The Previously Suspicious Father McGraw

Alright, as if times aren't tight enough for CIT, I've got another gripe I just discovered. Somehow I had not really watched "From the Law to the Lord," but now that I have it all makes sense. Check the link - I haven't finished the conclusion yet, but it's an explanation that I think Aldo's 'devil' quote - if it wasn't about Lloyd after all - might be about Father McGraw.

Open discussion - is it coincidental that a witness they chose to douse in suspicion is also one of the few they've 'verified' that clearly testifies to a south path and an impact? Or is this further evidence that CIT is up to something that has nothing to with 9/11 TRUTH? Or just a legitimate reaction to a suspicious dude who is clearly lying since the north path flyover is proven beyond a doubt?

At the very least, is there a double standard for witness verification between those who support the north path and those who don't? Did they have McGraw draw a flight path line on a map? It seems ALL VERIFIED witnesses support the north path, abd NONE support the south path, except the liars, and the ones who were verified and found STILL lying have a special ring in CIT hell. Watch their vid to see it at work.

It doesn't take ten minutes to cross a road that has stand-still traffic.

I understand from the interactions I've had with you that you're not the brightest bulb in the pack, but when Aldo says he saw the devil he is using a metaphor. There are online dictionaries that can help you if you need further explaining as to what a metaphor is. :rolleyes:

So what do you think about McGraw admitting he didn't see the plane hit light poles or would you rather try poor attempts at character assassination instead?

Avenger - he crossed the road to the lawn, yes, but also walked quite a ways down the road. It looks like a few minute walk at least, if maybe not ten.

Terrorcell: Way to make it personal again. Devil is a metaphor for something very bad, and Aldo says he talked to some operative of this very bad fake attack - coverup thing. They say we're miscgaracterizing saying that's Lloyd. So I gotta wonder who is/are the op(s)? From the treatment they give McGraw it could be him. Whether it's actual supernatural or just 'evil' in a secular sense of very bad and full of lies, etc. this is deep suspicion of a guy whose account clearly adds up to a south path.

Oh that's not clear? So was it north? Oh, that's not clear, even after CIT 'verification?' Did they forget to have him draw the line? Ooops!

So he walked quite a ways down the road and THEN crossed it? Care to illustrate?

A metaphor is a metaphor. It is what it is Bill O'Reilly.


McGraw was interviewed long before CIT was aware of the North side flight path. The FACT that McGraw did not witness light poles getting hit like every other North side witness further corroborates the North side flight path.

If you believe McGraw saw a plane hit the Pentagon then explain to everyone how he missed it shredding through light poles only a second or two before impacting. This should be quite interesting.

A telling metaphor - there are some witnesses that are IN ON IT! DO NOT trust them! Perhaps the spooky just-ordained Opus Dei priest? Who also saw the south path?

Okay, that's new. Would CIT be willing to go back and ask him to draw it now? Because I'd have to see him draw a north path to consider him a north path witness.

Great, 'cause everything else about his account says south (see above). So averaging it all together we get... still south, solidly.

That is the best you guys could wrangle out of this, isn't it? Alright - poles 1+2 were down before he was aware, 3 just about as (perhaps the trigger for his 'sense'), and poles 4 and five were clipped by the left wing, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A 757 CHASSIS from him. Okay, he still should've seen 4 slammed forward, since the plane was more above, but the other thing is how quickly it all happened (from my understanding perhaps 0.75 seconds). That's a lot to take in and recall all details.

But whatever he saw/remembered/said, if the plane was on the path he desscribes, at the altitude he describes, all five poles would have been clipped by the plane. This is FACT.

So is he another lying accomplice? Or are you going to keep pretending this is 'inconclusive?'

A little late for that. Maybe he knows about CIT and the north side claim.

How does he not see light poles get hit from his POV?

So how does he have time to see impact? He said he had the sensation of something coming over the top of their cars about twenty or twenty-five feet. How does he get the sensation of twenty or twenty-five feet? How do you sense something like that? Why does he say he saw huge billows of fire from two top story windows? Why do we not see that in those two crappy videos of the supposed impact?

