CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION, PART 1: THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW REDUX: THE MASTER OPUS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 14 2007
Last updated 2/13 1amFOREWORD 12/07: Since I published the first version of this piece a week ago, it has gotten more attention than I expected, both positive and of course negative.
A dedicated denunciation at the CIT forum and two lightning discussion threads at Above Top Secret ensued –
one locked and
the other still active. Some points were ironed out, some challenges issued, some questions answered and others raised. I have worked some of the more relevant results back into my original piece to make it more accurate and informed. It’s now a long post – tedious in spots but hopefully worthwhile for anyone seriously into the whole PentaCon phenomena. The original is also available on request.
---The CIT MagicLately I’ve been giving some thought to the process by which
Citizen Investigative Team (CIT) verify alleged witnesses to the Pentagon attack. As CIT core member Craig Ranke explained in a recent phone discussion, previously published eyewitness accounts of a plane impact are all suspect.
“This is not eyewitness testimony, okay […] we need to talk about it for what it is, which are static words printed by the mainstream media. So until you speak with these witnesses direct and get their first-hand confirmation of these details, these words are merely hearsay. They aren’t evidence at all. That’s a fact.” [1]
The magic of CIT is of course their tracking down witnesses, preferably previously unpublished ones, and confirming what they really say they saw, removing the MSM distortions where applicable and countering MSM ignorance elsewhere. When it came to their Citgo witnesses featured in
The PentaCon, they placed their locations carefully on a map, determined their point-of-view, and had them describe what they saw, clarify details, and draw one or more lines in satellite maps to verify the direction they saw the plane flying. When possible, verification was found that the witness truly was there. This sounds good enough, and the method has yielded numerous accounts confirming the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that necessitates a fly-over of the Pentagon and all physical evidence somehow faked in an elaborate and well-coordinated effort.
They insist they have not yet found a south path witness who actually saw the official flight path matching the damage both before and inside the building. As Lyte Trip, Craig explained to the JREF debunkers “We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim. If you can find one let us know.” [2] This lack of verified support for the ‘official’ path has led Craig and CIT to trumpet everywhere they’re still allowed “the
unanimous north side of the citgo station claim,” the one that necessitates the unseen flyover and mind-boggling feats of fakery.
But is this really true? While the four main interviews presented in the PentaCon strongly indicate a north path
and impact (one of which must be wrong), another interview they did in search of confirmation came out much more murky. As I read it anyway, this one raised some awkward problems for their north-side flyover-n-fakery claim, prompting an ugly solution.
McGraw VerifiesThe witness in question is Father Stephen McGraw, a Catholic priest filmed on location after the attack ministering to the injured. Like Father Merrin in the Exorcist, he emerged from the mist of dubious photos and reports, let the team into his own church for a videotaped interview and verified his account for the enlightenment of all. Key portions at least of his interesting and telling interview are presented in their video
From the Law to The Lord, viewable below.
Page linkHere is Father McGraw’s previous so-called ‘eyewitness account,’ the static words attributed to him by the mainstream media, and further compiled by researcher Eric Bart, the master (until the arrival of
Arabesque of course) of gathering such ‘unconfirmed hearsay’:
"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. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.” [4]
This original account strongly supports the official story, and lends credence to that fateful light pole smashing into Lloyd England’s cab, which would become an obsession of CIT’s. The good news that the citizen investigators will most often mention about this interview is the witness’ failure to recall seeing the light poles actually get hit by the plane, and they take him on his word here, and use this to support their contention that no one saw this happen (except of course Lloyd) and therefore they were probably simply dragged into place by the road at some earlier time. This despite the fact that he was square in the middle of the poles-down zone, according to his post-confirmation placement in the video (which is an issue of contention, see below). Lights 1, 2, and perhaps 3 were down behind him before he was aware of anything wrong, and apparently he didn’t see poles 3, 4 or 5 downed ahead of him, with all of perhaps 0.1 seconds to sharpen up and pay attention to detail. He spoke of seeing the damaged taxi and light pole on the road by it (pole 1, behind him and to the left in the graphic here, directly from their video), and deduced after the fact how the evidence wound up the way it was.
