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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Nothing new and CERTAINLY not a retraction.

The premise of your blog is still designed to make it look like we have deceptively covered up the notion that he is a "south side" witness even though you have backed off this claim yourself.

I'll just address a few of your points:



He spoke of seeing the damaged taxi and light pole on the road by it (pole 1, behind him and to the left in the graphic here, directly from their video), and deduced after the fact how the evidence wound up the way it was.


Incorrect. We have already gone over this.

McGraw never says he saw the damaged cab. He says he "heard" about it. He also specifically described seeing only the "top part" of a pole so clearly he was not describing pole 1. Since the cab scene was on the other side of the road behind where he would have been it makes no sense to suggest that he WOULD have seen it at all with the HOV lane and guardrails in the way.



His hand gestures repeatedly indicate a slight nose-down pitch consistent with an impact at the ground floor.


Incorrect. You are making this up again.

He only makes one hand gesture in regards to the flight path and it is strictly left to right. You are heavily extrapolating.



I believe Father McGraw is a south path witness, first and foremost because for so many other reasons I already believe the plane came in on a south path and I believe McGraw’s video-verified account.


Yep. This is all you have. You support the official story so you BELIEVE it.

The evidence we present to the contrary is not faith based.



So why was he placed in a spot in their video if he gave no spot? And a spot where they knew no plane ever flew? Why indeed…


To discuss his account in context of the official story. I told you this.

There is nothing wrong with that. He claims he saw an impact so we discuss his account within that context. It makes perfect sense.



When I insist McGraw saw a path, if short, and could therefore never be a ‘no-pather,’ Craig let slip “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.” Deep cover? Hardly, their cover being so shallow is the main problem.


Shallow cover?

How could a gas station attendant and auto mechanic government operatives who were unknown to the media and world and sit laying in wait for 5 years with the assignment to spread disinfo hoping that we'll come around and ask them about it not be considered deep cover operatives?

Bottom line it is you who are blatantly accusing witnesses who prove the official story false as being government agents while furiously defending anyone who can be considered as supporting the official story regardless of the dubious details associated with their account.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
First, let me reiterate - I consider McGraw to be a south side witness by simple virtue of the fact he says he saw the impact.

However, something troubles me.

Am I right in saying McGraw was sitting in stationary traffic at the time? Am I right in assuming the traffic was likely queued nose to tail? And am I right in saying he was in the left lane - i.e. the lane furthest from the Pentagon - with two lanes inside of him?

If so, then how likely is it he could have seen the lawn (and hence a low level impact), given that he was sitting on the left of his car and to the left of two further lanes of parked vehicles?

Is the carriageway elevated relative to the Pentagon along that stretch of highway?

[edit on 14-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
According to the revised rules of this forum posted a few days ago:

IMPORTANT!
If a second infraction is encountered, even if we're applying the warns within seconds of each other and you have not seen the first warning yet, your posting privileges will be removed.


I note that one member has received his "second infraction" warning on this thread alone yet is still allowed to post. Have I misread the new policy?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
You perhaps avoided to read the time stamp of the first post of Sceptic Overlord in his last warning thread?

It would be a bit overzealous for an ATS-law enforcement mod, who is diligently removing posts from the past, which he doesn't see fit the new/old rules, to ban a member for ante-new-ruling behaviour from before SO's warning.

I have the feeling you are eagerly awaiting such a ban, am I correct?
Could you be more precise, and name the member?


Craig, as I saw already in the past few weeks, attacks ad hominem were increasing, all over the spectrum.
One advice to you, since I would not want you to get banned by clever military schooled propaganda master techniques, be PATIENT.
Don't let yourself get banned by an agitator, whose sole purpose in live is to upset online characters.

My behaviour in the last months : if I get upset, I do not answer at all an, in my eyes, provocative post, and wait to calm down, mostly one day or night, before I react. I just leave my initial reply at rest at my desktop screen, and edit it later on. This always helps to calm down and/or use strictly defendable and civil language and arguments.
Posting in anger is senseless.

I count the late "warns", and keep stock on who's getting them, for what post.
This last possibility is now defunct, since whole posts get erased from the public eye, but hopefully saved in a private trashcan forum.
Because it could be damn handy in the future, for historic reasons, to erect these messages from the past.

One last remark to the owners:
I expect you to not erase posts originating from before the ban-warning time stamp from SO, if you do so, then do it consequently, for ALL such posts from the start of this forum, which will defunct this whole archived forum, as you have realized yourself already, I am sure of.

