Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Would this man lie? . . .
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

He's a liar. Lloyd wasn't injured.

P.S.: Are you ever naive on the subject of the Catholic Church. Haven't you ever heard of Jesuitical Equivocation?

[edit on 16-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

Just because the guy is religious, doesn't mean he is above lying... i mean, the people who supposedly flew the plane into the pentagon were on some kind of religious mission, were they not? (that is, if any of this really happened..)

Originally posted by SPreston

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.

True

How could this clown not see the light poles knocked down when they were allegedly right in front of his car? 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:

The "alleged" point of view is where Ranke placed him. NOT the priest. Ranke did not ask him to point out where he was.

There is no way a priest would be running late to a funeral, nor would he skip that funeral. Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest just three months before 9-11. Stephen McGraw did lie. A 535 mph aircraft directly above him would give less than a second of adjusting his vision through the windshield and viewing before it hit the wall. He saw nothing.

He saw the impact. You can not speak for the priest...he just witnessed an airplane crash into a building. The traffic he was sitting in was at a stand still at that time. He wasn't going anywhere.

Originally posted by SPreston

There is no way a priest would be running late to a funeral, nor would he skip that funeral.

A priest just witnesses a 90 ton aircraft slam into the Pentagon, a few hundred feet from where he was stopped in traffic, and you say that he should have just blown through all that stopped traffic and debris and dead and injured and forget/ignore all that to go ahead and head over to a funeral?

Just skip all that....and go on to the funeral.

Because, according to you, whats a little case of a 90-ton aircraft slamming into a building when the man has a funeral he has to go to!

Originally posted by CameronFox

The "alleged" point of view is where Ranke placed him. NOT the priest. Ranke did not ask him to point out where he was.

He claimed he was directly underneath the plane.

He claimed he did NOT see it approach and only FELT it go over his head and allegedly saw it continue on.

I hypothetically placed him where he would have to be in relation to the proven false official flight path order to have the plane fly directly over his head as he described.

posted by SPreston

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.

posted by CameronFox
True

So was McGraw lying when he stated originally "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver"? When questioned years later, he stated he did NOT actually see the plane hit any light poles at all and merely deduced this after the fact. Was he lying earlier or was he lying later?

Furthermore Lloyde and Lloyde's wife both stated that he was not injured and from the early photos, Lloyde was not taken to a hospital nor treated by medics nor did he have any visible bandages or bandaids. So was this a Stephen McGraw lie also?

posted by SPreston
How could this clown not see the light poles knocked down when they were allegedly right in front of his car? 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.

posted by CameronFox
The "alleged" point of view is where Ranke placed him. NOT the priest. Ranke did not ask him to point out where he was.

Stephen McGraw's own statement places him in the left lane under the alleged Flight 77 aircraft and in position to view the alleged impact at the Pentagon wall. This graphic seems about right.



So if he were actually there in that location, then how could he not see poles #3 #4 #5 allegedly getting knocked down by the alleged Flight 77 aircraft flying by at an official 535 mph?

Of course since that 757 aircraft was actually off in another state getting hidden from the public, from that very position Stephen McGraw could have actually seen the real decoy aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo just a few hundred feet to the north in front of him, and at a slightly higher altitude above the light pole lampheads. Correct?

If Stephen McGraw still insists that the real aircraft was above the roof of his car, then he would have actually been located in his car a few hundred feet north up Hwy 27, and the #3 #4 #5 light poles behind him. McGraw could not have seen that they were already laying on the ground behind him could he? Since he would have been sitting behind the wheel in the driver's seat, the roof of his car would have hidden the aircraft flying above the light poles, and he could only have seen the explosion at the wall if he had quickly looked to his right. Correct?

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

posted by SPreston
There is no way a priest would be running late to a funeral, nor would he skip that funeral.

Priests take their obligations seriously, especially newly ordained priests (just 3 months before 9-11), and especially at Arlington National Cemetery with a Marine Honor Guard and ceremonies honoring national heroes. So he would have been there at ANC at least an hour early attending to his preparations, and not risking traffic jams out in front of the Pentagon. Correct?

Was this another Stephen McGraw LIE? Are not Catholic Priests taught not to lie and not to bring dishonor to the hierarchy? Are not Opus Dei priests especially righteous and especially above neglecting their duties and especially above lying? Why was Stephen McGraw caught lying? Was he reverting to his normal moral values as a US DOJ Attorney?

And what were these Pentagon personnel congratulating Stephen McGraw about while military personnel were still dying and the fires were still burning and while an alleged funeral at ANC was still waiting?







[edit on 12/16/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
and allegedly saw it continue on.

What do you mean by "allegedly" saw it continue on? Are you calling McGraw a liar?

If you are, did you call him a liar when you met with him?

