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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

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?

Personal attacks are not allowed here.

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.

Just to catch you up on the latest news, Craig, the flight path generated by the analysis of the raw flight data recorder file done by Undertow of the Pilots for 911 Truth has been verified as true by the recent release of the FAA radar data.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

And since there are a lot of SE's that back the NIST, ASCE, CTUBH reports... and according to truthers they're all liars and have no credibility....

Then all SE's are liars and have no credibility either.

Congratulations.

Originally posted by jthomas

Just to catch you up on the latest news, Craig, the flight path generated by the analysis of the raw flight data recorder file done by Undertow of the Pilots for 911 Truth has been verified as true by the recent release of the FAA radar data.

He better study up quick.

I understand that his illegal taping of John Farmer and posting the conversation on the 'net has the local pohpoh interested.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I proved your overall point regarding McGraw's claim about the light poles completely wrong with hard evidence.

I'll ask again, Craig.

You claim you have evidence that McGraw is lying.

Did you accuse him of lying to his face (the way you always tell people to do with Roberts or the other Pentagon Policemen)?

If you didn't, why?

Did you make a citizen's arrest and turn him over to the Arlington Police for charges of lying, conspiracy to commit murder and as an accomplice to murder? And when you did that, did you turn over all the evidence you have that he lied and is supporting a mass-murdering regime?

And if the Citizen's Investigation Team DIDN'T make a citizen's arrest, why not?

And if you decided NOT to make an arrest, doesn't that make you part of the conspiracy for not taking the opportunity to bring to justice one of the lying perps?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Funny, I see two Priests.... Griff must be right. ALL priests are evil!!! And they are ALL IN ON IT!!!!!!!

posted by Stillresearchn911
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(??)

No you are totally wrong. Besides Lloyde England, who has proven beyond any doubt that he cannot be believed, nobody on this entire planet has come forward and testified that they saw the lightpole entering the windshield, sticking out of the windshield far beyond the front bumper, nor being removed from the windshield by two men.



None of the Federal agents, who were photographed guarding the taxi and light pole and Lloyde, have come forward to testify that they witnessed the light pole through the windshield, nor has the Marine photographer Jason Ingersoll, who was running down the hill from the Naval Annex immediately after the Pentagon explosion snapping photos, come forward to testify that he saw the light pole sticking out of the windshield. Even Lloyde's mystery helper has not come forward to help the 9-11 perps and 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY faithful believers out. Nobody.



Apparently the 9-11 perps have been unable to find anybody willing to lie about the light pole through the windshield. Even Mike Walters who was photographed across the road from the taxi, and Stephen McGraw who claims to have been a short distance across the road from the taxi, have been unwilling to lie about the light pole through the windshield. Isn't that curious?

There is Mike Walters standing over there to the right in the black and yellow shirt apparently not interested in being a journalist. Perhaps he was there for some other reason with his own script? Two of the federal agents are there too, guarding the scripted scene.



Exactly where did I assume anything about the military guys shaking McGraw's hand? Didn't I ask a question? Since when is asking a question the same as assuming?

Another Ingersoll photo with Mike Walters gawking at the fires and apparently snapping no photos and interviewing nobody. I thought he was a journalist.





[edit on 12/16/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

No you are totally wrong. Besides Lloyde England, who has proven beyond any doubt that he cannot be believed, nobody on this entire planet has come forward and testified that they saw the lightpole entering the windshield, sticking out of the windshield far beyond the front bumper, nor being removed from the windshield by two men.

What do you care about eyewitnesses when there is NO video available? You know you need a video, and since none is available, it didn't happen.

You're falling down on the job, good buddy.

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Would this man lie?

This is the first I've heard of this, but I would not at all be surprised.

The first thing that I can't get out of my head, are the chances that out of all people, a Catholic priest is the one involved here. I am not naive to what the church has done and is still doing. Maybe it was just unlucky for him but really, what are the odds?

Does anyone know if or how this man relates to Jesuits?

[edit on 16-12-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by pinch
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?

There were dead and injured all over the scene at the pentagon? When did this happen?

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
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.

Who's going to loose sleep more? Let's see, me who wants to believe my countrymen (and their allies) had nothing to do with this? Or you who believes some boogieman in cave is after our "freedom"?

When truth be told, I hope we both can sleep well at night.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


So SE's not speaking out against NIST is the same as priests covering up for each other about raping little boys? You really have to stretch that one (IMO) my friend. (BTW, no pun intended but with priests who rape little boys and those who cover up such facts).