Problems: Not PentaCon MaterialSo far, this confirmation would seem helpful to the CIT case, and they have used it to support the no-pole-witnesses aspect of their program. But for all the reasons that can be found for McGraw supporting or not refuting the north side claim one problem is evident from the outset; north path necessitates a flyover, which requires a pull-up followed by a high-level non-impact. Neither is present in this video-verified account of a witness with a superb view.
Showing that verified accounts don’t always change much from their ‘static’ forbears, McGraw confirmed the words earlier attributed to him regarding its placement 20-25 feet “over the top of us,” before which it struck a light pole, and after which “it came in controlled and straight […] as if for a crash landing.” When asked, he couldn’t recall the generator trailer being hit but, he said he ‘picked up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn. It didn’t literally do this, but this persistent impression might be a clue that it was that low – which it would not be if ‘pulling up’ to fly over. His hand gestures repeatedly indicate a slight nose-down pitch consistent with an impact at the ground floor. He confirmed seeing flames billowing from the windows after the plane “disappeared basically into the building,” and when asked to clarify that it entered the building he responded “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.”
To hear CIT talk, of all the witnesses who report seeing an impact, which is
all of them so far who were in a position to see,
all were allegedly deceived into seeing this despite the sly flyover through the engineered pyrotechnic blaze they merely
took for the crash. But in our phone discussion Craig emphasized that “very few of these reports even […] are specifically saying they saw the jet enter the building. […] Most of them were not in a position to see the impact side of the Pentagon or even the Pentagon at all.” [1] This has no bearing on McGraw. Craig also frequently cites trees blocking the view of impact for some witnesses headed northbound on Route 27. For some northbound witnesses further south this is true. It’s not true for Father McGraw.
Based on CIT’s own placement of McGraw, he would have had a near perfect view of the final stretch of either scenario, and he says he saw it fly “over him,” then low enough he thought it bounced on the lawn, and finally a triple affirmation that he witnessed the direct impact along that line. Clearly in CIT land this cannot be. He’d see much of the pull-up and probably part of the over-flight, but as with all CIT-verified witnesses so far, he fails to mention these. Unlike the ‘many’ Craig wants to focus on, McGraw’s account has no excuses. The Father passes the shrubbery test, it seems, and has now
verified that he watched the low level impact, which strongly implies the poles were also cut at that time by that craft.
Problems: A South Path Witness?“[McGraw] says he did not see the approach. This is fact. He says he did not know the plane existed until it was over his head. This is fact. This means he SAYS that he is NOT a witness to what side of the gas station it flew. This is fact. His account is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." – Craig Ranke [7] While the citizen investigators have never tried to pass McGraw off as a north-path witness, by CIT standards, the problems we’ve examined so far are not enough to bar his inclusion in the growing pool. For the team, McGraw’s failure to remember seeing the poles go down further confirms that they did not fall at that time, which could indicate a north path flyover. In our discussions, Craig insist there are no clues directly contradicting this trajectory, and some supporting it, and his report of impact is nothing new; all their Citgo witnesses report this as well. Craig finds it at least a lesser possibility that McGraw truly was “deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were.” [5]
However, they must know that at this close angle, no simple perspective trick will do to leave such a witness confusing an 80-foot-plus flyover with a ground-level impact no matter what side of some gas station it passed by. And no matter the tortured logic chains anyone might concoct, I believe Father McGraw is a south path witness, first and foremost because for so many other reasons I already believe the plane came in on a south path and I believe McGraw’s video-verified account. Previously I’d presented his south path testimony as self-evident fact. I wouldn’t do this without reason, but I was hasty, and the too-sure stance prompted a strong reaction from Ranke who claimed I ‘made it up.’ He went so far as to call my piece “nothing but a way for Larson to spread more
speculative lies about our motives and methods in obtaining evidence while furiously defending the official story. […] the backwards logic is apparent and the most egregious that I have heard coming from anyone who allegedly doubts the official story.” [6] (emphasis mine: what the Hell is a 'speculative lie?')
