Pentagon attack alleged witness Stephen McGraw

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Also....

CL is trying to claim that because McGraw "deduced" that light pole 1 hit the cab that this supports the south side flight path.

Nope. The descriptor "before it got to us" indicates the flight path he experienced. It was behind him, the plane came from behind. Look at the graphic you use: the north path could not be said to be from behind him, except perhaps waaay back there. It would be L-R all ahead of him, the stretch he saw.

"the north and south flight paths virtually converge on route 27"
Somewhat. But not quite. At 20-25 feet above, a difference like that, I'd think, would make the difference between 'over us' and 'just ahead of us.'

I'll admit here I've been somewhat more dogmatic on this than called for. There are ambiguities in eyewitness accounts, as valid as they are as evidence. Both paths do pass ner to over him, both go left-to-right, and both could theoretically, distantly be described as from behind. However, the 'official' path passes more clearly from behind as well as L-R, and also has the bonus of passing DIRECTLY over McGraw's location, rather than over and ahead, and putting poles 1, 2, and 3 on a path behind them that matches his testimony. (see below on possible pole confusion)

Of course it would make infinitely more sense if he saw a piece of 3, 4, or 5 since they were directly in front of him.
[...]
But why did he not see any of the large pieces of 3 4 and 5?

Well, maybe he did. Limited knowledge, sees 3 right behind him (in your vid graphic anyway), hears about the cab story later, deduces... That's entirely plausible. Then he'd be thinking Lloyd had been RIGHT behind him, 'just before' the plane got to them - from behind.

And why would he only refer to one pole when this was his alleged view?

Good point, I'll concede that (tho I think his POV was a bit more north). 3 was right by him, 4 and 5 a bit ahead on the lawn he was minstering on. He should have seen all 3, if not pole 1 as well. I can't say why he doesn't remember them, being hit OR down, but if he were a liar sent in to support the official path, why wouldn't he also lie about the poles and say he saw them hit?

If all he remembered was a piece of the top of one pole it makes perfect sense that it would be of one of the poles in front of him. Especially since he allegedly walked by that entire area and not by pole 1.

At that point it's close enough to the north path that his "deduction" could go either way.

Okay, now I see where you were going. Yes, makes it more likely he meant 'before it got to (a point ahead of) us."

McGraw is not a definitive north OR south path witness.

Two things:
1) explain his hand and head gestures indicating back-to-front motion.
2) Since you interviewed him before you were talking N-S paths, could you go back now and have him draw it out for you?

Ok, so he says that it was a south side approach, and that he "certainly" saw the plain disappear into the building.

You say it was a north side approach and the plane didn't hit the building? What happened to the plane? The thing I find most difficult to wrap my mind around is if a plane didn't hit the pentagon, yet was seen approaching it, where are all the witness reports of it flying off afterwards?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He claims he did not see the approach so he can not be a south or a north side witness. You have to actually see something to be considered a witness for it.

"it came over to my right" and ahead from behind, after which point he watched in with his eyes, if I recall right, and “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.” He's an impact witness, whatever side of the Citgo he didn't see it on, and the best fit path for what he describes - thanks to your valuable video verification - traced bac, takes one south of the Citgo almost no matter hw you try to angle it.

In a sense, a witness of impact IS a south path witness by definition. And besides. The brain is able to actually fill in the gaps, trace lines back, etc. It's nothing special, but even if sometimes imperfect, it's a good clue. Your video shows McGraw recalling a line from behind him and to the left. Are you suggesting - what - he's mentally scrambpled and meaning to gesture left-right ahead of him?

That is a convoluted graphic that does not make McGraw a witness to something he claims he did not see. It is merely YOU deducing things from his claims. He is not a north or a south side witness but other facts as outlined in the OP sure make him a suspect witness.
You are correct that I should have labeled that possible flight path seen. I also should have made the red letters more readable. I'll update now. It's not necc WHAT he saw, but a better fit than the yellow one IMO.

Specifically, Craig, do you disagree that, keeping it open to either way, the red one describes his words and gestures at least a bit better? Am I crazy for seeing this as likely? Give us some honest analysis - how well is each one described?

He does not describe the flight path or angle because he did not see it. You can not make him a witness to something he did not see. That is not scientific. It is wishful thinking.

