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.

 

Stephen McGraw: alleged Pentagon attack witness

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


And Coughy, thanks for the clarification. I have backed off on the clarity of the south path just from the words and gestures offered. It's the collected sum of his account that's interesting.


In that case the entire premise of your blog is unjustified and should be taken down and retracted if you have a shred of integrity.

You deliberately created the impression that we are being deceptive in covering up this detail that you no longer support.





This is not simple algebra where we can divide and re-define the variables at will. He DID see some path. It does have a logical projection back. The available evidence is not clear enough for us to determine what that direction is. We don't know where he was.



Oh he did did he?

It's funny how quick you are to shout conspiracy and accuse all 6 of the north side witnesses who prove the official story a lie as being deep cover operatives but you refuse to entertain the notion that a highly publicized official story witness like McGraw may have been involved.




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I said that YOU can accurately state it for the sake of argument.

Oh come on, that surely isn't what you meant.

You said:

You can accurately say that McGraw's impact claim INDIRECTLY supports the south flight path.


Then a short while later, after I said I agreed, you followed it up with:

I have always admitted that there are a few people who INDIRECTLY support the south side path.


How can I conclude anything other than the fact that you accept McGraw as an indirect south side witness.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
1) He's an impact witness. Some say this makes him a south path witness. But Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios also describe the 'impact.'

Lagasee, Brooks and Tucios clearly witnessed events that place them in both the north side and south side camps.

However, I believe that they are less likely to be mistaken about which side of the Citgo station the plane flew on than about whether the plane actually hit the building or flew over. I don't like it, but I think it would be wrong to argue the veracity of their impact claim trumps their recollection of which side the plane flew - right or left.

On that basis, I believe they have to be treated as north side witnesses.

McGraw, on the other hand, cannot place the plane to the north or the south. He did see the impact though. This makes him a south side witness, indirectly, by virtue of the fact that an impact rules out a north side path.

Just clarifying my thoughts.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So... he SAYS he was in the spot under the official planne - which didnt pass that way... so he's lying but forgot to lie about the poles being hit
OR
he was under the north path plane and just saw one pole later and heard about the cab story and confused about the space he was in called it just before it got to him
OR he was where he says/where you put him, he saw the plane RIGHT OVER and from behind, the poles happened to fast to be recorded properly as he was looking up and possibly overwhelmed by the 757.


He never said he was in the "official spot".

You and your "possibility" lists are really just meant to confuse.

I find it comical how you routinely like to infer that the less sense a story makes the more likely it is to be true since liars would always have their story down perfectly.



They all died. Just kidding. They probably re-scheduled with no hard feelings. And doesn't McGraw mention in the interview how he was stuck in traffic anyway, and so it wouldn't hurt anything to go help out? And even if it did add to his tardiness, is helping the wounded and dying MANY over ONE already dead guy really so suspicious? So the Pgon already has a chaplain? Cool - they also have doctors. So should doctors nearby not also stop and help, seeing that this situation was out of hand?


If a doctor was late to perform surgery on someone he would not shirk his commitment.

That analogy is certainly apples to oranges anyway.

Shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.





Your other points are what they are and no arguments. Maybe he is suspicious and that makes him a liar here, or maybe he's suspicious but honest here anyway, or not suspicious but lying about the plane, or whatever...


Look how uncertain everything is!

Cast doubt-ATTACK-neutralize-cast doubt-ATTACK-neutralize.

Your pattern is getting more and more predictable.

Funny how easy it is for you to be so certain about the fact that all the north side witnesses are planted deep cover operatives.



I've played up the south path witness aspect too much. There's a case for that (see post above) but it's not as clear as I thought.


Admissions here are good but your deceptive blog designed to cast doubt on us personally FOR THIS VERY REASON is where the retractions are truly warranted.

If you have a shred of integrity that is.




Gestures - unclear IMO - they are clearly to the left but also maybe back a bit - we disagree. Craig, do his gestures RULE OUT a south path or just not support it? If so why not trust his projection back from the stretch he saw, and call him a north pather?


I see him as a "NO PATHER" since he specifcially claims he didn't see it. But if you go by your "clues" he clearly supports a north path more.




Sub-set of above - the gestures were the main way I thought he 'said' from behind. Anyone else? I was watching his shoulders - it seems his body turns somewhat as if he's reaching not just out further to the left but also back a bit... but I've been wrong before.


And you are wrong again. He gestures left to right at the ONLY moment that he is describing the flight path. This is clear.




And you've proven it flew north, right? SO why are you placing him way back there in your own video?