And could you explain to us again why it took him 10 minutes to cross the road?

It does not matter how long you parade around claiming someone to be a South side witness it does not make it so. So go off on your little rants and tirades but it doesn't change anything.

Do you really consider yourself a researcher? CIT has presented you witness after witness. You and this entire movement.

Have any of you bothered to contact these people or try to contact them and clarify anything that you think they are wrong about?

Adam?

Raven?

RacerX?

Red Dawn?

Didn't think so. But you guys yell real loud and all stick together and keep claiming something is what it is not.

Here are the facts from the eyewitnesses :

1) THE PLANE APPROACHED FROM THE NORTH OF THE CITGO
2) IT DID NOT HIT LIGHTPOLES
3) IT IMPACTED THE BUILDING


I'm not going to argue #3 for the time being until you concede #1 & #2 to be true. Corroborated over and over and over again.

Avenger:
"A little late for that. Maybe he knows about CIT and the north side claim."
OOPS! Well I guess it'sll have to stay ambiguous forever now. Too bad, and still no south path witnesses willing to come forward and admit they're part of the operation.

"How does he not see light poles get hit from his POV?"
He probably does but they don't register fully and get recalled later. The human brain does not record like a video camera.

"So how does he have time to see impact?" Plane-like blur, fills field of view for half-second, just above lawn - explosion and huge fireball and no plane and hole in building with ire comig out.

"He said he had the sensation of something coming over the top of their cars about twenty or twenty-five feet. How does he get the sensation of twenty or twenty-five feet? How do you sense something like that? "
Perhaps by air pressure change as the plane squished down the eair beneath and just in front of it (displacement - fish certainly have a sense when a boat is over them) Also possibly half-registered sound clues, etc... Sometimes the brrain is incredibly adept at calculating these things.

"Why does he say he saw huge billows of fire from two top story windows? Why do we not see that in those two crappy videos of the supposed impact?"
That part is a bit odd. He says above, perhaps the section of floor 2 missing, but seemed to be indicating the top floor - which has no windows, so maybe floor 4. Maybe he he meant the fires far to left of impact? Not sure...


"And could you explain to us again why it took him 10 minutes to cross the road?"
Video - says he got out in 45 sec and then crossed the guardrail. Faram says he was crossing 'ten' minutes later. He went from about dot to dot here:

That's how many minutes weaving thru traffic time? Did he cross the rail first and then walk north, or vide-versa? I don't know for sure. Do you?


Terrorcell:
"Do you really consider yourself a researcher?"
No, I guess not, since I now realize witness verification is the only type of research that exists.
wikipedia - resarch and types of

"Have any of you bothered to contact these people or try to contact them and clarify anything that you think they are wrong about?

Adam?

Raven?

RacerX?

Red Dawn?"

As the only one who can answer at the moment, no not yet. Would it matter if I did? Bother Father McGraw or Alan Wallace, come back with a south path drawing - they'd just be ops, or led by me, or aware now of the CIT danger and willing to lie to prevent their tesimony being used for further proof.

"Here are the facts from the eyewitnesses :

1) THE PLANE APPROACHED FROM THE NORTH OF THE CITGO
2) IT DID NOT HIT LIGHTPOLES
3) IT IMPACTED THE BUILDING"

Impossible combo. One of those things has to be wrong. Angled building damage, hello! It can't disappear at the facade.

Light poles for sure not hit since no one but Lloyd has them moving thru air as the plane passes? No accounts = didn't happen? Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?

No one saw a flyover - so did IT not happen? Are you saying impact now for rhetorical reasons? Or is CIT starting to argue for a north path IMPACT? Because that don't make any more sense.

"I'm not going to argue #3 for the time being until you concede #1 & #2 to be true. Corroborated over and over and over again."
If 1 and 2 were true there's no possibility of 3. If 3 is true, 1 must be wrong and 2 an oversight in the chaos. Please don't pretend you can't see this.

