It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
YOU need to provide testimony directly placing the plane on the south side of the citgo to effectively refute the north side testimony.

No, I don't. As much as it appears you would like me to, I'm not trying to prove a theory one way or the other - I'm simply stress-testing yours.


My assertion was hypothetical in response to you telling me what I need to do to disprove the erroneous notion that McGraw supports a south side claim.



But I want to get back to basics here. My exchange with you in this thread started out with a simple purpose. I'm going to return to it. Here's the key point of my first post:

Originally posted by coughymachine
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.


I set out to ascertain whether McGraw was a south side witness or not. Clearly he is, based on your own logic, which says that the north side path and the impact are mutually exclusive.


Wrong.

You have already conceded that this is based on nothing but circular logic which is a logical fallacy.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.

Plus you can not remove the evidence from the context of a crime.

The crime is a deliberate military sleight of hand illusion that decieved the entire world.

We have presented direct evidence for multiple corroborating accounts of a north side claim. You have presented zero evidence that directly refutes this.

This north side evidence proves a deliberate deception.

The fact that people were deceived does not disprove the north side claim.

To suggest it does is circular logic.

You have already conceded this yet you are going back to this same unscientific faulty reasoning. Why?



Now, does this 'refute' the north side witnesses? That's a different question, and one I think we've been interchanging with the question of whether he's a south side witness or not.


You have already conceded that his statement of the plane traveling "right" is all you are going by and that this accurately reflects both flight paths.

Since both flight paths have the plane traveling to the witness' "right" and since the witness specifically states that he did not see the plane until it passed over to his "right" he can not be accurately cited as a witness to where the plane flew to his left.

Correct?



On that basis, do you accept McGraw is a south side witness, even if you don't accept that his testimony refutes the north side path?


Absolutely not.

McGraw does not make a single statement (or definitive "hand gesture") indicating what the flight path was before he witnessed it.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Caustic Logic,

The only hand gesture he makes in regards to the flight path is at 3:17.



He is clearly gesturing left to right and not front to back.

Add this together with the fact that he did not see the light poles get hit and it is clear that McGraw actually supports a north side flight path more than he does a south side flight path.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I always assumed he supported neither since he didn't see the approach.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


He also states he saw the plane enter the Pentagon..... oh.. thats right... he is telling the truth about your fantasy flight path, but is lying about seeing the plane enter the Pentagon.

Cherry picking at it's finest.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


He also states he saw the plane enter the Pentagon..... oh.. thats right... he is telling the truth about your fantasy flight path, but is lying about seeing the plane enter the Pentagon.

Cherry picking at it's finest.



How is it cherry picking if I interviewed him and published the interview?

The Citgo witnesses also believe in an impact.

The north side approach proves the deception and it is circular logic to suggest the fact that people were deceived refutes the proven placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station.

McGraw offers nothing to refute the hard evidence we present proving the north side approach.

Caustic Logic offers nothing to refute it.

You offer nothing to refute it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



I was not there, so therfore I can only give you my opinion based on witnesses and PHYSICAL evidence.

This priest WAS there. It is cherry picking when you "pick" the parts of the interviews that fit your fantasy. He watched the plane go into the building. He did NOT see the plane fly over. What DON'T you get??



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Apparently you don't get where the conversation was at in this thread.

We know you support the official story and will not entertain the concept of a deception.

I have never cited McGraw as a north side witness because he claims he did not see the approach.

Nevertheless CL has erroneously (and deceptively) claimed that McGraw directly supports a south side flight path.

I have proven how this is not true.

We have not cherry picked McGraw's account.

That is what CL was trying to do but he only found rotten cherries.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

I'm not going to respond point by point because it encourages you to miss my point.

I conceded that McGraw's observation that the plane was to his right does not in and of itself refute the north side claim. I would further accept that McGraw's testimony, on its own, does not refute the north side claim. So let's move on.

The fact that he claims the plane hit the Pentagon makes him a de facto south side witness using your very own logic.

You cannot have it both ways.

Put more simply, can the plane McGraw says he saw hit the Pentagon have originated from the north side of the Citgo station?

This last question is the only part of my post you need to address.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine


Put more simply, can the plane McGraw says he saw hit the Pentagon have originated from the north side of the Citgo station?



Of course it could have since the north side evidence proves he was lying or deceived about the impact and he does not directly refute the north side evidence.

All of the Citgo witnesses also believed the plane hit but their placement of the plane proves they were deliberately deceived.

Again.....you are still resorting to the same circular logic.

The entire point of CL's blog was that McGraw is a direct south side witness.

I have proven how this is not true.

We know there are plenty of people who didn't see the flight path but saw the plane and the explosion and believe an impact.

This does not refute the evidence proving a deception.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course it could have since the north side evidence proves he was lying or deceived about the impact and he does not directly refute the north side evidence.

Craig,

Let's recognise that refutation and witness statements are two different things here.