To analyze his account in context of the official story. Why is that hard to understand?



I don't get this...

Okay so those are all my claims? How about:
- "McGraw’s ‘deducing’ the poles were clipped by the plane indicates, as does it coming in ‘over” him, that the poles were knocked down on the flight path he saw. Which would make him a south path witness." Can none of your witnesses have a sense of space? Lagasse - McGraw, all just clueless that the poles and plane were in a different spot...


Ummm....since he clearly only remembers the top part of ONE pole this deduction does not indicate a flight path in the least.



- "he said he ‘picked up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn. It didn’t literally do this, but this persistent impression might be a clue that it was that low – which it would not be if ‘pulling up’ to fly over." He's a low flight wiyness with a very good view. /his hand gestures seem to indicate the pitch - pointed slightly down, all altitudes low and getting lower.


It indicates a propensity to deduce inaccurate information. Or it could be a deliberate "deduction" so you can make this very assertion.



- "when asked to clarify that it entered the building he responded “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.” You'll need to explain that too if you're gonna say he's a north path flyover witness


Why? The Citgo witnesses also think it hit. Sleight of hand is VERY effective.

Of course I am not calling him a north path witness since he did not witness the approach at all.



- "trees blocking the view of impact for some witnesses, those headed northbound like McGraw but further back. For some northbound witnesses this is true. It’s not true for Father McGraw."


So? See reply above.



- also the pole clipped 'just before it got to us.' Craig thinks maybe pole 4 or 5, closer to the north path, but to McGraw's right, so it's odd for him to say 'before' since it was GOING L-R by ether path.


Huh? "just before it go to us" makes sense no matter what flight path. He never specifies where the "top of the pole" he allegedly saw was located.



- the fact that this witness was treated very differently from those in the PentaCon. He was suspicious for not being verified and for *seeming* to say he *saw* the poles clipped, etc... then verified and still suspicious.


Dude.....the citgo witnesses prove the official story false. It is perfectly logical to give more credence to evidence that contradicts the official story when investigating a psychological black operation of this magnitude.



Well since you put it like that I guess it's settled. I have illustrated that McGraw is a north path witness.


I don't agree with going by your "clues". It is not a valid approach. If someone didn't see something they are not a witness to it.



Wait, now I am confused. That's how you would want to treat a south path/lom impact witness you can't disqualify with the shrubbery test - one you want to discredit. If you get a north-pather they have to be up-by-the-bootdtsraps immigrant citizens or upstanding hardworking peace officers with nothing to gain.


Not sure if I get your point. But if it is that we should be more skeptical of highly publicized witnesses shrouded in dubious details who support the official story compared to previously unknown witnesses who prove it false then the answer is yes.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

How can I conclude anything other than the fact that you accept McGraw as an indirect south side witness.


It makes sense that you concluded that and I don't mind that you did but it's not what I meant.

There are a very small amount of other witnesses who INDIRECTLY support the south side flight path.

Such as Frank Probst.

Of course his account is just as dubious as McGraw's if not more so.

But no....I personally do not categorize McGraw as an indirect south path witness.

Believing the impact is not enough in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Craig: some witness verification. We don't know a darn thing about McGraw's account that we can agree on - as far as you're concerned he wasn't even there, and if so we don't know where.

He's shrouded in dubiousness because you shrouded him. And now I need to retract because I connect this with his 'south path testimony' that I made up with no basis. Then you yourself accuse him of 'supporting the official story,' maybe lying about the altitude to trick us, etc. So let's see... he supports 'the official story,' which is south of the Citgo, 70 mag, sown the pike, south of the Annex, etc... He supports a real plane impact, which means internal damage, and all that happened on the SOUTH path. Yet he's not a south path witness? Because of some geometry issue you've set up and cause his gestures are left-to-right? He may not have been there at all. He's therefore NOT a south - He is a 'no-pather' becuse he didn't see more than second of it's path (if he was there), meaning what, he testifies it appeared there out nowhere and on no path impacted/whatever? Now I need to retract because my WHOLE premise was from behind gestures that you've PROVEN show a north path, eve tho he's a liekely liar?

There can be no more purpose in this discussion for me. I am really done. I'll update my blog sometime soon to reflect what we've discussed. I've seen enough however.

Coughy, sorry I misreprepresented you in spots. I see where you're coming from and I agree.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I'm going to reply before I finish reading this thread so I don't forget what's on my mind.
1.)Father McGraw doesn't see any light poles being hit.
2.)He heard or "felt" the plane over him.
3.)He states that he grabbed his "kit" (my words), ran across two lanes,jumped a guard rail and was on the lawn administering rights/help/prayers.

