Adam Larson's review of From the Law to the Lord, regarding suspect witness Stephen McGraw

Adam's obsession with our research continues with a clear pattern. He insists on focusing the attention on CIT rather than the evidence while further misrepresenting our claims. What's revealing about his clear agenda from the content of his approach is that he is in a position now where he is forced to accuse all witnesses who fatally contradict the official story as deep cover operatives while furiously defending the high profile dubious accounts who support 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.

It's really nothing but a massive confusion campaign primarily to get people to doubt the evidence, motives, and conclusions of CIT but it certainly is a counterintuitive and completely contradictory approach for anyone who proclaims to fight for 9/11 truth.


Here is the article:
The Previously Suspicious Father McGraw

The problem is that he offers NOTHING to refute the suspicious details.

Here they are:

1. Former DoJ attorney who grew up in the area, knew where the 14th street bridge was, yet claims he wasn't aware the massive structure he was next to that has many signs and exits labeled "Pentagon parking" was in fact the Pentagon.

2. Claims he crossed the guardrail with his holy water and stole about "45 seconds" after the explosion yet reporter Mark Faram claims he witnessed this happening when he got to the scene 10 minutes later.

3. He was allegedly on his way (and late) to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery yet he abandoned his commitment to hang out at the Pentagon.
(we know for a fact that funerals continued throughout the day as scheduled. How could McGraw just leave the family hanging like that?)

4. The fact that he claims he did not see any light poles get hit despite allegedly being right in front of them.



Adam offers nothing solid to refute any of these points other than basic dismissal.

I will now go over his deceptive blog piece by piece:

Yes it most certainly IS true.

We did NOT know about Robert Turcios when we interviewed McGraw so the north or south path was not a focus of our questioning.

But besides the fact that McGraw did NOT see any light poles get hit (supporting a north side path) he also specifically says that he was first aware of the plane when he had a "sense" of something over the top of him.

In a previous account he explained how he did not even HEAR it until it was over the top of him.

This means he did NOT see the approach and COULD not tell if the plane was north or south of the CITGO.

Both the north and south paths virtually converge at route 27 so like most witnesses.....McGraw's testimony is not definitive either way.

Here is where Adam's deception kicks into high gear.

He ADMITS that McGraw said he simply had a "sense" of the plane coming over him which means he did not see the approach to be able to determine the flight path but he brushes right over this important fact to insist that McGraw is a south side witness anway.

The following graphic shows you how both flight paths virtually converge on route 27:



There is no way that anyone can say that McGraw supports a south side approach when he claims he did not see the approach or the light poles get hit!

We have never denied that McGraw supports the impact and we did not cover this up.

We have also never directly claimed that McGraw is an operative despite the many suspicious details of his account.

Certainly he could be innocently deducing or embellishing the impact (clearly he was deducing the notion that it hit the ground first from other witness statements since he ADMITTED this and also admitted deducing the light poles this is not a stretch of the imagination.)

Yet that doesn't stop Caustic Logic from dismissing the notion that this highly publicized and famous official story supporting witness who is admittedly influenced by a secret society favored by the Washington elite could be an operative while flat out accusing police officers as well as previously unknown mechanics, and gas station attendants who PROVE THE OFFICIAL STORY FALSE as being deep cover government agents.

Ridiculous.

Now Adam is putting words in our mouths WHILE he misrepresents the facts.

The plane would still be OVER him on the north side apporach!

He DID NOT SEE the light poles get hit therefore he supports a north side approach more than a south side.

This is fact.

But you better believe that high profile highly publicized official story witnesses with dubious details in their accounts will be suspected PARTICULARLY in light of the highly corroborated north side evidence that Adam claims was planted by government agents as disinfo.

The Opus Dei connection IS suspicious and most certainly is worth noting.

The connection to Hanssen is clear.

Hanssen was a traitor, a spy.

A double agent who sold secrets to the Russians for decades.

He was a DEVOUT opus dei member and went to 6:30am mass in Latin every morning but led a double life involving extra marital affairs with strippers and other sexually deviant acts such as secretly video taping sex with his wife while his friend watched from a monitor in the basement.