I am not arguing that McGraw's testimony alone offers a refutation of the north side theory. I am arguing that he is a south side witness by simple virtue of the fact that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Now you may chose to refute McGraw by citing the north side evidence, but that doesn't change the fact the McGraw is a south side witness.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course it could have since the north side evidence proves he was lying or deceived about the impact and he does not directly refute the north side evidence.

Craig,

Let's recognise that refutation and witness statements are two different things here.

I am not arguing that McGraw's testimony alone offers a refutation of the north side theory. I am arguing that he is a south side witness by simple virtue of the fact that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Now you may chose to refute McGraw by citing the north side evidence, but that doesn't change the fact the McGraw is a south side witness.


But this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.

If you remove it from the context of the evidence proving a deception you are missing the entire point.

McGraw is not a witness to the flight path.

He specifically SAYS this.

The truth movement has ignored the Pentagon for years now because of all the eyewitnesses.

We have proven a deception by focusing on one detail.....the exact flight path of the plane.

We have demonstrated how many of the so called witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all and really just deduced the impact.

The evidence we present PROVES a deception in regards to the impact.

We have never denied that many people were deceived into believing the impact.

McGraw simply counts as one of these people since he did not see the flight path.

It's not logical or scientific for you to remove all of the people who were deceived from the context of the deception in order to be able to state they support a south side of the citgo flight path even if they didn't even see it.

Evidence for a deception is piling up like there is no tomorrow.

The north side claim gets confirmed everywhere we look and refuted nowhere.

I appreciate that you are "stress testing" me but people don't become witnesses to something by default. Either they witnessed it or they did not.

Clearly in the case of McGraw he did NOT witness the south side approach and if we go off yours and CL's earlier logic of using "indicators" or "clues" then his testimony actually supports a north side approach more due to the left right hand gesture (as opposed to back to front) and the notion that he did not see the poles right in front of him get hit.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.

Nor is citing the statements of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon to show that the statement of a witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon is wrong.

I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, CL is right to refer to McGraw as a south side witness. I don't agree, however, that his testimony alone can be used to refute the north side evidence.

For the record, I remain agnostic on the flightpath.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, with the mountain of evidence that has been provided. I do believe the official report. There is a reason why the truthers (for the most part) have abandoned the Pentagon CT's. There is not any evidence to prove other wise.

As usual you ignore the physical evidence as planted, deceptions, whatever. You accuse elderly cab drivers as being in on it. You accuse a priest of lying. You accuse the private contractors doing construction work at the Pentagon as being in on it. Where does your fantasy end Craig? Where does it begin?

Your dream that the goverment planned a military deception is ....well pretty pathetic.

It may not be your job to answer the following questions, but they are questions that should be raised.

1. Who paid off the cab driver?
2. How would the government know this guy would not bump his gums?
3. Where did the plane go?
4. Where are the passengers?
5. What contractors were involved?
6. Who hid the abundance of air craft debris?
7. Who, post impact ran to the "debris warehouse" and planted it?
8. How were explosive devices installed during construction?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.

Nor is citing the statements of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon to show that the statement of a witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon is wrong.


Then you simply are not acknowledging what the implications of the word "deception" are.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, with the mountain of evidence that has been provided. I do believe the official report. There is a reason why the truthers (for the most part) have abandoned the Pentagon CT's. There is not any evidence to prove other wise.

As usual you ignore the physical evidence as planted, deceptions, whatever. You accuse elderly cab drivers as being in on it. You accuse a priest of lying. You accuse the private contractors doing construction work at the Pentagon as being in on it. Where does your fantasy end Craig? Where does it begin?


Stop lying about my claims.

Quote me all you want but don't tell me what I have said or done without backing it up with quotes.



Your dream that the goverment planned a military deception is ....well pretty pathetic.


This is the extent of all of your off topic, irrelevant, uneducated, empty, trolling comments that you make while ignoring the evidence or discussion at hand.




It may not be your job to answer the following questions, but they are questions that should be raised.

1. Who paid off the cab driver?


Huh? Who said he was paid?



2. How would the government know this guy would not bump his gums?


I have no idea what that means nor do I care.



3. Where did the plane go?


Don't know. Never claimed to know.



4. Where are the passengers?


Don't know never claimed to know. I imagine they are dead.



5. What contractors were involved?


Don't know. Never claimed to know.



6. Who hid the abundance of air craft debris?


Don't know. Never claimed to know.



7. Who, post impact ran to the "debris warehouse" and planted it?


Don't know what you mean.



8. How were explosive devices installed during construction?


Strategically.



We have merely provided enough evidence to prove a deception in general.

Not who did it.

Trolling is against the rules.

Please stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Your calling me a liar?

If you READ my post you will see that I clearly stated that you don't HAVE to answer my questions but i believe they are legitimate and should be adressed. I did not state that you had all the answers.

If the cab driver was not paid off.... please tell me how he is working for the government. (if that is what you are implying.)

I am not trolling Craig, I am pointing to facts that you ignore.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
ETA: Thanks for the good input. this issue deserves the attention it's getting.