You're right one of those has to be wrong. It's #3.

The whole angled damage path you bank on rests solely on what creates the Exit Hole. Otherwise you have a strategic placement of bombs. Not hard at all.

So what made the exit hole Adam?

a case of corndogs to the first guy or gal who can figure out why there are THREE different blowout or burnout or exit holes on A-E drive.

look at the photos, and then try to line them up with any flight trajectory, north, south or other.

why are the windows on inner side of C ring blown out so forcefully?
why does C ring look even more destroyed than the E ring, which bore the brunt of the impact?
after all, the FUEL amt which entered the building could only have been a minor fraction --- the fuel beign stored in wings, and under body of plane.

therefore, what is the source of the detonation or deflagration occuring so far from impact site?

I'll throw in a case of cool ranch doritos on top of that! :D

Reality check, you need to use quote tags.

That's not a counter-argument. Just being a smart-ass.

He says he didn't see poles get hit, but he probably did?

A huge fireball at the top floor?

Fish swim in water and a boat floats on the surface of the water. I think he would have more than a change in air pressure to deal with. Cindy Reyes' two story house started shaking long before the plane even got to her. He should've had more than just a sense of something passing over him.

Did he cross two guardrails?

Can't have it both ways.

Yeah good points.
Alright, after learning more, I've re-done the piece.
Redux - The Master Opus
Craig's already picking over it for things that contradict what he says he or I have said/agreed/etc.

My fave passages:
Eventually Craig decided to class McGraw as a "NO PATHER," “since he specifcially claims he didn't see” the path, which he in fact did see and describes as ‘controlled and straight” into the building. Not the whole path of course, but enough to indicate a line that could be easily projected back if we but knew what it was. We have no geometry here, no structure, just a rubbery mesh of flexible words that could perhaps be pegged to the north path superstructure. No… not quite. So he goes on a different pile.

I originally thought the location they picked in their map was the spot he says he was, but really, Craig clarifies “the only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane.” [7d] So in their graphic they show him under the official path where they had already deduced no plane passed – not attempting to actually place him where he was but rather to “place him under the official path because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story.” [7g] Please do remember that in CIT land, the official story is now a proven lie.

Just because he can’t identify the building doesn’t mean he can’t say where he is in relation to it – or to the light pole hes talking about, or the plane. Yet all of this is now inconclusive; their failure to bother plotting his actual location is a squandered chance to collect valuable data and arguably invalidates the whole operation. Craig insists “everything we could think of was fully clarified,” and “his position could not be clarified any further. He says he was directly under the plane in the left lane northbound on route 27.” This is the precise area of the too-wide fudge-zone we’re dealing with here. Not being aware of the north-path accounts yet, the guys were officially not thinking in terms of flight path yet, but they could hardly have verified this guy any more sloppily if they actively wanted to not discover his flight path.

Fact is with this case not what I think of their conspiracy theorizing, but the fact that this suspicion falls right on this possibly troubling account that they also handled too ineptly to get a reading off of. That is the only point I need make here. Coupled with a few other things, the implications are clear.

If you say so. I don't understand why you would think CIT was "inept" for not asking him to draw a flight path even before they knew about the north side claim. Why would they ask him to do that when they didn't even know they would one day be talking to witnesses who contradict the official flight path? CIT never claimed to be psychic. Never mind the fact that this witnesses claims that he was in stand-still traffic, but didn't know he was in front of the Pentagon, even though he's a former DOJ attorney. He grew up in that area, is familiar with the 14th Street bridge, is familiar with Arlington Cemetery, knows it's right by the Pentagon, but he doesn't know he was in front of the Pentagon? You would think he would have had time to recognize it in stand-still traffic, especially since he's a former DOJ attorney.

You are ignoring the inconsistencies in this man's account. At first you tried to explain them away, but you couldn't. I see you've explained away at least one inconsistency on your own site, though. That's because there, you're free to leave out little details that you know would unravel your explanation.