With all due respect, -------, he witnessed SOMETHING! With his EYES! (he says anyway). And you VERIFIED IT FOR US, so it's no longer just 'static words published by the mass media." This is hard evidence and deserves hard answers. Solid gguesses based on evidence.
I'll admit there are limitations in eyewitness testimony, and some vagueness. But from where I stand it seems you are maxizing the vagueness and being willfully obtuse. Verification and clarification being key, and still we have no idea what path this one supports and that's fine with you now, eh?

He gives no "descriptors" because he claims he did not see it.

skip - skip - skip
his gestures say what? His head turning to behind him and left as he talks of the pole and cab says what? His words "over us" say what? "it disappeared into the building" is not a descriptor? If it is, then of what?

A south side witness would be one who specifically SAYS that he saw the plane fly on the south of the CITGO.

Same with a north side witness. They have to see it to be a witness to it.

North path witnesses: what, seven? Specific enough for you and verified south path witnesses: zero. Flyover witnesses: Zero. Pull-up witnesses: one, but he's a suspicious witness for many reasons. Level low appraoch and impact witnesses? I forget exactly - siz? Seven? Ten? Fifteen?

What's so HILARIOUS about you goading us to call him an operative is how quick you have been to call all the citgo witnesses, Edward Paik, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger deep cover government agents sent on a mission to spread disinfo!

Calling, schmalling. "First known accomplice?"
I'll come back to this tomorrow. Too much obtuseness to cut through at one sitting.

Go ahead and keep this corver as unclarified as you like. Who knows, huh? didn't see nothin. Probably blinked the whole time after it passed over. Or made up the story. Opus Dei. man. Spooky stuff.

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.

So you can see it too? Thanks for weighing in. Funny thing is he IS eyewitness testimony - verified, saying what he saw with his own eyes the part where it flew to his right out ahead of him from over. That does indeed seem to indicate o path from behind and the left, barring freakish turns not reported.

In the sense of things are hazy and vague and memory imperfect, CIT's path is possible from that. But given these same vagaries of memory, why is the north path demonstrated enough we're even trying to see it here?

Given his location at the time, and given his claim that the plane came overhead and to his right, it seems to me there is no way the same plane could have come from the north side.

More importantly, from behind. I'm curious, CM, am I crazy there, or is he motioning back to front, and looking back at a spot 'before it got to" them?

ETA: Here, I feel better about this version:


Location is too imprecise for me to say whether pole 3 was behind him, in front, or just to the right. And all that implies.
BTW, Craig, how doe poles 4 or 5 count as 'before it got to (a point above and ahead of) us' if the north path is L-R and these poles were to his right? It would almost have to be something to his left in this scenario to be 'before' them, correct? That's one and 2. But these are also behind him...

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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by coughymachine

On reflection, I've been a bit hasty.

I do agree that McGraw doesn't technically rule out a north of the Citgo flightpath. That said, his account fits the south path better. If someone independent of the investigation were to plot the flightpath using his testimony alone, it would undoubtedly run south of the Citgo station.

Huh? On what basis would you make that wild claim?

Nothing 'wild' about it, just my opinion based upon the information you've presented, Craig.

You have provided an image showing us where McGraw was at the time. You have introduced his video testimony. If he is telling the truth, then his description of the flightpath is more suggestive of the south side than the north, but it's far from conclusive. However, since he asserts that the plane did hit the Pentagon, then you either have to show he is lying or, notwithstanding his excellent vantage point, mistaken. Otherwise, the simple fact that it did hit the Pentagon rules out the north side flightpath in the same way that a northern path would rule out the official impact story.

It is not enough to argue that McGraw must be mistaken simply because he is outnumbered by the north side witnesses.

You really ought to pull your concession back out...

I didn't withdraw it, I simply qualified it.

I still concede that McGraw's claim that he saw the plane fly to his right does not rule out the north side flightpath.

You see the ONLY thing we have to determine his location is the fact that he says he was right under the plane.

Not necessarily. McGraw states that he heard one or more light poles being hit and that he was a few feet from Lloyd Englands cab, whose position is well established. Further, as Aldo remarks in his narrative:

Source: From the Law to the Lord

"It's important to note that light poles three through five were perfectly within Father McGraw's field of vision."

As I said pretty much from the outset, you either have to dismiss McGraw's testimony entirely or else there is a problem with the north side flightpath. In that sense, he is a south side witness.

reply to post by Karlhungis

People will tell you about a batch of 9-11 calls cequestered. Maybe it's in there? Maybe these witnesses have been kept under wraps, unlike the north-pathers that confirm the other end of the flyover proof.