I don't know Lloyd's position from Father McGraw's so indulge my observations please.
What I can figure out given the context of the video is that Father McGraw must have been ahead of the light poles,hence over the North flight path.
Craig posted a picture of Father McGraw on the lawn.He is far left (picture orientation) or north? of the impact.
If you look at the over head view picture Craig posted, Father McGraw is no where near a guard rail and no where near his alleged original position in the photo of him on the lawn.He would have to sprint to get to that position on the lawn.Granted there are no time stamps on the photos.
The fact that Father McGraw doesn't witness downed light poles but sees the
impact leads me to believe he was further north than the green dot indicates.
It's curious to me that he couldn't hear a plane at 25 feet above him, even with the windows up.

Since he grew up in the area how could he not realize he was next to the Pentagon?It's a one of a kind building.He knew where Arlington cemetary was and knew he turned too early, so this puts his validity into question for me.
His account just raises more questions and not enough definitive answers for me.
I can only conclude that he is making up some elements of his account or he is further north (if 27 runs north).My orientation of the map isn't quite clear so forgive my direction.
These are my own opinions based on what has been presented.If others can show how my conclusions are mis interpreted,please provide some photos to clear it up for me.One of the cab in relation to Father McGraw's would help so I can gauge what "a few feet away" is.
I'm looking for enlightenment on this issue.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by citizen truth
 



The problem is there is nothing to prove exactly where McGraw was or if he was really there at all.

There is likely a reason why his account raises more questions than it answers.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Haha..

I just realized a truth from a few posts back. Hey Ranke - didn't YOU interview this guy? Heck you were sitting tight there with him, why didn't you just ask him to clarify this stuff if you didn't understand what he meant? It seems you took the time to clarify what your north side witnesses have to say - why didn't you use the same diligence with this witnesses who might refute your point? I think again we are looking at your double standard when it comes to witness testimony. You clearly were biased going into the interviews and it shows in the outcome.

here is what I would like to see.

Video record of ALL your witness recordings. Good and bad, so we can judge for oursleves the integrity of your questioning and treatment of the witnesses in question.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


Megaman.... great point. It appears that this man directly refutes any claims of a flyover. He was in a perfect position to see the impact and so this is what he claims.

Also, what I noticed is that the CIT group places the word allegedly to any witness that does not support their theory. Does he place the word allegedly infront of the witnesses that support the North side flight path??

Without sounding like a cheerleader, Coughy also makes another good point in that the other witnesses that claim a Northside flight path also saw the impact..I too would agree that they are more likely to mistake the side of the Citgo station they saw the plane on than seeing a multi ton airplane crash into the side of the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I wonder what the good father has to say to all this being talked about him behind his back?

Apart from that great post megaman


Looks like the cats out of the sack so to speak...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
Haha..

I just realized a truth from a few posts back. Hey Ranke - didn't YOU interview this guy? Heck you were sitting tight there with him, why didn't you just ask him to clarify this stuff if you didn't understand what he meant?


What stuff?

We did ask him to clarify everything from his previously published accounts, he clarified it, we reported it.

I will admit that we hadn't thought about the fact that he abandoned the funeral he was late to preside over until later so unfortunately we weren't able to ask him about that.




It seems you took the time to clarify what your north side witnesses have to say - why didn't you use the same diligence with this witnesses who might refute your point? I think again we are looking at your double standard when it comes to witness testimony. You clearly were biased going into the interviews and it shows in the outcome.


You are making this wild generalized claim without citing an example.

I have no idea what you could mean.

Everything we could think of was fully clarified.

We reported everything although Dylan Avery failed to report the questionable details even though our interview is featured in Final Cut.



here is what I would like to see.

Video record of ALL your witness recordings. Good and bad, so we can judge for oursleves the integrity of your questioning and treatment of the witnesses in question.


We report everything. Wait until you see what we got on our latest trip.

We can only video tape when the witness agrees and we are in the location on a research trip.

I live in California and have only been able to manage 3 trips to Arlington so far.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by megaman1234
 


Megaman.... great point. It appears that this man directly refutes any claims of a flyover. He was in a perfect position to see the impact and so this is what he claims.


We did not cover up the details in his account. We reported them. If you think he is more credible than all the north side witnesses and you feel that his account cancels out the independent testimony from 6 people we have proving this claim that is your choice.