If you did, why didn't the Citizens Investigation Team make a "citizen's arrest" if this man lied to you?

Originally posted by SPreston

So was McGraw lying when he stated originally "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver"? When questioned years later, he stated he did NOT actually see the plane hit any light poles at all and merely deduced this after the fact. Was he lying earlier or was he lying later?

Do you actually read what you post? I was agreeing that he did not witness the poles being clipped. He deduced it AFTER that fact. That does NOT mean he is lying. You are a Conspiracy Theorist thus you HAVE to say he is a liar.

He was in a position to see the plane hit the pentagon and actually witnessed this. This claim is also supported by ALL of Craig's witnesses.

In regards to him thinking Llode was injured...didn't the FBI first think he was dead? It was 911 Spreston... LOTS of erroneous information was getting circulated.

Let's now think about the light poles. First of all, if he was in on it like the thousands of others Craig claims, why would he tell the truth about NOT seeing the poles? It would have been just as easy to lie and say that he saw them.

How could he have missed it? You said so yourself. The plane was flying by at 535 MPH. (approx) that means it was less than a second from the time the pole were knocked down to the time of impact and I would guess around a second to the explosion.

]Of course since that 757 aircraft was actually off in another state getting hidden from the public, from that very position Stephen McGraw could have actually seen the real decoy aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo just a few hundred feet to the north in front of him, and at a slightly higher altitude above the light pole lampheads. Correct?

Incorrect. Once again, he was in a position to see the impact. He said he saw the impact. AGAIN... this is what ALL of Craigs witnesses said.

I will refrain from commenting about your claim of the plane being hidden from public, as you have absolutely ZERO evidence to confirm this.






[edit on 16-12-2008 by CameronFox]

posted by CameronFox
Do you actually read what you post? I was agreeing that he did not witness the poles being clipped. He deduced it AFTER that fact. That does NOT mean he is lying. You are a Conspiracy Theorist thus you HAVE to say he is a liar.

You do not comprehend what you read too well do you? Nowhere in either of my posts do I accuse Stephen McGraw of lying. I asked if he was lying. Repeatedly. Never did I say he was a liar. McGraw was supposedly about where the northbound traffic is pointing to in the image below. Did McGraw step out of the car and look around? Or did he get there in a bus with a bunch of other hired witnesses prepared with a script? Perhaps those guys shaking his hand were escorting Stephen McGraw back to his bus. Good job Stevey.



However he did not state anywhere that he deduced the light pole being clipped. He stated as fact that an aircraft had clipped a light pole and injured a taxi driver in a taxi a few feet away on the road next to him. Why he did not look over and witness the long lightpole sticking out of the windshield and way out past the front bumper of the taxi a few feet away on the road next to him is strange indeed. There must have been no such light pole through the windshield, don't you think? Well doesn't it seem strange that absolutely nobody bothered to photograph that miraculous light pole through the windshield, if for no other reason than getting a place in the Guiness Book of World Records?

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911


This along with the other posts here should just be witness to everyone that is looking at this without bias that its not just Loyd or any other wit that doesn't fit there idea of events even Father McGraw is a plant and needs to be discredited.

Wrong.

YOU were the one making assumptions regarding McGraw that have already been proven incorrect in defense of Lloyde's proven false story.

YOU were the one using the fact that he is a priest as means to psychologically manipulate readers into believing something he never even claimed.

You said
"Would this man lie?"

But just admitted:
"I know and are fully aware that everyone is capable of lying even father McGraw."


I proved your overall point regarding McGraw's claim about the light poles completely wrong with hard evidence.

It's ok to admit you were wrong.

It demonstrates intellectual honesty.

Can you do it?

I'm not saying every priest is a liar, but the Catholic Church and priests lost their credibility in my book when I learned of how they covered up (i.e. lied about) their fellow priests raping little boys.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911


I can absolutely admit when I'm wrong but here I have not asserted anyhting merely posed a question. So I am not wrong, as usual though you are wrong.

Sorry but this is not a question:

"If after you read this guys story and you still believe that the light pole was not knocked into Loyd's Lincoln it doesn't surprise me obviously you will believe anything someone tells you."

It was a condescending statement based entirely on a PROVEN FALSE notion.

Do you really prefer to demonstrate a lack of intellectual honesty by failing to admit you were wrong here?

Is your pride really that important to you?

You have no hard evidence of any type.

Huh?

Really???

So you think a video-taped interview with the very witness whose statements you are spinning where he clarifies with his own mouth how he DID NOT see any plane hit any poles is not evidence in this regard?

Are you still trying to assert that he actually did watch a plane knock the pole into Lloyde's cab even though everyone reading this thread can easily hear him say the complete opposite in our interview?

Wow.

Incredible.