Funny thing is, this is also a weak point for my disinfo hypothesis (wild, speculative, unproven). Indeed, why no other side witnesses? And I mean immediate other side, not the Capitol or sme golf course 5 min later. I wouldn't be too surprised of one appared now - perhaps a pair to corroborate - maybe two attractive immigrant Eastern European models seeking green cards, passing just east of the Pentagon, will say how confused they were on seein the plane fly over the roof, but they still think it impacted like all the others.



Anyhoo, once no one saw it fly over - at least no one that would be heard from, who knows where the plane went, eh? Anywhere. Insert appropriate joke here.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicMore importantly, from behind. I'm curious, CM, am I crazy there, or is he motioning back to front, and looking back at a spot 'before it got to" them?

I remain agnostic about his description of the flightpath. It is more suggestive to me of the southern approach, however it's inconclusive. In my view - and taking his impact claim out of the equation for a moment - McGraw's description of the flightpath itself does not refute the north side theory.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Thanks for the follow up. I was kind of assuming there was a simple explanation that I wasn't aware of. I guess not though. If there really are irrefutable witnesses that saw a plane flying in, with no one seeing it fly out..... I can only guess a plane hit the pentagon.

I have to wonder about all of the other inconsistancies though. That no plane flying off is a bit difficult to overlook though.

As suspected, Craig Ranke remains completely silent on the Arlington report. Not one word to refute the report delineating the recovery of AA77's wreckage from the Pentagon from well over 700 eyewitnesses.

It is no wonder Ranke is incapable of demonstrating anything but AA77 hit the Pentagon. He will not deal with the physical evidence, nor with the all the eyewitnesses who actually saw AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So much for the OTMCT.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Caustic, this is one of your better posts! This witness was right on and again goes right along with other witnesses and ALL the physical evidence.

There is a reason why the Pentcon no longer has it's own thread..... NO EVIDENCE!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Also....

CL is trying to claim that because McGraw "deduced" that light pole 1 hit the cab that this supports the south side flight path.

Nope. The descriptor "before it got to us" indicates the flight path he experienced. It was behind him, the plane came from behind. Look at the graphic you use: the north path could not be said to be from behind him, except perhaps waaay back there. It would be L-R all ahead of him, the stretch he saw.

Except he NEVER said it was "behind him".

Never.

"Before it got to us" does NOT mean "behind him".

You are making that up to make a better case for your hollow neutralization attempt.

So really your entire point is based on a quote that doesn't exist.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


As usual the resident pseudoskeptic has nothing to offer but cheer leading.

I feel bad for CL if you think this is one of his "better posts"!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

1) explain his hand and head gestures indicating back-to-front motion.

You made that up. I watched it again. He makes no such hand motion.

Point out the exact time in the video so everyone can analyze it.

2) Since you interviewed him before you were talking N-S paths, could you go back now and have him draw it out for you?

Go right ahead.

I already found out that he DID NOT SEE the approach and is allegedly not familiar enough with the area that he grew up in to know it was the Pentagon.

It makes little sense to think he would even be able to identify his exact location because of this let alone the flight path he didn't see.

I'd love to see you interview him and insist that he draws a flight path anyway.

That would be awesome!

The insults stop now.

Anymore and warnings will ensue.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Nope. The descriptor "before it got to us" indicates the flight path he experienced. It was behind him, the plane came from behind. Look at the graphic you use: the north path could not be said to be from behind him, except perhaps waaay back there. It would be L-R all ahead of him, the stretch he saw.

"the north and south flight paths virtually converge on route 27"
Somewhat. But not quite. At 20-25 feet above, a difference like that, I'd think, would make the difference between 'over us' and 'just ahead of us.'

He NEVER said it was "behind" him! You completely made that up.

Plus the ONLY indicator we have for his location is the fact that he claims that the plane was over the top of him. Do you know what that means?

If the plane was on the north path and if he was really there....he was directly underneath the north path.

Get it?

We only plot him underneath the south path for the sake of discussion within the context of the official story.

There were not two paths.

He wouldn't be under the south path if the plane was on the north path.

Your logic is falling apart by the second.

I'll admit here I've been somewhat more dogmatic on this than called for. There are ambiguities in eyewitness accounts, as valid as they are as evidence. Both paths do pass ner to over him, both go left-to-right, and both could theoretically, distantly be described as from behind. However, the 'official' path passes more clearly from behind as well as L-R, and also has the bonus of passing DIRECTLY over McGraw's location, rather than over and ahead, and putting poles 1, 2, and 3 on a path behind them that matches his testimony. (see below on possible pole confusion)

You aren't thinking of the evidence in context and you have been more than dogmatic, you have been deceptive.