As soon as debate was opened, I realized and admitted I’d been too dogmatic about the south path aspect of McGraw's account. Craig instantly declared “the entire premise of your blog is unjustified” and demanded “it should be taken down and retracted if you have a shred of integrity.” [5] Now even if I put any stock in Craig Ranke’s advice on how to maintain credibility, I’d still disagree that a full retraction is in order. However I need to moderate and clarify and, while I’m at it, solidify my position.
Keeping in mind the alleged position and orientation of the witness (as seen above, and facing north, or up.), and that the official plane would come up from behind him and from the left, I believe he is a south path witness for these reasons
1) The south path happened and I want to believe he was there and is honest.
2) His "just before it got to us" descriptor for where the plane hit the pole that hit the cab is a further clue of his perceived path; from behind and left to ahead and right. The only poles ‘before’ them on a L-R path, which either north or south would be, are to the left. This only describes poles 1+2, which were also behind McGraw. Everything else was to his right, so calling any other pole ‘before’ would be illogical.
3) The plane coming in ‘right over’ him makes most sense at the location he’s shown in the video if the official path were true.
4) McGraw’s ‘deducing’ the pole was clipped by the plane might indicate that the poles were knocked down
on the flight path he saw. Which would make him a south path witness, since no poles on the north path were downed (4 and 5 are the closest, and the one Craig's hhinted towards). IF he weren’t fundamentally confused about where the pole were in relation to the north path he saw (like Lagasse was).
5) It seems to me that his gestures indicate back-to-front (south to north) motion as well as left-right. Gestures: “the sensation of something coming over the top of us” and gestures back to front twice (2:54 in the video) and later ‘he crashed right into the building’ accompanied by a forward flick of his hand (4:55). When indicating the cab’s position, he reaches far to the left or perhaps back and to the left (3:07-3:17). I failed to include it in this graphic, but at 3:40 McGraw distinctly turns his whole upper body to the left while reaching further left or behind to indicate “the evidence of the pole having been knocked over.” He is looking more forward than right as he recalls seeing the plane’s flight path after passing over him (4:14), when he’d be looking hard right if under the north path.
The subject's gestures: watch the video (embedded at the top) and judge for yourself.
6) Also just as a north path requires a fly-over, a real plane impact requires an approach from the southwest and would have the poles hit and ‘directly over’ McGraw in the location shown. He says this is what he saw – a real impact
into the building.
However there are some points of ambiguity; as valuable as it is as evidence, there are always factors to keep in mind with eyewitness testimony, especially if it matches all evidence (??). As pointed out by Craig and others the following must be noted:
1) He did not see the plane before it passed over him, so his perception of the flight path would be limited (he did not see the approach).
2) He only cites seeing one pole, or perhaps only the top of it, after the fact, so it's possible he saw a different pole and ventrred later that was 'the one.' So what pole is the one 'before us' is not clear. #1 is still my best guess personally.
3) Motion from behind the witness to ahead is not entirely clear. Craig says I made it up, and my bias is known. I should have more carefully considered the perspective of his position – is he pointing left or left and back? Craig insists there is no front-back motion in his limited gestures, only left—right, which clearly describes the north path better than the south and therefore I’ve shown him a north path witness and should pull my piece quick before I embarrass myself. Nice try. The best we’re serving at this hour is inconclusive.
4) The two paths ‘converge’ on Route 27. Somewhat. But also the sense of ‘right over’ vs. ‘over-there’ would increase with low altitude, both illustrating and pre-moderating the following ambiguity:
5) The terms “above us” and his gestures from left to right are somewhat vague and could be used for either a north or a south path. ‘Above and slightly ahead of’ might be close enough to consider ‘above’ the position CIT used in their video. While ‘above’ and the location shown fits the south path better, L-R motion describes either path just fine.
6)
His actual placement is vague and uncertain. What? Even After the CIT verification magic? I learned this late in the debate, throwing my whole analysis unexpectedly out of whack, but when I asked, Craig clarified “No he did not show us on a map." [5] "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 this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.” [5] So why was he placed in a spot in their video if he gave no spot? And a spot over which they "knew" no plane ever flew? Why indeed…
Solutions: ’A No-Path Witness?’The foremost point Craig has raised in response to my analysis is that McGraw "says he did not see the approach” and so “is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." Certainly he was not presented as a witness to any path relative to the Citgo because he didn’t see it as it passed the Citgo. Sounds logical enough. Earlier I’d also noted the absence of the PentaCon trademark – the drawn flight path. Not surprising since they didn’t even plot his location or POV, and the reason is innocent enough; as Craig explains, “we did NOT know about Robert Turcios when we interviewed McGraw so the north or south path was not a focus of our questioning.” [7] So this was early in their search, prior to August 2006. Fair enough, they were just starting so perhaps I should cut them some slack on the point.
