Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
Father Stephen McGraw -- "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. "I saw it crash into the building," he said.
www.debunk911myths.org...

Father McGraw did not state that he saw the plane clip the light pole.

Father McGraw did not state that he saw the pole hit the taxi.

Father McGraw did not state how Lloyde was injured. If Lloyde was injured, then his injuries were not obvious in any of the images that show him standing beside the taxi.

The only thing that Father McGraw stated that he saw was the plane crash into the building. Note that Father McGraw did not state that he saw Flight AA77.

EDIT: When you look at the website that pteridine has linked to, you'll notice the danger when trying to read witness statements. For Father McGraw's statement, we're also presented with the problem of poor grammar. There are only three quotation marks present. In other words, the website has not accurately transcribed his statement. We all know that quotation marks occur in pairs - to open and close a quote.

Father McGraw's linked statement, is worthless. This is why the work of CIT is important. They have witnesses being questioned, on camera.

Father McGraw's testimony needs to be properly released, without grammatical errors before it can be verified.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by pteridine
Lloyde England, the Taxi driver and star witness for CIT, said that a part of a light pole hit his taxi.

You haven't watched Craig Ranke's video have you? Lloyde England basicly admitted he was 'part of it' when he thought the camera wasn't rolling. Part of what? Watch it and see your 'star witness' repeatedly deny even being on the bridge.

Edit:
Here's a link...
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 26-9-2009 by twitchy]

reply to post by tezzajw


What do you think Fr. McGraw said, Tezza? It looks like he said he saw the plane hit a light pole.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

What do you think Fr. McGraw said, Tezza? It looks like he said he saw the plane hit a light pole.

No, he didn't say that, pteridine. He said that he saw the plane hit the building.

He said the plane hit a light pole but he didn't say that he saw the plane hit the light pole. Your own witness testimony is unreliable and lets you down.

You might fail to see the important difference and that's your problem to deal with.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Lloyde England, the Taxi driver and star witness for CIT, said that a part of a light pole hit his taxi.

Father Stephen McGraw -- "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. "I saw it crash into the building," he said.
www.debunk911myths.org...

I thought we were talking about proving the lightpole hit the cab, not the building? That is what you were asked to back up 6 times and never did. What is this for?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Here are witnesses to the imact of the plane at the same site.

www.debunk911myths.org...

First of all, not one person claims to know for a fact that they saw AA77.

Second of all, just scanning it the first witness I come to says "I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings." Way to back up the claim AA77 hit the pentagon.

reply to post by tezzajw


We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not. If he didn't see it, what struck the light pole?

Note that the link is full of witnesses seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. If so many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon from various places, then it s likely that the plane hit the Pentagon.
If this is true, then why is Lloyde England's story important?

reply to post by Lillydale


pteridine's trying to use McGraw's testimony to prove Lloyde, but it won't work.

Lloyde claims that he was travelling at about 45mph when the light pole hit and that he skidded to a stop over 40something feet. Lloyde never claimed any injury.

McGraw states that traffic was near to a standstill and the taxi was only a matter of feet away from his car. McGraw claims Lloyde was injured.

pteridine, which of these flawed witness testimonies do you expect us to believe is true? You really lack the common sense to think about your claim that the light pole hit the taxi when you can't prove that it happened. Offering McGraw as a witness is hilarious, to say the least.

Keep trying, pteridine...

Originally posted by pteridine
We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not. If he didn't see it, what struck the light pole?

Prove that the light pole was even struck, pteridine!

Originally posted by pteridine
If this is true, then why is Lloyde England's story important?

Have you watched the video in the OP, pteridine?

You ask some fairly basic questions that have been covered in the video. You don't have the intellectual understanding to post in this thread when on page 44 you're still not capable of understanding why Lloyde's situation is important to the official government story.

Lloyde's alleged damaged taxi marks the official government story SoC flight path. This contradicts with the NoC witnesses that CIT interviewed on location.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not. If he didn't see it, what struck the light pole?

Note that the link is full of witnesses seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. If so many witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon from various places, then it s likely that the plane hit the Pentagon.
If this is true, then why is Lloyde England's story important?

Even more people claim to see Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and believe they were abducted by aliens at least once. Proof and evidence are proof and evidence. Saying lots of people saw something is just saying that lots of people saw something. How many people saw Chris Angel fly?

I understand what you think you are doing but come on now. In 8 years, the best people can do for evidence is to publish a list of people who say they saw something? Do you really think that the amount of people making a claim makes it that much more real? Is it possible that witnesses saw just what they were supposed to see and that is why there are so many conflicting stories?

Anyway, I would like some evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon, not lists of strangers I will never interview and who could just be lying or wrong anyway. Evidence is evidence and you have all had 8 years to produce some.

reply to post by Lillydale

If you read a little further, you will note many more witnesses seeing a plane hit the Pentagon. Not all witnesses describe the same event in the same way and with the same level of detail. Several said AA airplane. No, there is no one that said Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. As far as I know, no one saw the registration number on the fly.