When did McGraw say he saw it fly over him?

before we can argue about the ramifications of mcgraw's account, we have to establish his presence at the location at the exact time in question. so far riskus's pics (earliest on the scene) and ingersoll's pics (also very early at the scene) do NOT show quickdraw mcgraw making dramatic leaps over guardrails. he is NOT there at the earliest moments after the explosion.

faram came from navy annex, which means it took him some time to get where he was when the shot of mcgraw was taken. depending on his footspeed, faram might have taken 10 to 20 minutes to get there. if we take the alleged pace of mcgraw, where he covered a puny distance over 10 minutes, then faram should have taken a half hour to get to the scene. in faram's photos of mcgraw we can see that a makeshift triage is set up and many people have gathered, so we know that at least some chunk of time has transpired since the initial explosion. since the earliest evidence of mcgraw is ONLY in faram's pictures, and faram arrived AFTER the incident, i dont see how we can be sure mcgraw was ever there as early as he claims.

so until there is proof mcgraw was actually at the scene on or before the explosion, his "account" is of little value. if we take him at his word, then something is wrong, because he describes the plane "bouncing" off the lawn. so what the hell did he see? he is one of the few, if not the ONLY "lawn bounce" witness. i searched for other such witnesses and havent found one yet. of course, the lawn itself conclusively proves that such a bounce didnt occur, so mcgraw's account (even if he was there at the "right" time) still doesnt match reality.

and he does backpeddle, or in lawyer terms, allow some plausible deniability for himself when it comes to the "pole hit the cab" assertion. by stating that he "deduced" it, he is also VOIDING himself as a WITNESS to such an occurrence. did he see it or didnt he? he didNT, so its purely speculative on his part. so did he see the pole in the cab, no, he deduced it.

from ur "source" (btw- are u caustic logic?):

NO the ORIGINAL does NOT. is that why you OMITTED parts of the original in the above "excerpt" from the CIT interview video? conveniently omitted and problematic to the official story are some of the rest of mcgraw's recollections.

direct quotes from mcgraw:

so if cherrypicked omissions of quotes corroberate the official story, then filling them in can equally contradict it. the net result of the quotes u omitted end up changing the context of mcgraw's account substantially. when we listen to his ENTIRE account:

he clearly did not see the poles (plural) fall, just the top of one pole, nor did he see that top piece hit the cab, he deduced it. furthermore he claims the plane bounced, a physical unreality. so if he lied about being there, then he is making it all up. if he was there early enough, then his testimony does not match the official story, nor the physical "evidence".

just noting he doesnt state he saw the plane clip that pole just saw it after the fact and that he missed the huge base of it laying in the middle of the road.

That reminds me. Craig mentioned the fact that McGraw actually would not have been able to see pole 1 or any piece of a pole from 27 South because of the dividers between the two roads. Plus the HOV lanes.



Craig thinks he possibly could have seen the top piece from pole 3, which was on the other of the highway to his right. I don't think so, because, during the interview, Merc actually asked him if it might have bounced over and McGraw said no. Besides, when McGraw was describing what he supposedly saw he, looked and made hand gestures to his left. Plus, I don't think he could have seen poles 3 or 4 because of the traffic.

You have nothing on Mcgraw even if he is clearly a weirdo.. he's a priest for chrissake..

.. and he saw the plane hit the Pentagon, or, if you believe the flyover theory then that means he is being paid (?? hes still a priest right? he must love money..) or someone from the government put something in his drink (oops, hes a priest..), or he was somehow and still is hypnotised in order to make him say nonsense...

..that, or the plane hit the Pentagon :rolleyes:

So you're claim is that McGraw watched the plane hit the building but managed to miss it hitting the lightpoles 1 second prior to impact?

Is that your final answer?

Ok, but, do you think he would have seen that truss arm behind just that one divider? He wouldn't have been able to see the arm OR the pole. All you'll have to do is drive along a highway with those same type dividers, and you can see for yourself. Doesn't even have to be a highway with HOV lanes.

