Doesn't the catholic priest Father Stephen McGraw ruin the "planted light pole" theory?

Would this man lie?

Is he also a "fed" purposely placed at the scene like Loyd?

Just thought I would mention this here for all the "planted light pole" followers. A quote from a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.

"The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church.

"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.

"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said.

web.archive.org...://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_39/local_news/10772-1.html

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.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Stillresearchn911]

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Stillresearchn911]

For some reason anyway that I try to list this link to the full story the links end up dead or not correct.

The way I ran across it was about three quarters the way down the page emptv.com... is the quote from Father McGraw with a link (that works) except it goes to a web archive and it lists all the dates archived, the full story is located under the Oct. 19th 01 link incase you want the whole story.

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]

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


His account covers it all and those wishing to push an alternative theory would desperately need to discredit him by whatever means available wouldn't they. I think his membership of a catholic society (Opus Dei?) was being suggested as reason to doubt his motives and truthfulness.

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..)

posted by Stillresearchn911
Would this man lie?

Is he also a "fed" purposely placed at the scene like Loyd?

"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."

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.

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:



McGraw specifically stated that he did not see nor hear the plane approach at all and only knew of it when he had a "sense" of it flying over his car.

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.

Middleton and his co-workers at Arlington continued to work Sept. 11 as Washington offices closed and buildings emptied. The cemetery crew had no choice. Funerals were scheduled and burials had to be completed, chaos and all.
source

[edit on 12/16/08 by SPreston]

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!

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Great question.

The McGraw account proves how people will take unconfirmed statements out of context and spin them to fit the official story when the opposite is true.

He demonstrates why first-hand confirmation of ALL claims is so important.

That's why we flew to Arlington and interviewed him in person.

He admitted he did not see a plane hit ANY poles and merely deduced it.

Google Video Link

He said other curious things that impeach his credibility as well. Full thread on McGraw here.





A thread breaking down ALL of the witnesses who simply mention the poles is available here.

Of course none of them saw a plane hit the poles because it was on the north side.

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?

reply to post by ipsedixit


I'm sorry but did you just bring up something that happened over 400 years ago in a attempt to convince me that "all" catholic priest are liars.

I know and are fully aware that everyone is capable of lying even father McGraw.

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.

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?

reply to post by SPreston


No I don't think what you said in that post is correct.

After reading the story when he said that the jet clipped a light pole and it injured a taxi guy I immediately thought he must of seen the pole enter the taxis windshield. That this is why he deduced he was injured (which anyone would think seeing that happen). He says he went directly to the crash site 45 seconds later. Where he knew he would be needed.

In fact I'm surprised that you would assume that the military guys shaking his hand would be to thank him for a job well done that is since he just knowingly participated in this big magic act to make everyone think a jet crashed here when really it flew over the building(??), yeah right thats why they were shaking his hands (all of them lol).

No, I imagine they were shaking his hand for just praying over there fellow pentagon employees and possibly risking his life. That's just me though.

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.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


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.

You have no hard evidence of any type. You have a few people who believe your version of events. There are another few people who think your version of events are completely wrong. Hard evidence is a video tape of the whole thing. Not videos of witnesses who tell you there story and all saw they plane hit or had the light pole go through there cars windshield. Then you turn it around and try to tell us either they have been flipped by the feds or basically don't know what they saw...but you do.

I wonder if you loose sleep at night wondering when the feds are gonna finally leak a real video of the f77 crash and ruin this little charade of yours.

Every one is crazy but you , right?

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.