe the flight path or angle because he did not see it. You can not make him a witness to something he did not see. That is not scientific. It is wishful thinking.




He gives no "descriptors" because he claims he did not see it.

You can not simply make up a flight path for a witness when he claims he did not see it.




Your blog rhetoric is getting increasingly frustrated.

A south side witness would be one who specifically SAYS that he saw the plane fly on the south of the CITGO.

Same with a north side witness. They have to see it to be a witness to it.

We have never claimed that McGraw is a north side witness because he didn't see it but you also can not accurately claim he is a south side witness because he didn't see it. How do you not understand this?

He had a much better view of poles 3, 4, and 5 right in front of him then he did the impact yet he didn't even see them get hit.

Certainly we suspect McGraw as being involved due to many fishy details outlined in the OP and on the short. We have been quite clear about this.

However because of his propensity for deduction as he has claimed in the interview we believe there is also a possibility he is innocently embellishing or deducing the impact just like he did the light poles and the plane hitting the ground first.

What's so HILARIOUS about you goading us to call him an operative is how quick you have been to call all the citgo witnesses, Edward Paik, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger deep cover government agents sent on a mission to spread disinfo!


The notion that only the obscure and previously unknown witnesses who fatally CONTRADICT the official story are government operatives while all highly publicized impact supporters with dubious details in their accounts are legitimate is borderline comical.

Also....

CL is trying to claim that because McGraw "deduced" that light pole 1 hit the cab that this supports the south side flight path.

But McGraw simply claims that he "heard" about the cab and the pole later so this could have been well after the event.

In fact it doesn't make any sense to suggest he saw pole 1 at all.

When admitting he simply deduced the light poles getting hit McGraw says this:





So clearly he wasn't referring to pole 1 by the cab.



Of course it would make infinitely more sense if he saw a piece of 3, 4, or 5 since they were directly in front of him. And he does not claim to have seen the cab either which would also make sense because the entire cab scene was behind him and across the HOV lane and guardrails.


He would not be physically able to see pole 1 which was hidden behind the cab that he also never claims he saw.




But why did he not see any of the large pieces of 3 4 and 5?


And why would he only refer to one pole when this was his alleged view?


If all he remembered was a piece of the top of one pole it makes perfect sense that it would be of one of the poles in front of him. Especially since he allegedly walked by that entire area and not by pole 1.

At that point it's close enough to the north path that his "deduction" could go either way.

McGraw is not a definitive north OR south path witness.

Craig, before I start, let me just say that I have no strong view on the Pentagon impact one way or the other. Further, I'm in no position to get involved in a detailed discussion about it. This is simply an observation.

In my view, if you apply the same logic you have used when interpreting the north side witnesses (i.e. that they 'prove' the plane didn't cause the damage to the Pentagon) to Father Stephen McGraw's testimony, you have to conclude that he is either a south side witness - even though he didn't 'witness' it - or else is an outright liar.

Given his location at the time, and given his claim that the plane came overhead and to his right, it seems to me there is no way the same plane could have come from the north side.

Clearly there are many reasons to be suspicious of McGraw's dubious account.

But he claims he did not see the plane until it passed over him therefore he does not directly support the south or north side of the citgo claim.

He would have only been able to see the plane about a second probably less.

The fact that he didn't see the poles get hit supports anything BUT the south side claim.

I accept you have legitimate reasons to be suspicous of McGraw.

However, until he can be shown to be lying, I believe he has to be treated as a south side witness, however absurd that sounds given he didn't 'witness' it.

As I said in my earlier post, this only applies the logic you have used thus far for the north side witnesses.

For example, Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios saw the plane fly north of the Citgo station, ergo it wasn't the plane that caused the physical damage at the Pentagon.

Similarly, McGraw saw a plane to his right on its approach to the Pentagon, ergo said plane couldn't have flown from north of the Citgo station.

Not having a pop at your work, just stress-testing.

It's cool man but it doesn't make sense.

Your analogy is faulty.

All witnesses saw the plane on the north side.

Nobody saw the plane on the south side including McGraw.

This is fact.

Yes the north side approach proves a deliberate deception in regards to the impact.

It's not scientific to say this deception and the north side evidence is directly refuted based solely on McGraw's stated belief of an impact. He could have been deceived just like the citgo witnesses were. He saw the plane for a lot less time that is for sure.