See reply above.

Well, maybe he did. Limited knowledge, sees 3 right behind him (in your vid graphic anyway), hears about the cab story later, deduces... That's entirely plausible. Then he'd be thinking Lloyd had been RIGHT behind him, 'just before' the plane got to them - from behind.

No he wouldn't. He would not know where the cab was because he didn't see it and is not familiar with the area.

Remember?

You can't make up things that he didn't say to force him to support your 757 impact conspiracy theory.

Good point, I'll concede that (tho I think his POV was a bit more north). 3 was right by him, 4 and 5 a bit ahead on the lawn he was minstering on. He should have seen all 3, if not pole 1 as well. I can't say why he doesn't remember them, being hit OR down, but if he were a liar sent in to support the official path, why wouldn't he also lie about the poles and say he saw them hit?

Sorry but using the notion that the lie was so bad that it has to be truth doesn't work.

A lie doesn't become truth the less sense it makes.




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

Originally posted by coughymachine

Nothing 'wild' about it, just my opinion based upon the information you've presented, Craig.

"Opinion" is wild speculation. Neither you nor CL have provided any evidence showing how he directly supports a south side path over a north path. Nothing.

The fact that he claims he didn't see it approach IS direct evidence that he is not a witness to this.

The fact that he didn't see the light poles get hit supports a north path more.

That is evidence.

You have provided an image showing us where McGraw was at the time. You have introduced his video testimony. If he is telling the truth, then his description of the flightpath is more suggestive of the south side than the north, but it's far from conclusive.

It's more than far from conclusive. There is zero evidence in his testimony suggestive of a south path more than north because he specifically claims he did not see the approach.

However, since he asserts that the plane did hit the Pentagon, then you either have to show he is lying or, notwithstanding his excellent vantage point, mistaken. Otherwise, the simple fact that it did hit the Pentagon rules out the north side flightpath in the same way that a northern path would rule out the official impact story.

You already conceded this is circular logic so why are you repeating it?

Faulty logic does not cancel out hard evidence.

YOU need to provide testimony directly placing the plane on the south side of the citgo to effectively refute the north side testimony.

It is not enough to argue that McGraw must be mistaken simply because he is outnumbered by the north side witnesses.

Mistaken about what? He says he didn't see the approach.

If you are talking about the impact then yes it is enough.

The north side evidence proves a deception. McGraw's account does not refute the north side evidence.

I still concede that McGraw's claim that he saw the plane fly to his right does not rule out the north side flightpath.

Ok then you already said that if I demonstrate this that you will concede this is nothing more than a "storm in a tea cup".

Please stick to your word.

You see the ONLY thing we have to determine his location is the fact that he says he was right under the plane.

Not necessarily. McGraw states that he heard one or more light poles being hit and that he was a few feet from Lloyd Englands cab, whose position is well established.

Absolutely incorrect.

He says that he later "heard" that a pole hit the taxi cab. He did NOT say that he heard the plane hit any poles.

Further, as Aldo remarks in his narrative:

Source: From the Law to the Lord

"It's important to note that light poles three through five were perfectly within Father McGraw's field of vision."

As I said pretty much from the outset, you either have to dismiss McGraw's testimony entirely or else there is a problem with the north side flightpath. In that sense, he is a south side witness.

Wrong.

Why do you keep going back to the claim you already conceded was circular logic?

The north side testimony proves a deception.

The entire world was deceived.

There are many people who saw the plane and believe the impact.

This does not prove the north side evidence invalid.

This does not prove there was no deception on 9/11.

McGraw's account does not directly refute the north side evidence.

This is fact.

Again, you admit that there are witnesses that saw a plane flying low toward the pentagon. Are there witnesses that saw one fly away from the pentagon? Are you trying to say that a plane didn't hit the pentagon? Then where did the plane go?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He claims he did not see the approach so he can not be a south or a north side witness. You have to actually see something to be considered a witness for it.

"it came over to my right" and ahead from behind, after which point he watched in with his eyes, if I recall right, and “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.” He's an impact witness, whatever side of the Citgo he didn't see it on, and the best fit path for what he describes - thanks to your valuable video verification - traced bac, takes one south of the Citgo almost no matter hw you try to angle it.