[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I understand that his illegal taping of John Farmer and posting the conversation on the 'net has the local pohpoh interested.

And I'm sure you're just bouncing with glee aren't you?

So, it's ok for the HLS to secretly tape us, but we can not secretly tape anyone else? Including the "pohpoh".

Originally posted by CameronFox
Funny, I see two Priests.... Griff must be right. ALL priests are evil!!! And they are ALL IN ON IT!!!!!!!

If it waddles, quacks and disposes of liquidy green stuff, then it's probably a duck.

BTW, I guess you missed where I said that I wasn't accusing the man of lying?

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
There were dead and injured all over the scene at the pentagon? When did this happen?

Sept 11, 2001. Perhaps you missed it.

184 souls lost their lives when AA77 slammed into the building. 125 in the Pentagon and 59 on the aircraft.

There were indeed dead and injured all throughout the area from shortly after the time of impact until a number of hours later. I cannot pinpoint the exact moment when injured personnel began stumbling out onto the lawn or when bodies were being pulled from the wreckage, but yes...for Father McGraw to ignore all that had just occured and ignore the dead and injured who were beginning to emerge just to make it to a funeral is absolutely absurd.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
There were dead and injured all over the scene at the pentagon? When did this happen?

Sept 11, 2001. Perhaps you missed it.

I said "all over?" Perhaps you missed it.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

I said "all over?" Perhaps you missed it.

You also asked "When did this happen?" so I told you.

As far as the term "all over" goes, it is a figure of speech. There were dead and injured "all over" the immediate area outside the damaged part of the building, as well as inside the center courtyard. They were scattered on the sidewalks out by Route 10, over in south parking , close to the building near the exits where many of those who were in the building were able to exit as well as other locations adjacent and near the building. I call that " all over", but you can call it whatever you'd like.

I apologize if you interpreted my words to mean, literally, "all over" the building, but I don't believe there were any dead or injured up on the roof or on the River side of the building.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

I said "all over?" Perhaps you missed it.

You also asked "When did this happen?" so I told you.

"This" being the dead bodies and injured all over the place. Were you not paying attention? Go back up and read it again. It is ok, it takes my nephew a few times to get stuff with words in it too.



[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by Griff

And I'm sure you're just bouncing with glee aren't you?

So, it's ok for the HLS to secretly tape us, but we can not secretly tape anyone else? Including the "pohpoh".

Not really. I just marvel at the hypocrisy from guys like these. Just go check a few of his posts where he rails about ilegal wiretapping, etc... and then contrast him allegedly doing the exact same thing. Looks like the decline into facism is ok with truthers, as long as it's facism that they agree with.

Yes, it's legal for HLS to tape us, I thought you'd know that.

Not if you live in California, apparently. Craig lives in Cali, where it's only legal to tape with BOTH side's consent. This is the tripping point in the case, I believe, whether or not there was consent. And from what I hear, he allegedly also taped a conversation with some Fed without consent and put it up on the net.

Originally posted by Griff

1-So SE's not speaking out against NIST is the same as priests covering up for each other about raping little boys?

2-You really have to stretch that one (IMO) my friend.

(BTW, no pun intended but

with priests who rape little boys and those who cover up such facts).

The same? No. But let's compare, taking the truther view of SE's, and yours of the CC..

1a- something horrible is going on within the Cath church.
1b- 9/11, also horrible

2a- Priests in the loop that know about it, take action to cover it up
2b- SE's in NIST take action to cover up the "inside job"

3a- priests not in the loop, but know what's going on, do nothing
3b- SE's not in the loop, but know that the NIST is wrong, do nothing

4a- very few priests speak out against what the church is doing to cover it up
4b very few SE's speak out

5a- the CC has little cred
5b- SE's have no cred

Therefore, YOU have no cred. Congratulations on making your opinion irrelevant.


2- Sick....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This is the tripping point in the case, I believe, whether or not there was consent. And from what I hear, he allegedly also taped a conversation with some Fed without consent and put it up on the net.

Stop spreading baseless internet rumors.

There is no investigation against me.

I DID have consent to record the friendly phone call I had with John Farmer a year and a half ago, he simply forgot and even admitted to having a "senior moment".

Farmer just wanted an excuse to emotionally fly off the handle, quit the truth movement, and delete his website with all of his articles!
R.I.P. 911files.com