So without any north-seeking, south-skirting bias possible, it would seem, what flight path clues did they get from his testimony? Nothing conclusive, as we’ve seen. In fact we aren’t even sure where he was, or whether he was even there. I originally thought the location they picked in their map was the spot he says he was, but really, all we have is "his claim that he was directly under the plane.” 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.” [5] Please do remember that
in CIT land, the official story is now a proven lie. Why would they fail to determine witness location for anyone whose account they were interested in? As Aldo incredulously notes in the video, it is a bit odd that McGraw didn’t even realize it was the Pentagon he was in front of until after the strike. CIT apparently knew of this before and “Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon," Craig explicates, "it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to [place his location on a map].” [5]
Yes it does. 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.” [5] 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.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.
None of this makes sense in an effort to verify or confirm what a witness saw – but it does jive with a presumption of massive lying. When I mentioned McGraw ‘picking up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn, a clue against the pre-flyover pull-up, CIT responded “it indicates a propensity to deduce inaccurate information. Or it could be a deliberate "deduction" so you can make this very assertion.” Then they might include him only ‘in context of’ the official lie – an extension of it, an operative of some sort apparently sent in to lie about the impact and ‘deduce’ the poles as consistent, but clumsily give the lie away by failing to say he actually SAW THEM get hit or to pretend he clearly saw it to his left first, just south of some gas station he also couldn't name.
So if he wasn’t there, was he on the north path? Hypothetically, Craig conceded he may be a legitimate witness under the north path, fooled again by ‘sleight-of-hand’ into misreading the flyover (80 feet up) with an impact (ground level). But the clear presumption they proceeded on was that he wasn’t even there. In the video, Aldo notes his verification that he got out of his car about ‘45 seconds’ after the impact,’ but Mark Faram says the priest was crossing traffic to the Pentagon when he arrived ‘ten minutes later.’ Look at where he was (see graphic below - I placed him in the wrong lane) compared to the lawn he was photographed at later. Considering the traffic jam, walking/climbing time, the question of whether he walked down and then crossed the guardrail or vice-versa, and fuzzy rounding on either’s part, and we have how much of a reason to suspect he was trucked in later as another prop?
When I insist McGraw saw a path, if short, and could therefore never be a ‘no-pather,’ Craig let slip “Oh he did did he? It's funny how quick you are to shout conspiracy and accuse all 6 of the north side witnesses who prove the official story a lie as being deep cover operatives but you refuse to entertain the notion that a highly publicized official story witness like McGraw may have been involved.” First, I accuse no one of anything. Second: deep cover? Hardly! Their cover of logic and consistency being so shallow is the main problem. The problem in this case not the plausibility 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.
Solutions: The Dark Lord’s Work?