Back-to-the-past enforcement would keep all the mods from this forum busy for years to come.

[edit on 15/12/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
You perhaps avoided to read the time stamp of the first post of Sceptic Overlord in his last warning thread?

This seems out of context to me LaBTop.

Where did talk of warnings and bannings come from? Do you believe I've broken the new forum policy?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
You perhaps avoided to read the time stamp of the first post of Sceptic Overlord in his last warning thread?


I did not avoid it but I did fail to look at the time stamp. I made an erroneous assumption that the ban's graphic would only be displayed as of the time of the warning as Skeptic Overload had stated was the time the ban would go into effect. So I saw two graphics and jumped to the conclusion

I stand corrected.


It would be a bit overzealous for an ATS-law enforcement mod, who is diligently removing posts from the past, which he doesn't see fit the new/old rules, to ban a member for ante-new-ruling behaviour from before SO's warning.


Of course.


I have the feeling you are eagerly awaiting such a ban, am I correct?
Could you be more precise, and name the member?


Actually not. I'd much prefer the poster answer my questions posed about the claims the poster makes. Alas, the poster refuses.


One last remark to the owners:
I expect you to not erase posts originating from before the ban-warning time stamp from SO, if you do so, then do it consequently, for ALL such posts from the start of this forum, which will defunct this whole archived forum, as you have realized yourself already, I am sure of.


I agree.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
coughymachine, I reacted to a post AFTER yours, from jthomas.
In fact, I starred your post.
You should have known, that I really like your strict logical stance in your argumentations.

jthomas, that was a gentleman-like response.
Let's all proceed that way.


To clarify my first post :
There has been an abundance of freshmen-members, who storm into a discussion between long-time members, and start throwing around the usual indoctrination remarks from the sites they originated from, and from where they found the link to ATS.
These sites can be on both sides of the 9/11 spectrum, or neutral.
These posters are making the usual error, to expect to argument with a no-brainer, and then find quickly out, that most long-time posters at ATS 9/11 forum, are very informed and have a thorough knowledge of many facts and opinions regarding 9/11 and its consequences.

There are however a bunch of new members, which all use the same techniques, trying to argue with such a vicious debating style, and with such a typical lack of knowledgeable background on 9/11 subjects, that it is quite obvious what their only goal is.
To disturb this forum.

So let's concentrate on these critters, and not by accident ban an old asset.
Let me be clear, as I have been many times in the past, I highly respect ANYONE on BOTH side of the fence, when they bring up their arguments with a solid understanding of the science or knowledge involved, and debate in a civil manner.
ALL fine debaters are an asset for this forum.

DECORUM is the right word to describe the future style of this forum.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
First, let me reiterate - I consider McGraw to be a south side witness by simple virtue of the fact he says he saw the impact.


Understood. And his being a south path witness doesn't logically necessitate that that's what happened. He could be a lying impact witness, which in fact would say nothing about the path, since only a REAL crash causing the REAL damage (including light poles) would REQUIRE the 60 degree path. Something to consider.


However, something troubles me.

Am I right in saying McGraw was sitting in stationary traffic at the time? Am I right in assuming the traffic was likely queued nose to tail? And am I right in saying he was in the left lane - i.e. the lane furthest from the Pentagon - with two lanes inside of him?


Looking down, there's two lanes running south on the left and two north on the right. (US system, don't forget
) Being northbound he was in the left half of the right half, one more lane to his right.


If so, then how likely is it he could have seen the lawn (and hence a low level impact), given that he was sitting on the left of his car and to the left of two further lanes of parked vehicles?

Hmmm... Not all of it anyway. But that's not too big a problem - he could even see the plane half-disappearing behind traffic but not rising above them again before the explosion. Good enough for me. But he says he watched it disappear into the building, so I guess distance/perspective would allow that. Hundreds of feet... yes. No reason he wouldn's see nearly all of the scene except perhaps at the contruction area or unless he had a semi truck parked to his right.


Is the carriageway elevated relative to the Pentagon along that stretch of highway?


Depends where exactly he was. Under the north path they're roughly level, where he's usually been placed on the north end of the bridge mound, the spot is elevated at least ten feet higher than the lawn at impact. It seems this would increase his chances of having a good view.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

That clears things up, LaBTop - I have jthomas (aka seanm) on ignore.

reply to post by Caustic Logic
 

I was working off of a picture in Craig's OP.