Yeah, that's right. All priests are so very honest and never do anything like molest kids.

Now that's a fair question and in fact I'd venture he wouldn't be able to see it from there. There are however other sizable bits off frame here and in a better spot to be seen (further from the divider) - a span of upper pole and the lamp head, also 'the top of the pole.' The main pole would be on the other side of the cab and probably invisible from his POV which could explain why he says he only saw the top. IF he;s referring to pole 1.

Here's a Q for the no-pole witness aspect:
So if they were planted, and there are operative plant witnesses, WHY has no one said "yeah, I saw the plane hit the poles?'

No one reports actually seeing them fall. This to me indicates that there is no coordinated lies around it, and the reason no one saw this (or more accurately could recall seeing) is due to how very fast it all happened and that the noise and mass of the plane was too distracting. That is, it smells more of honest organic causes than of co-ordination.

See above for MY answer to that. I'd think one even was MUCH more noticable than the other, so I'm not surprised everyone so far saw it impact but no one specifically recalls seeing the poles struck.

And I have a Q maybe you can pass on - McGraw was interviewed PRIOR to CIT's awareness of the north path issue, correct? So they didn't think to ask him about that asppect or even plot his location, with no need to discuss angles, etc... so why were they already asking him about the light poles that couldn't be clipped by the north path? Why were they already wondering who REALLY saw the poles clipped back then?

There's probably a perfectly logical answer as usual, I'm just curious.

Nope..

The claim is you got nothing substantial on Mcgraw.

If you're looking for a shoddy account maybe you can look at Lagasse's testimony, for instance?

I know you wont go into details about his inconsistencies because that would be making fun of your buddies' flick..

That one (Lagasse's) was proven to be inconsistent with what actually happened... Your buddy Craig even had him backpedal on stuff when he mentioned the citgo security video, remember?

For some reason you dont seem to give a damn about that, though... you systematically try to discredit the impact witnesses that are placing the plane south of the citgo and only them.. (not the ones that saw your 90 degree impact from the CIT north-of-citgo flightpath, though.. because they dont exist..)

I'm not even sure how to address you anymore because of that gem of a new theory you got...
Anything I can find to define it will have me suspended...

You should start a thread about it and explain it to us, to help keep alive the CIT self-debunking tradition.

Don't worry, they (I mean Aldo and Craig, Terrorcell flip-flops faster than Flipper so I dunno about him...) already admitted they were converted to the flyover long before their movie or the interviews were made...

As soon as some random people confirmed that a low-flying plane (most likely AA77) was actually seen near the Pentagon, they immediately went from no-planers to flyover-supporters... most of it is all there on the old forum.

To my knowledge, they never seriously considered a plane impact originating from the flightpath indicated by mechanichal damage (the official evil NWO flightpath)

They simply dismissed the damage as fake from day one, at least they're consistent with something...

Excuse me RacerX, I know it's most likely your JREF tactics that force you to drive threads off topic but last I checked this thread was about Father McGraw and not Sgt LaGasse. You're more than welcome to start a thread about LaGasse's account.

Father McGraw admits on video he did not see the plane hit any light poles and that he did see it hit the Pentagon.

Seems to support the other accounts.

So once again I have to ask you about Father McGraw since that is what this thread is about.......

1) Do you believe Father McGraw saw the plane strike the Pentagon?

2) If yes, How do you explain McGraw missing the plane hitting the light poles 1 second prior to doing so?

CIT didn't know anything about the North of Citgo path when the first trip to Arlington was made. This info all became public at that time. Dylan Avery & Russell Pickering were also there to witness how it originated.

Sorry but people don't hallucinate airplanes in different places and hallucinate them doing (or in this case not doing) what it is said they have done.