CIT’s decision on how to handle this witness’ testimony is evident right in the intro text to the video published at their site: “This presentation features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw. We gave him the opportunity to tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Indeed, McGraw was for five years a DoJ lawyer, before entering seminary and being ordained, curiously just three months prior to 9/11. His ties to Opus Dei [latin: The Lord’s Work], the mysterious Catholic sect that figures so strongly in
The Davinci Code, is not explained in the video (but is
here). But this and his previous DoJ connection were fused into a suspicion churning spiel by CIT narrator Aldo Marquis about FBI Director Louis Freeh and infamous Soviet double-agent Robert Hanssen, both Opus Dei and FBI and thus DoJ as well. “We should be more skeptical of highly publicized witnesses shrouded in dubious details who support the official story,” Craig also says, but with no concrete links it appears to be CIT themselves who are ‘shrouding him in dubious details’ when they mention the sect as being “favored by the Washington elite” and list its crimes as “espionage, perversion, government ties, and the well known dubious details surrounding this secret society." All these "are certainly relevant points,” Ranke reiterated, “when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11," and "if he isn't a traitor/spy like fellow Opus Dei sympathizer Robert Hanssen," the only other option worth considering, which I have shown to be highly implausible, is "that he was deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were." [5]
Whatever connection all this may have to McGraw, the suspicious just-ordained Father was (allegedly) on his way to administer rites at a funeral at Arlington when a suspicious ‘wrong turn’ brought him in front of the Pentagon. After I mentioned how he was stuck in traffic anyway and late for no reason already, and questioned the alleged oddity of his changing itinerary on account of
9/11 happeing right in front of his face,, Craig clarified “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” [5] Perhaps questionable enough to suggest he
wasn’t really on his way to a funeral at all? All of this, once presented ‘in context,’ and what some take as an awkward or 'creepy' air about him, makes for some room for suspicion to flourish and clog the reliability conduit of this particular witness. The issue is not whether or not McGraw, or Opus Dei, is suspicious but rather why do they try so hard with this particular witness while giving the others a relatively free pass on the background check? I think the reason is plain to see and ties in nicely with their differing treatment of his location, point-of-view, and the like. These odd X-factors were certainly known as they decided which token south path witnesses they should interview who could be found just as suspicious - and at least as ambiguous - after their carefully-screened ‘verification.’
There’s been much hullabaloo from CIT over Arabesque and I accusing them of referring cab driver Lloyd England as ‘The Devil.’ As Craig explains “NEVER have we specifically called Lloyd or anyone "the devil.”” [8] Allow me to again clarify that I understand the term is used metaphorically; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Clearly however it’s a metaphor for something very bad and sinister, and Aldo says
“I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye.” [9] So
someone they have talked to is a direct window onto this ‘devil’ of an operation. So if this was not about Lloyd, it was about someone, witting or unwitting, a part of this plot, and Aldo got close enough it sent a chill down his spine. In McGraw’s case in fact the metaphorical theology language suddenly becomes more apt. Perhaps he was the one Aldo was thinking about.
This behavior is what might be called, to quote Loose Change Forum member RacerX, “pissing in the witness pool,” and seems designed to clear the end they’re swimming in (I’m not sure if deep end or shallow end is the more appropriate metaphor). Fortunately we saw no charges of sexual abuse involvement alleged against this Catholic Priest, just vague insinuations of an Opus Dei/DoJ operative who ‘just happened’ upon the scene just in time to lend the weight of a priest’s testimony to the lies that would need to be sown. So other south path witnesses, step on up – CIT is still looking for you, and is very interested in hearing your story.
---Sources:
[1] Phone discussion: Craig Ranke/Adam Larson. November 14 2007. http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-cl-phone-discussion.html Cited excerpt at 18:00 mark
[2] James Randi Educational Foundation Forums. JREF Forum->General Topics->Conspircy Theories->The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks->Page 4. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470954&postcount=150
[3] "From The Law To The Lord" Citizen Investigative Team. Video, 2007. http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FromLawtoLord
[4] Bart, Eric. "It Was A Plane Bomb: Eyewitness Accounts." http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
[5] Above Top Secret.com. 9/11 Conspiracies->Stephen McGraw: alleged Pentagon attack witness->Various posts, pages 1-3. Thread started by Craig Ranke CIT, December 11 2007, 12:08 PM.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320389/pg1
[6] Ranke, Craig. "Adam Larson's review of From the Law to the Lord, regarding suspect witness Stephen McGraw." Dec 7 2007, 11:13 AM. CIT->Detractors->CIT response. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=43
[7] Ranke, Craig. Comment left 12/8/07 5:13 at this post. Link back from outside: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/12/previously-suspicious-father-mcgraw.html
[8] Ranke, Craig. CIT->Detractors->CIT response-> Caustic Logic and Arabesque's "devil" claim, more deceptive charachter assassination Dec 6 2007, 03:25 PM http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=42
[9]
- The widely-cited unmarked lawn: A plane so low and yet not quite THAT low. Again suspicious but ultimately a red herring IMO. It seems that however unlikely, it flew that razor's edge of altitude, pushing the envelope to the maximum. 