That is simply using circular logic to dismiss the north side evidence without presenting any evidence that directly refutes it.

That is not a scientific or logical approach.

The north side claim can only be directly refuted by witnesses who directly claim to have seen the plane on the south side.

McGraw says no such thing.




[edit on 9-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

It does to me, someone who is not 'wedded' to a theory - and I don't mean that in a disparaging sense.


Again, not to me. It makes perfect sense to me to say that, if a guy sees a plane that cannot possibly have originated from a particular point, then that particular point cannot have been the origin of the plane.

Again though, I accept you have legitimate cause to be suspicious over McGraw's testimony, but until such time as it can be proven wrong, it stands as far as I'm concerned.


Yes they did but, without wishing to take this off-topic (indeed, I'm simply not going to go there beyond this) you have corroborated witness statements claiming they 'saw' the plane impact the building. Now, if you argue, as you have in the past, that they were deceived about this but could not have been wrong about which side of the Citgo the plane flew, then you have to accept that McGraw similarly cannot be wrong about which side of he saw a plane.


I accept this.


I accept that a proven north side approach would prove a deliberate deception.


It is refuted to the extent that McGraw has to be shown to be either wrong or lying. Otherwise you're resorting to a preponderance of evidence argument based on witness testimonies.


I will concede this point dependant upon how you answer this:

If McGraw is correct in stating that the plane flew to his right on its alleged approach to the Pentagon, is there any way the same plane could have flown to the north of the Citgo station?

Most definitely. There would be no other way to describe it.

The plane would be described as flying to his "right" either way.

After route 27 the two flight paths are only negligibly different.



Certainly not different enough to matter in the less than 1 second that McGraw could have been a witness to it.

You have to realize that the flight paths are actually quite close in the grand scheme of things.

But there is ZERO room for error in the physical damage path particularly due to the light poles so that is why the north of the citgo claim is so fatal to the official story.

So now that you have conceded that your point is based on a logical fallacy I think it's fair to say that you have conceded that McGraw is not a definitive south or north of the citgo witness.

Whoa there, let's not be too hasty. And no need to treat me as a 'hostile' either. As I implied earlier, I admire the work you do, but it demands to be stress-tested.

It's true that, if McGraw saw the plane to his right, and if that plane could nonetheless have originated from the north side of the Citgo, then clearly McGraw does not refute to north side flightpath. And if it's that easy to establish, then the whole dabate about McGraw is a storm in a teacup as far as I can see.

However, I'm not as familiar as many others when it comes to a comparison of the 'official' and north side flightpaths, so the graphic you used in your last post to support the idea that McGraw and a north side flightpath are not mutually exclusive doesn't clarify things for me.

If you have it, I'd be interested to see an aerial shot of the scene, with the 'official' flightpath marked clearly, the north side flightpath marked clearly and McGraw's location marked clearly.

Arguing over what hit the Pentagon is both:

1.Way over the head of some who intuitively KNOW 9/11 was an inside job...
2. Not the most glaring proof that 9/11 was an inside job...(WTC 7 is!)...

I applaud those who have taken the time to research and compile info...

but it is like adding more evidence to the pile implicating O.J. .....!!!!

In other words...it is not the weakest front...

I have not been hostile. Perhaps curt but certainly not hostile.

But if you feel a concession is hasty we can continue.



It's really just a deceptive attempt for CL to cast doubt on our motives and methods.



Then you must not have looked at it very carefully.

Click on the link...it will make it easier to see.

Both flight paths go "right" of route 27 and both are clearly marked on the image.



He was allegedly on route 27 supposedly right underneath the plane and he didn't see it until it passed him.

That could be anywhere between the north and south paths on route 27.

Either way the plane would continue to his "right".

reply to post by coastlinekid

---

I disagree.

Experts can spin controlled demo.

And they most certainly have which is why it's gotten us nowhere.

No expert, pilot, or researcher can possibly spin the north side claim.

They can only ignore it or dismiss it because it is definitive proof of a deception.

You're right, I didn't look carefully enough.

I accept that McGraw's account could both be truthful and describe a north of the Citgo flightpath.

In which case, I'm a little bewildered as to why this has become a bone of contention.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

---

I agree to a point...


WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speed...(no significant exterior impact)

The "simple man on the street" would certainly see that as obvious... if he were a person to hear the impact of the object hitting the pentagon and then whip their head around to see it... compared to someone standing and watching WTC 7 collapsing in front of them...(with emergency personnel screaming: GET BACK THEY ARE GONNA BRING DOWN THAT BUILDING!!!)


Big difference...

Craig Ranke has expended a large amount of energy defending his version of the Official Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT) on ATS in regards to the attack on the Pentagon. We are all aware of his shrillness and that he has been banned on forums and on ATM for intolerance.

Craig Ranke is passionate in his cause for his version of 9/11 Truth, willing to confront any challenge directly but, unfortunately, he is quite unwilling to acknowledge when he is wrong or defend his position when challenged. Naturally, this raises doubts about his understanding of the facts and his motives.

In his "research" of the Pentagon, Ranke states on his website:



Curiously, I've never understood why he ignored the many published reports delineating in detail the response to the Pentagon attack by many hundreds of people, ordinary people like you and me doing their jobs under extraordinary, challenging, and life-threatening circumstances. For some unexplainable, but very odd reasons, Craig Ranke dismisses these reports and findings as unworthy of attention. In so doing, he further raises doubts about his OTMCT and motives.

I will suggest that everyone entertaining Craig Ranke's OTMCT first read the comprehensive report on the response to the Pentagon attack and ask Craig Ranke why he will not respond to it in detail, rather than just dismiss it as a "bunch of people who have to keep quiet" so they do lose their jobs. This report is here:

www.arlingtonva.us...

For those of you who believe asking questions about 9/11 is paramount to ascertaining the truth, do not forget that asking questions of those like Craig Ranke, who make unsupported claims contradicted by other facts, is just as important.

Craig Ranke has never been very tolerant of being questioned about his claims, but there is no reason he should not answer them if the truth is his goal.

I will ask you, Carig Ranke, to respond in detail to this report and tell us how it jives with your claims.

Cheers.

On reflection, I've been a bit hasty.

I do agree that McGraw doesn't technically rule out a north of the Citgo flightpath. That said, his account fits the south path better. If someone independent of the investigation were to plot the flightpath using his testimony alone, it would undoubtedly run south of the Citgo station.

But perhaps more importantly, you still have to prove him wrong in another respect, one that has been rather overlooked due to our focus on the flighpath - his claim that the plane did hit the building.

From his vantage point, it would be hard to see how he could be mistaken about this. Which still leaves you having to assert he is lying or else explain how he could have got this wrong.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by coughymachine]

Sorry to break into the conversation here but did he elaborate on "saw the plane to the right" in his testimony? "To his right" doesn't say if it was near or far, although he says it "flew over his head".

Now, if that meant he had to look up out the front of his car, and maybe even having to lean forward to get a better view, that still makes "up" rather ambiguous as far as distance is concerned.

Given the fact he was at the Pentagon after the event makes me question his testimony, but from a pure witness point of view - we know just how hopeless they really can be when recalling events.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Huh? On what basis would you make that wild claim? His testimony does not support the north or south of the citgo paths because he claims he did not see the plane until it passed over him.

Although the fact that he did not see it hit any light poles supports a north path more.

There is nothing else to debate.

You really ought to pull your concession back out because you have offered nothing here to support a south of the citgo path in his testimony.

You see the ONLY thing we have to determine his location is the fact that he says he was right under the plane.

This means for the sake of discussion his location changes depending on where the plane was.

Since all witnesses claim it was on the north side of the station we can only conclude that McGraw was directly under the north side path (if he was in fact really there).

We only plot him directly under the south side side path for the sake of discussion in context with the official story.

Understand?



That is not overlooked. That has been already proven wrong with the unrefuted north side testimony that McGraw does not directly contradict.

You are falling into circular logic again.



Yes well that is most definitely why we find this high profile witness with dubious details in his account suspect.

You are getting it.

reply to post by jthomas

---

seanm,

There is nothing to respond to because nothing in that report contradicts any of my claims.

People were deceived.

The north side evidence proves it.

If you think there is anything specific in that report that refutes any of my specific claims please create a thread outlining what it is, copy the quote in the body of your OP, and I will respond directly.

As it stands your post is off topic and you have offered nothing to refute any evidence that CIT presents.