Alright, trying to remain civil. So the stumbling point now is 'from behind. I made it up, eh? True, he never uses these words. But these are the gestures I mean:


Anyone check these in the video at the time stamps given. Is he saying it came in from behind, or not? I say so, Craig says no. Anyone else? Is this all just L-R, or is he also pointing back? How about his over-the head gestures? Did you miss those, Craig? That all just L-R as well, and done as literally overhead instead of ahead and above?

This is the key to his path. L-R, above, both could describe a north path too. From behind means from the south.

you can't trace back from nothing. I agree. Do you, Craig, believe McGraw witnessed nothing? He says he SAW a plane pass over him low, L-R, I say from behind, go lower and impact. How about from that? Can you trace back from what McGraw describes?

I want you to confirm either no back-too front motion in his gestures, that poles 3, 4, or 5 could be cinstrued as 'before it got to us', or that there's no particular value to the words and gestures he uses, and no way to accurately deduce back from what he saw. A little 'why' might help.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright, trying to remain civil. So the stumbling point now is 'from behind. I made it up, eh? True, he never uses these words. But these are the gestures I mean:

[the video at the time stamps given. Is he saying it came in from behind, or not? I say so, Craig says no. Anyone else? Is this all just L-R, or is he also pointing back? How about his over-the head gestures? Did you miss those, Craig? That all just L-R as well, and done as literally overhead instead of ahead and above?


He is not talking about the flight path OR gesturing behind him at that point!

He is talking about how he got a "sense" of the plane "above" him which is why he simply gestures over his head.

Right after that he specifically gestures left to right when talking about the plane approach.


This is 100% clear.






This is the key to his path. L-R, above, both could describe a north path too. From behind means from the south.


Yep. He specifically gestures left to right and NOT from behind.



Do you, Craig, believe McGraw witnessed nothing? He says he SAW a plane pass over him low, L-R, I say from behind, go lower and impact. you can't trace back from nothing. I agree. How about from that? Can you trace back from what McGraw describes?


If you do it would have to translate to the north path because he gestures left to right.




I want you to confirm either no bact-too front motion in his gestures, or that there's no particular value to the words and gestures he uses, and no way to accurately deduce back from what he saw. A little 'why' might help on that one.


Deduction is not witnessing so although he does gesture left to right in relation to the flight path which supports a north side approach.....I still do not see him as a valid witness to the flight path because he specifically claims he did not witness it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Your calling me a liar?



I said you lied about my claims.

I have never made any of those statements.

If you were not lying and merely made the statements in error you should retract them or else find the quotes to back them up.



If you READ my post you will see that I clearly stated that you don't HAVE to answer my questions but i believe they are legitimate and should be adressed. I did not state that you had all the answers.


They are irrelevant off topic questions which amount to trolling.

Please stop.



If the cab driver was not paid off.... please tell me how he is working for the government. (if that is what you are implying.)


I never said he was working for the government.



I am not trolling Craig, I am pointing to facts that you ignore.


You are trolling.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITBut this is not a scientific approach to the discussion of the evidence.

Nor is citing the statements of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon to show that the statement of a witness who saw a plane hit the Pentagon is wrong.

I guess we've reached the end of this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, CL is right to refer to McGraw as a south side witness. I don't agree, however, that his testimony alone can be used to refute the north side evidence.

For the record, I remain agnostic on the flightpath.



I respect that position, and no this testimony itself does not prove anything. His 'from behind' aspect is still in doubt. Nonetheless, we have a second that this is a south path witness. This is not tedium, fellas and ladies. This is quite relevant to understanding the CIT approach - who else would care to examine and venture a guess as to what this eyewitness 'says?' Perhaps I'm flat wrong. Go ahead and look... Craig's already said his piece and then some, and I'm sayin' right in this spot. Let's hear from someone else.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


I respect that position, and no this testimony itself does not prove anything. His 'from behind' aspect is still in doubt. Nonetheless, we have a second that this is a south path witness. This is not tedium, fellas and ladies. This is quite relevant to understanding the CIT approach - who else would care to examine and venture a guess as to what this eyewitness 'says?' Perhaps I'm flat wrong. Go ahead and look... Craig's already said his piece and then some, and I'm sayin' right in this spot. Let's hear from someone else.


coughy has ONLY suggested that McGraw supports the south side approach because he believes in the impact which we both know is not enough.

The fact is that every point you made supporting this notion has been debunked.

Yet you once again expose yourself for making this about CIT instead of the evidence.

You are deliberately arguing that we have covered-up a south side witness when I have proven this to be false.

Here are all the points you have cited:

1. That McGraw claims the plane came from "behind" him.

McGraw made no such statement.



2. That McGraw gestures that the plane came from behind him.

He did no such thing but he DID gesture that the plane traveled left to right supporting a north side approach.



3. That the plane would be in front of him if it were on a north side approach.

Since the only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.



That's it right?

From what I can tell by your own logic you have shown McGraw to be a north side witness.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join