I now see that I've misread the filter lane for a third lane of traffic.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
They prob blackmailed him into saying what ever they wanted him to. they probably have dirt on him molesting children or something.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by megaman1234
 


Stephen McGraw is not a member here.

His connection to a controversial fundamentalist catholic cult that has been tied to traitors, spies, the Washington elite, and conspiracy is most certainly notable within the context of this discussion.




Any "witnesses" that have links to Opus Dei should certainly be looked at very closely, it is more than likely they are not being truthful



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by golddragnet
 


It certainly is a big red flag!

Just as any alleged witness who happened to be the boss of Jeff Gannon or a signer of the PNAC document is also rather suspect.

All it takes is one planted witness to prove a deception in Arlington.

They wouldn't have a reason to plant liars if the attack was carried out physically as they reported.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by golddragnet
 


It certainly is a big red flag!

Just as any alleged witness who happened to be the boss of Jeff Gannon or a signer of the PNAC document is also rather suspect.


Fair enough I guess... but what it thesuspicious priest testified to a north-path AND flyover? What would you do with that red flag in THAT case? I'm wondering if his connections would even be mentioned...


All it takes is one planted witness to prove a deception in Arlington.


Yes, a deception the exact size of one planted witness. It can suggest or hint at whatever else you think, but that's all it can prove, if one is ever proven to have been a plant. IF they were really there AS a plant at the time of the attack, that would I admit indicate something serious. But that's even harder to prove - the impetus to lie, about what happened/and/or being there, may have come weeks later...


They wouldn't have a reason to plant liars if the attack was carried out physically as they reported.


I've heard this before but am still not convinced. Can you walk us through the chain of reasoning that completely eliminates any oter motive for lies than to cover up the inside job. For example: they send out some plants that insist on an impossible scenario - a north path and an impact - and hope someone bites the bait and takes the north path part and sets in motion a stupid, time-draining debate further disillusioning the truth movement. You haven't been able to rule that out to my satisfaction yet. Or on the other hand they might send out SOME liars to say they saw the impact - which actually happened - but from a position they wouldn't be able to see. This would discredit these impact witnesses, a by extension the impact, and for the purpose of bolstering the above scenario and for the same ends.

Also it could be about more than the Truth movement, and hopefully could play into other areas - psy ops, propaganda practice, partly even simple amusement.

So IF we're seeing coordinated lying in the context of the official story being physically true (ie a 757 hit the Pentagon) that's a few reasons right there. If you cannot conclusively de-bunk these possibilities, I don't see how you can say "They wouldn't have a reason to plant liars if the attack was carried out physically as they reported."



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Fair enough I guess... but what it thesuspicious priest testified to a north-path AND flyover? What would you do with that red flag in THAT case? I'm wondering if his connections would even be mentioned...


Black is not white and white is not black.

9/11 was an inside job and the suspicious priest is what he is.

You have no right to tell me what I would do in a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with reality.





Yes, a deception the exact size of one planted witness. It can suggest or hint at whatever else you think, but that's all it can prove, if one is ever proven to have been a plant. IF they were really there AS a plant at the time of the attack, that would I admit indicate something serious. But that's even harder to prove - the impetus to lie, about what happened/and/or being there, may have come weeks later...


You have missed or deliberately clouded the point. If anybody is convinced that someone is a planted government operative to lie and support the official story then 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job to that person.

On the flip side; if you choose to believe in a 757 impact you must accept that none of the witnesses who support the official story are lying operatives.






I've heard this before but am still not convinced. Can you walk us through the chain of reasoning that completely eliminates any oter motive for lies than to cover up the inside job. For example: they send out some plants that insist on an impossible scenario - a north path and an impact - and hope someone bites the bait and takes the north path part and sets in motion a stupid, time-draining debate further disillusioning the truth movement. You haven't been able to rule that out to my satisfaction yet. Or on the other hand they might send out SOME liars to say they saw the impact - which actually happened - but from a position they wouldn't be able to see. This would discredit these impact witnesses, a by extension the impact, and for the purpose of bolstering the above scenario and for the same ends.


There is zero motive to risk involving lying deep cover operatives in this fashion if the operation was carried out physically as reported.

There is no logic in this.

They do not need to confuse people or generate more suspicion deliberately when it was carried out successfully as reported.

Your logic debunks itself which is why NONE of your 757 impact conspiracy theorist colleagues including Arabesque have supported you in this notion.



Also it could be about more than the Truth movement, and hopefully could play into other areas - psy ops, propaganda practice, partly even simple amusement.