Watch the history channel special on him where all of this is outlined and where they ALSO refer to Opus Dei as being favored by the Washington elite.

Espionage, perversion, government ties, and the well known dubious details surrounding this secret society are certainly relevant points when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11.

45 seconds is FAR from 10 minutes and obviously the "traffic jam" would not be an issue with him walking to the scene right next to him.

The notion that it could possibly take 10 minutes to cross the guardrail a couple of dozen feet away is absurd.

The fact that his original account set up this former DoJ attorney of 5 years (who grew up in the area!) as the naive priest who had no clue he was next to the Pentagon is notable.

Adam offers nothing to refute this and simply uses an argument from incredulity to further cast doubt on CIT personally.

NOBODY gets a "pass".

McGraw is "concentrated on" simply because he gave us an interview.

It's Adam Larson who is concentrating on CIT here while twisting the facts.

McGraw does NOT support a south side approach because he admits he didn't see it.

McGraw supports a north side approach more because he admits he didn't see the light poles clipped.

These are the facts.

This entire blog is 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.

His attempts to speculate further about the "devil" metaphor even after promising a retraction further reveals his agenda.

CL is starting to spiral out of control on his blog and at LC forum while ignoring me here. It's getting more difficult for him to "maintain vigilance and calm" as his campaign against CIT escalates.

He has added this to his blog about McGraw:

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

That is a convoluted graphic that does not make McGraw a witness to something he claims he did not see. It is merely YOU deducing things from his claims. He is not a north or a south side witness but other facts as outlined in the OP sure make him a suspect witness.

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

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

You can not simply make up a flight path for a witness when he claims he did not see it.

Your blog rhetoric is getting increasingly frustrated.

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

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

We have never claimed that McGraw is a north side witness because he didn't see it but you also can not accurately claim he is a south side witness because he didn't see it. How do you not understand this?

He had a much better view of poles 3, 4, and 5 right in front of him then he did the impact yet he didn't even see them get hit.

Certainly we suspect McGraw as being involved due to many fishy details outlined in the OP and on the short. We have been quite clear about this.

However because of his propensity for deduction as he has claimed in the interview we believe there is also a possibility he is innocently embellishing or deducing the impact just like he did the light poles and the plane hitting the ground first.

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


The notion that only the obscure and previously unknown witnesses who fatally CONTRADICT the official story are government operatives while all highly publicized impact supporters with dubious details in their accounts are legitimate is borderline comical.

Also....

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

But McGraw simply claims that he "heard" about the cab and the pole later so this could have been well after the event.

In fact it doesn't make any sense to suggest he saw pole 1 at all.

When admitting he simply deduced the light poles getting hit he says this:

So clearly he wasn't referring to pole 1 by the cab.



Of course it would make infinitely more sense if he saw a piece of 3, 4, or 5 since they were directly in front of him. And he does not claim to have seen the cab either which would also make sense because the entire cab scene was behind him and across the HOV lane and guardrails.


He would not be physically able to see pole 1 which was hidden behind the cab that he also never claims he saw.




But why did he not see any of the large pieces of 3 4 and 5?


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


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

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

McGraw is not a definitive north OR south path witness.

After taking a beating at ATS in my response thread Adam was forced to concede that he was hasty in proclaiming McGraw a "south side" witness.

So although the entire premise of his blog is that CIT has deceptively covered up this notion that he no longer supports; instead of a legitimate retraction or correction Adam has chosen to revise his blog to be MORE convoluted and deceptive.

Frankly it's not even worth responding to in full as this is his typical M.O. and it's quite tiresome.

It's really just a bunch of him proclaiming how much he "believes" McGraw is a legitimate witness and that he supports the "south side". The fact that he so easily goes there with a straight face while calling all the north side witnesses government agents without having a clue of the ridiculous irony involved is quite comical.

Adam continues to prove himself a liar with an agenda to cast doubt on us personally and our research.

It's completely transparent as his obsession with us and our research only continues to grow.