CIT is not trying to discredit anyone. CIT simply tracks down witnesses and asks them real questions and releases that information. I can understand why this bothers you so badly. You prefer one sentence quotes from Fox News and the Washington Post along with a narrative provided from the Bush Administration as compared to average Americans with video camera's finding those same people and asking them about their experiences more in detail and releasing more than a sound bite.

When that happens the official story crumbles. You don't like when the official story crumbles.....we all know.

So do you want to talk about McGraw or do you want to bring up every other witness since they're not what this thread is about? :rolleyes:

Look man if you hit me in the face with a surprise 500mph suckerpunch will I notice in details your knuckle squishing my nose?

No.

Somehow I would still be pissed and convinced you fricken punched me.

McGraw is talking about the plane that he saw hit the Pentagon, why should the lightpoles be relevant to him?

Again your understanding of speed, or lack thereof, is the problem.

You think he should have noticed the lightpoles but this is what was basically immediately around him, by the time he looked at the plane the lightpoles were history.

The fact he thinks the plane touched the grass is evidence he noticed something was wrong with the plane before impact, that something would be multiple lightpoles hits.

Theres no other explanation, because the plane didnt start smoking because it hit the grass, we know this, it did because it hit lightpoles.

Lets be very very clear.

You think McGraw was there and was/is a government agent, and that the government found a way to make him say these things?

You think Lagasse was there and was/is (he is.) a government agent, and that the government didnt find a way to prevent him from saying these things?

What the hell? What kind of plan was that?

Between you and me.. what are you doing?

You have found some form of corroboration with your north of the citgo thing and I have acknowledged that since the beginning.

The rest of what you're doing is one gigantic blur of nonsense. The damage is there. Nobody in the area saw a flyover. The only thing you're doing is you try to tell us a plane didnt hit the Pentagon when the fucking problem is that in fact the Pentagon indeed was hit by a plane.

Heres an analogy:
You're telling us there is WMDs in Iraq, nice trick to attack Iraq, but it makes you look like a fool.

..and on top of that you're not even attacking Iraq.

And whats fashionable this week? I dont even know for sure if you believe in a flyover or a 90 degree impact from the north side of the citgo inconsistent with the physical damage anymore... all I know is you will never accept anything I say...

My position is clear and simple. Yours, mass confusion.. it constantly change as you are slowly waking up and finding stuff that dont fit with your theory that we all know doesnt hold a candle when faced with reality.

The 'official story' is bogus in some area, but whats 'official' about McGraw?
Thats the words you like to use. Notice how they dont make any sense when talking about McGraw? How the hell would he know about the 'official' story anyway? Why would he need to know if he was there?

'I'm the evil government overlord, send Father McGraw back to his church, and let him preach the 'official story', for no reason whatsoever! muhuhuHAHAHAHA!'

Wouldn't stating you believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and later coming to the conclusion that if it didn't hit it must have flown over be only logical. You act like this is some massive evolutionary leap or a John Kerry "voted for before voting against" type of flip flop but in both scenarios the belief is a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. Doesn't seem anything like flip flopping to me.

At the same time your idol Russell Pickering refuses to look at any evidence that contradicts the South side flight path including interviews with witnesses he references as South side witnesses who confirm they actually saw the plane cross over to the North side of the Navy Annex. Clear as day.

Your knowledge is very limitied. I think it is very safe to say that no one in CIT was claiming a plane didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/12 and the days that followed. You have no idea what has gone on inside anyone in CIT over the last 4 or 5 years that CIT's members have been researching the Pentagon. Yet you state with some arrogance what is and what has been. We can chalk this up as another field in which your "knowledge" is very very limited.

How did CIT come to the conclusion of staged evidence?

From a historical standpoint, Operation Northwoods tells us they were planning false flag operations and massive deceptions on the American people as far as 40+ years ago.

From a logical standpoint, when you have eliminated all the possibilities whatever you have left remaining no matter how inconceivable it may appear to be to you obviously is the only answer.

If the plane came from Point A and that is corroborated again and again and again ad nausea and even the people who others claimed proved it was Point B say it was Point A, you can't simply dismiss that.