Also, what I noticed is that the CIT group places the word allegedly to any witness that does not support their theory. Does he place the word allegedly infront of the witnesses that support the North side flight path??


Some witnesses are more dubious than others.

The north side claim proving the official story is false is independently corroborated enough without being refuted that it's clear these witnesses are genuine. This fact alone is enough to legitimize greater skepticism of highly publicized official story witnesses.



Without sounding like a cheerleader, Coughy also makes another good point in that the other witnesses that claim a Northside flight path also saw the impact..I too would agree that they are more likely to mistake the side of the Citgo station they saw the plane on than seeing a multi ton airplane crash into the side of the Pentagon.


Acutally coughy made the exact OPPOSITE point.



Lagasee, Brooks and Tucios clearly witnessed events that place them in both the north side and south side camps.

However, I believe that they are less likely to be mistaken about which side of the Citgo station the plane flew on than about whether the plane actually hit the building or flew over. I don't like it, but I think it would be wrong to argue the veracity of their impact claim trumps their recollection of which side the plane flew - right or left.


Of course he is 100% correct since they all had an infinitely better view of the plane as it passed by the station.





posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Craig - What Stuff could you have asked? Are you kidding?

Lets go back:

"No he did not show us on a map. Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to do that."


You never even gave him the chance Craig.

You could have asked him about a gas station. You could have shown him the map. But you chose not to - simply because 1) He was honest about what he remembered, and 2) That you didn't want to risk him saying something you didn't agree with.

I wonder how many other witnesses weren't even given the chance?


This is just all wrong Criag - i don't understand why you are even doing this.



BTW - I really love your graphic with the nuclear bomb going off in the background to glare out the plane. Thats classic man! What did you do - keep raising the brightness level to a million until the plane finally couldn't be seen as it "flew over"???



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
Craig - What Stuff could you have asked? Are you kidding?

Lets go back:

"No he did not show us on a map. Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to do that."


You never even gave him the chance Craig.


His position could not be clarified any further. He says he was directly under the plane in the left lane northbound on route 27.

We did not have a map or even think to bring one at the time.

That doesn't make us deceptive or suggest that he could have clarified any further.



You could have asked him about a gas station. You could have shown him the map. But you chose not to - simply because 1) He was honest about what he remembered, and 2) That you didn't want to risk him saying something you didn't agree with.


You have no right to tell me what I chose to do or not and why.

You are telling the readers what I think with nothing to back it up and so that statement is actually a personal attack and forbidden.

We interviewed McGraw before we knew a thing about the CITGO witnesses.

We did not even consider the CITGO station in the context of his account since he was on route 27. Besides....he specifically SAYS that he wasn't aware of the plane until it passed over him as he had said this in his previously published account so we already knew that he did not see the approach and wasn't a valid witness to the flight path west of route 27.



I wonder how many other witnesses weren't even given the chance?


This is just all wrong Criag - i don't understand why you are even doing this.


This is another personal attack.

I have done nothing wrong by having the tenacity to obtain these interviews and presenting them to the world.

You are making wild generalized assumptions and accusations about our approach and that is an unwarranted attack.

We have been as thorough as we could possibly be at all times and you have no right to tell me otherwise without evidence or proof.






BTW - I really love your graphic with the nuclear bomb going off in the background to glare out the plane. Thats classic man! What did you do - keep raising the brightness level to a million until the plane finally couldn't be seen as it "flew over"???



The gif compression made it look like that.

See The PentaCon for the full animation uncompressed.


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



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Starred, and flagged. Excellent work here Mr. Ranke. It's obvious you've done alot of footwork, actually going to locations, conducting interviews ect.

I've always thought that building 7 would be the key when this whole scandal unfolds (and it will), as I thought it was the most easy to prove that it was CD'd(we have Mr silversteins statements, as well as the blunder by the BBC) but after visiting your site, and watching all of the videos, and interviws, I may have to change my mind.

If only we could get the CCTV footage from the Citgo station, and from that hotel released publicly. Just the fact that it's being with-held from the public for this long speaks volumes, imo. Sheesh it's been what over 6 years now--even if they did release footage now, it would most likely be doctored anyway.

But keep up the good work.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well that's gotta make you stop and think a bit. So as we were saying.... Erm, well since it's relevant, I did update my blog entry.
Redux - The Master Opus
Yes, a slight pun.... Not much of a retraction. It's really long and detailed now thanks to all to convolutedness I'm trying to follow here. Lots of careful quoting, challenges anticipated. Hope I can read them. and others can read this. Fingers crossed. Sensitive lasers in here now...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join