So IF we're seeing coordinated lying in the context of the official story being physically true (ie a 757 hit the Pentagon) that's a few reasons right there. If you cannot conclusively de-bunk these possibilities, I don't see how you can say "They wouldn't have a reason to plant liars if the attack was carried out physically as they reported."


You are simply reaching to a place that is illogical, counter-intuitive, and self contradicting as a means to cast doubt and dismiss hard evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

I understand that you support the official story so much that you are willing to accuse those who contradict it as being government operatives and sure you can technically say that it's "possible" but it's not reasonable or the least bit logical.

Particularly In light of the massive body of evidence we have demonstrating their story false in Arlington and everywhere else as well.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Hmmm..... I'm getting tired here, so I'll cut to the point: is this witness, in effect, a plant??

It seems this thread starts out as if he is a witness to the impact, but now looks like he has another reason for saying that??

[edit on 20-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
megaman1234 made this false accusation about this thread:



My other big bone came back when we were talking about – was it McGraw? Anyway – he was a priest, who in a horribly shameful attempt to discredit; Craig tried to make out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed. It was a disgusting display; no research organization of any repute would stoop to such a level. If there was any validity to their claims, they would not have to resort to such tactics.



No such claim anywhere in sight.

Now if you have a shred of integrity you will retract your completely false claim.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by golddragnet
 


It certainly is a big red flag!

Just as any alleged witness who happened to be the boss of Jeff Gannon or a signer of the PNAC document is also rather suspect.

All it takes is one planted witness to prove a deception in Arlington.

They wouldn't have a reason to plant liars if the attack was carried out physically as they reported.



Please provide proof of these plants and please tell us what someone being a signer of the now defunct PNAC has to do with anything.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy


Please provide proof of these plants and please tell us what someone being a signer of the now defunct PNAC has to do with anything.


The north AND east side claims prove that many people had to be "plants" meaning liars who weren't really witnesses but told a fabricated story to support official conspiracy theory.

I have presented photographic proof right here that Aziz ElHallan real name Aziz Elhallou was clearly used to tell a lie to the media to support the official story.


In regards to Gary Bauer, perhaps you don't find it the least bit suspicious that a neocon high level politician/former presidential candidate who signed a document calling for a "new pearl harbor" was conveniently used as a published witness to support the official lie but true skeptics who do not accept the official story based on faith most certainly do.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
megaman1234 made this false accusation about this thread:



My other big bone came back when we were talking about – was it McGraw? Anyway – he was a priest, who in a horribly shameful attempt to discredit; Craig tried to make out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed. It was a disgusting display; no research organization of any repute would stoop to such a level. If there was any validity to their claims, they would not have to resort to such tactics.



No such claim anywhere in sight.

Now if you have a shred of integrity you will retract your completely false claim.


Craig:
True that was never explicitly said, and if anyone goes back to the OP they won't see anything even hinting at that. But the term 'perversion' as an Opus Dei (Catholic) crime, strongly indicating that very impression, WAS there on page one at first and then edited out later for whatever reason. As you know it's still in the original form at the CIT forum.

Espionage, perversion, government ties, and the well known dubious details surrounding this secret society are certainly relevant points when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11.

link
So when Megaman says
"Craig tried to make [McGraw] out as a child molester by association 3 degrees removed."
it's not CLEAR for sure that was your intent, but that's how it was perceived. I thought the same when I read it.
Anything to try and force a retraction of another valid point, eh Craig?




[edit on 8-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

it's not CLEAR for sure that was your intent, but that's how it was perceived. I thought the same when I read it.
Anything to try and force a retraction of another valid point, eh Craig?



It's what you WANTED to perceive but it is NOT what I said.

Lying about what I said just because he wants to believe that is what I said is not appropriate.

However Opus Dei most certainly IS tied to the Washington Elite as cited by the History Channel program on Opus Dei member Robert Hanssen who was a proven traitor and sexual deviant in arguably the highest profile espionage case in U.S. history.

The fact that McGraw has ties to this secret society where there is a well known precedent of ties to spooks and the "Washington Elite" who most certainly are the suspect in this crime would be silly to ignore in the context of this discussion.

While I never accused McGraw of ANYTHING and "child molestation" was not even mentioned at all......it's 100% appropriate to bring up the political intrigue surrounding this particular sect in the context of an investigation into government involvement in 9/11.

To suggest otherwise is denial.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join