What alternative scenario do you subscribe to?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by pteridine
We don't really know if he saw the plane hit the light pole or not. If he didn't see it, what struck the light pole?

Even more people claim to see Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and believe they were abducted by aliens at least once.

Well, in this case, Lillydale, pteridine offered up McGraw as a witness to the light pole hitting the taxi... but after some basic schooling, look what pteridine has done - he's admitted that he doesn't know if McGraw saw the light pole being hit!!!

pteridine has abandoned McGraw as a witness only moments after trying to use his flawed testimony!

pteridine, the entire audience is waiting for you to prove your claim that Lloyde's taxi was hit by a light pole...

You can always retract the claim if you feel that you can't prove it. Anyone can see through the useless spin that you offer up. It's so lame and transparent I'm surprised you continue to try and use your disinfo tactics.

reply to post by tezzajw


Ah, the alarming video. Do you support the video and the CIT witnesses while denying all of those that saw the plane hit? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to make errors in estimating the flight path but difficult to miss a collision. If the collision witnesses are correct, then NOC cannot have occurred and there is no need to plant light poles or other evidence to cover up a flyover/missile strike/ blinding explosion, etc.

Originally posted by pteridine
Ah, the alarming video. Do you support the video and the CIT witnesses while denying all of those that saw the plane hit?

I find a lot of the testimony interesting.

Originally posted by pteridine
If the collision witnesses are correct, then NOC cannot have occurred and there is no need to plant light poles or other evidence to cover up a flyover/missile strike/ blinding explosion, etc.

If you choose to live in your box and feel that these are the only possible scenarios, then that's great for you.

In the meantime, pteridine, we're waiting for your proof that the light pole hit the taxi, or for your retraction.

reply to post by tezzajw

McGraw didn't state that he saw the plane hit the light pole. He said it hit the light pole. How would he know if he didn't see it, tezza?

reply to post by tezzajw


I provided some of those scenarios for you to choose from. If you can think of others, you are more imaginative than I thought. What would you propose as a most likely scenario? How small is your box?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by tezzajw

 

McGraw didn't state that he saw the plane hit the light pole. He said it hit the light pole. How would he know if he didn't see it, tezza?

Well, geee, pteridine, why don't you ask McGraw yourself how he thought that it allegedly happened? You're the one using his unreliable testimony that you discounted a few posts ago.

McGraw's companion stated that within 45 seconds he ran down to help the injured people at the Pentagon. You think that if McGraw saw Lloyde, who was injured and only a few feet away, that McGraw would have ran to Lloyde first - right?

It looks like you've got a lot of investigating to do, pteridine. The insufficient garbage that you have thus far offered to try and prove your claim has been rather disasterous for you. Maybe you shouldn't have logged in today.

Originally posted by pteridine
I provided some of those scenarios for you to choose from. If you can think of others, you are more imaginative than I thought. What would you propose as a most likely scenario? How small is your box?

Well good for you!

Provide as many scenarios as you like! Until you can prove any of them, then they're all speculative!

I don't know what happened, pteridine, I wasn't there. You've stated to me that Flight AA77 hit a light pole and that light pole hit Lloyde's taxi. I can't believe this until you prove it to me, pteridine.

Seriously, every post you continue to make in this thread makes you look more foolish today. Please, continue. I'm sure that Craig will be happy to see his work on the top of the forum list, bumped by the poor posts that you've made.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

If you read a little further, you will note many more witnesses seeing a plane hit the Pentagon. Not all witnesses describe the same event in the same way and with the same level of detail. Several said AA airplane. No, there is no one that said Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. As far as I know, no one saw the registration number on the fly.

What alternative scenario do you subscribe to?

I did read further. If you actually read my post, you would see that I explained that a list of supposed witness accounts mean nothing to me when we have plenty of witnesses saying other things. My point was that in you the list YOU gave me to prove your reliable witnesses saw AA77, the first one I see describes it as a "missile with wings." The very first random one I pick, contradicts what the entire page is supposed to be proving - that witnesses saw AA77 crash into the pentagon. Get it?

What scenario do I subscribe to? Why would that matter? What I may or may not think happened is really of no consequence. I think that you are just looking for an argument to try and shoot down. Why don't you worry about backing yours up.

reply to post by Lillydale


You want evidence? People in Hell want ice water. My job is not evidence producer.
If you don't think Flt 77 struck the Pentagon, search for evidence that it didn't. Find an aircraft that matches the Flight 77 aircraft that is still flying. Check parts returned for refabs to the factory that were on the flight 77 craft. Find the location that the real Flt 77 was flown to. Find passengers taht are still alive. When you have all of this evidence, you'll get to post it and tell all of us "I told you so."