In a sense, a witness of impact IS a south path witness by definition.

You can't "trace back" from nothing. You have nothing whatsoever to go off. The notion that he believes an impact is not enough.

There are plenty of people who believe in the impact.

This does not refute the north side claim. You are in essence admitting that the entire premise of your blog is based on nothing but his belief of an impact.

Sorry but that is not direct evidence to refute the north side claim.

It is circular logic.

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.

And besides. The brain is able to actually fill in the gaps, trace lines back, etc. It's nothing special, but even if sometimes imperfect, it's a good clue. Your video shows McGraw recalling a line from behind him and to the left. Are you suggesting - what - he's mentally scrambpled and meaning to gesture left-right ahead of him?

That is you simply interpreting a "gesture" to fit with your conspiracy theory.

There is no definitive back to front gesture indicating the flight path.

I see one that is left to right but no back to front.

You made it up.

If that gesture is all you have to refute the north side evidence clearly you have nothing.

Specifically, Craig, do you disagree that, keeping it open to either way, the red one describes his words and gestures at least a bit better? Am I crazy for seeing this as likely? Give us some honest analysis - how well is each one described?

Neither is described at all AND he makes it 100% perfectly clear that he did not witness either so therefore he is not even qualified to make the determination.

This is fact.

It can not be interpreted any other way unless you have an agenda to deceptively and erroneously cast doubt on the north side testimony.

With all due respect, -------, he witnessed SOMETHING! With his EYES! (he says anyway). And you VERIFIED IT FOR US, so it's no longer just 'static words published by the mass media." This is hard evidence and deserves hard answers. Solid gguesses based on evidence.

Yep. We verified that he did NOT see or hear the plane approach at all, and did not see it hit any light poles that were allegedly right in front of him.

We verified that he can not be a valid flight path witness because of this.

The north side claim proves he was deducing, embellishing, or lying about the impact.

I'll admit there are limitations in eyewitness testimony, and some vagueness. But from where I stand it seems you are maxizing the vagueness and being willfully obtuse. Verification and clarification being key, and still we have no idea what path this one supports and that's fine with you now, eh?

Of course it's fine. The facts are what they are. I can not change the fact that McGraw claims he did not see or hear the approach and is therefore not a valid flight path witness.

It is impossible for me to "maximize the vagueness" (whatever that means) about something he did not witness.

The notion that I am being "willfully obtuse" is hogwash. He is not a witness to the approach and therefore claims he has no clue what the flight path was west of route 27.

North path witnesses: what, seven? Specific enough for you and verified south path witnesses: zero. Flyover witnesses: Zero. Pull-up witnesses: one, but he's a suspicious witness for many reasons. Level low appraoch and impact witnesses? I forget exactly - siz? Seven? Ten? Fifteen?

What are you talking about? You have verified nothing.

You have erroneously labeled McGraw a south side witness when he witnessed no such thing.

You did so under the false premise that CIT is deliberately covering up this information.

It's very deceptive on your part and if you had a shred of integrity you would retract it.

What's so HILARIOUS about you goading us to call him an operative is how quick you have been to call all the citgo witnesses, Edward Paik, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger deep cover government agents sent on a mission to spread disinfo!

Calling, schmalling. "First known accomplice?"
I'll come back to this tomorrow. Too much obtuseness to cut through at one sitting.

Go ahead and keep this corver as unclarified as you like. Who knows, huh? didn't see nothin. Probably blinked the whole time after it passed over. Or made up the story. Opus Dei. man. Spooky stuff.

Now you are being sarcastic to cloud the discussion and finish the post.

The fact is that you are the one blatantly accusing everyone who contradicts the official story as being government agents while twisting McGraw's account in a clear attempt at pushing a personal discredit campaign against CIT unless of course you realize your error, admit it, and retract.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Again, you admit that there are witnesses that saw a plane flying low toward the pentagon. Are there witnesses that saw one fly away from the pentagon? Are you trying to say that a plane didn't hit the pentagon? Then where did the plane go?

I don't have evidence for where the plane went and that is irrelevant to the evidence proving it didn't hit.

Yes there is evidence of people seeing a plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

They call it a "2nd plane" but there is no corroborating evidence that any 2nd plane behaved in this manner so they can only mean the plane.

Information about this is available here:

The 2nd plane cover story

and more information here:

Why are there no known witnesses to the flyover?

Thanks for your inquiry but please try and stick to the topic.

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.

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.

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.

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?