As I stated previously, I'm not interested in debating impact and flyover with you. If the Flight Path is a proven fabrication, which it is, the burden of proof falls into the laps of you, Raven, Red Dawn, PRC, etc to convince everyone else how eyewitness after eyewitness presented by CIT to date has confirmed the flight path of the plane to be inconsistent with the official story. It's your job to prove they all were hallucinating.

Impact/Flyover does not matter at this point of the debate.

The claims need to be addressed individually and chronologically.

You don't want to stick to the flight path for some reason. Why is that?

Why can't any of you guys put your money where your mouth is like CIT continues to do and go find the South side witnesses? You're all so confident why can't any of you deliver the goods?

I don't see anyone calling eyewitnesses and interviewing them for research purposes and making that evidence privately available to others on the other side of the fence on the topic other than CIT.

Bottom line : WE FUCKING DELIVER. YOU GUYS AINT DOIN SHIT BUT WASTING OUR TIME.


Put up or shut up "RacerX", you anonymous propaganda regurgitating troll.

Getting the last word in doesn't make you right. Just because we get tired of running around in circles inside the wheel with the group of trolls in the Pentagon forum who's names all begin with "R" doesn't mean we're wrong. It just means we're not hamsters.

The results speak for themselves :D

I'm of course talking about the delivery.

I'm not the one saying Father McGraw is a government agent.

You are. I cant prove to you that santa or god dont exist.

Whats your evidence? He didnt see the lightpoles being hit by a huge 500mph plane that hit a massive building?

You know the thing thats the most often corroborated isnt the flightpath, maybe it is going to be one day when you're done asking exclusively about it...

I would be curious to see what would happen if you tried to make an 'official story' impact movie... maybe you would find the truth.. more corroboration?

Personally, I would let the tape run, shut my noisehole, and let the witnesses describe everything they remember. the smell, the sound, everything from the moment they woke up that day to the moment they went to sleep... theres more than enough bandwidth on the internet to allow that.

I guess thats a JREF tactic too though, so its a big no-no..

BTW, I hope you're gonna enjoy the 2 weeks break for calling me a troll.

In any case I'm gonna be smiling because I like irony too B)

Sorry Dom, you know the rules.

One week.

I hope you are still smiling cause this post just bought you two weeks as well. Happy Holidays.

what gets left out of EyeWitness account analysis is the natural human tendency to want to place ourselves at the focal point of the event --

Father McGraw, Lagasse, Brooks, etc may be unconsciously guilty of this -- i think Lloyd certainly is -- the internal re-writes of our own memory that serve to enhance our importance as a witness.

That doesnt mean McGraw or others are lying -- just htat they are human and faulty recorders of objectivity.

Having said that, McGraw certainly comes across a bit odd in his persona and testimony. not unlike Bobby Eberle or Gary Bauer -- two individuals who just so happenedd to be near the Pentagon that morning.

with McGraw, all you can do is shrug your shoulders. his account is odd. is he lying? dunno. does mcGraw's truthiness, or lack thereof, change Pentagon from "inside job" to not?

dont think so. the weight of the damage pattern in internal rings B, C, D and timing of damage simply cannot be explained by a single plain impact alone, whether South Side or North side impact.

Even Russ Pickering acknowledges that something akin to explosive shaped charges were used inside Pentagon. once you open that door, you immediately invoke 'on the ground inside help'

and once "hani hanjour or FTS" is not accused of "acting alone" you have "inside job"
Q.E.D.

put McGraw back where he belongs; telling wierd tales and generally creeping us out.

That span of upper pole you mention looks more like a metal stick to me. But, anyhow, the only way he could see any of that is if he was able to see part of the road on the other side. Now, I might not be able to produce a photo of the highway from 27 North to 27 South, but, I do have a photo from South to North and you can NOT see any part of the road on the other side. All you can see is the top halves of cars.

Better yet, would you notice his fist tipping over a candle on its way to your face? No? Then there was no fist, you weren't there...