truthaction.org

[John Bursill]

I'm sorry if I let any of you down...well any way what's done is done and I think it will help move us forward! I am also sorry if this Pod Cast drives you crazy, it goes around in circles quite often...

This is an e-mail I sent out today...

Hello all,

Podcast of discussion between Craig Ranke of CIT and John Bursill of Truth Action Australia broaching the disagreement with and attacks against CIT's "fly over" presented in their film "National Security Alert".

This is a debate no one else would have, so once again I get left carrying the bag:) By the way Craig will be viewed the winner (congratulations)....but I hope all are benefited by this sometimes painful process. I do not represent any others in this debate, and strongly defend the work of Michael Wolsey and Jim Hoffman et al as important and valid although I accept it could of been done better.

See and find discussion of the podcast here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/single/?p=205731&t=2390085

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2678072/1/

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=31452#post31452



My notes on the discussion:

If you don't have time to listen to this marathon 2 and 1/2 hour discussion I will give you a brief run down of what happened in my opinion.

Background.

Craig Ranke called me out for a debate many months ago after I made a comment about him being uneducated and a drummer in a LA reggae band at an online forum, which was inappropriate and which I had already apologised for and not tried to hide. My "excuse" for this was that it was being stated that CIT's evidence had the same weight as the Controlled Demollition of the towers, which CIT maintains is true. Craig is obviously not uneducated but is a drummer in an LA band as stated.

I was originally a supporter of CIT's National Security Alert film but after discussion with long time and successful activists in the states and on gaining and understanding that the "fly over" was a "proven fact" in CIT's opinion; and was also a "not negotiable" part of their theory I began to oppose them as dangerous to the movement.

The danger I saw, and still see is that having this "fly over" presented as a fact would bring us into disrepute and open the high profile members of this movement who had given supportive statements to ridicule. It would be in my view very easy for our adversaries like "the media" to say we were insane conspiracy theorists due to the evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon and that a "fly over" would of been seen by hundreds of people if it had happened and CIT could only produce one wittiness seeing the "fly over" who is now to scared to talk.

Many prominent members of this movement spoke out against CIT (myself included) to prevent a take up of the "fly over" position by the movement at large, some of us including myself did continue to state that the "fly over" was possible and we supported the "north side approach as good research. Many prominent members of our movement had given support to the "research" but not directly to the "fly over" and I also was pursuing "clarification" from some of these people which we got from a few, primarily Peter Dale Scott and Richard Gage AIA.

Due to CIT's persistence that the "fly over" was a fact the argument became more and more aggressive and CIT has been portrayed as "diss info" wrongly in my opinion now. I did support this portrail at one stage but have never said they were dissinfo personally. I regret being associated with this position with hind site.

The debate or conversation recorded by pod cast by Paul

This long and often repetitive discussion was difficult for me as I had to concede points and apologise for some actions I took and things I had said. Although difficult I think Craig and I have reached an understanding that we disagree on a few key points but agree on many more as follows;

We Agree

1. The North path of Flt 77 is NOT consistent with the damage field approaching and seen at the pentagon.
2. The North side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony.
3. A "fly over" is possible (Craig says proven) as I have always stated from day one.
4. Their is "evidence" of a plane crash and of a 757 at the Pentagon but it is not verifiable and it is possible (Craig it's a fact) that after the fact photo's are staged. Craig's take on this is that there is no verifiable evidence due to it's nature, being supplied by the Government, I agree this is a fair position.
5. The official flight paths that have been supplied are all in error and the most well supported flight path of 77 by independent sources is the North of the Citgo Gas Station approach.
6. We were both happy we have had this discussion and that we are moving this debate forward.
7. Craig came out on top in the debate, which I new would be the case before and so did he.
8. I have acted in an aggressive manner and have discouraged support of CIT's "fly over".
9. I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on.
10. Resistance to the CIT evidence is due to a dogma in some cases.
11. CIT will produce a letter/paper for review at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (Craig did wavier on this point)

I Disagree

1. The "Fly Over" is a fact.
2. I have prevented CIT's work from being discussed as I sent it to my list and have posted it on the net.
3. Pilots for 9/11 Truth information is 100% accurate.
4. CIT's research is as important as the Controlled Demolition research.

Craig Disagrees

1. Craig and CIT have taken the wrong approach by being so sure of their information as being proven causing the escalation of this dispute.
2. Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey et al had good reasons to speak out against CIT calling them dissinfo/missinfo.
3. Dr Frank Legge's paper "What Hit The Pentagon" is the best position for the movement regarding the Pentagon.
4. Many more witnesses or other evidence is required to make the "fly over" proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in my personal view to get it on the table.
5. CIT and Pilots for Truth need to produce papers for peer review at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" if they wish to have broad serious support by our movement.

My Thoughts

Unfortunately Craig did not concede any points (except doing a paper for the Journal (maybe)) at all as he and CIT have been 100% right and perfect in every way? This will continue, I believe (as I have said many times) to CIT's continuing detriment.

Craig displayed good knowledge of the subject and I was out of my depth regarding the conflicting witness testimony demonstrating the "official path" or South of the Citgo path. I have read as many of you have also read there are up to one hundred witnesses supporting this South path Craig says their are zero verifiable witnesses?

Even though it was my understanding that all 13/14 witnesses CIT site believe a plane hit the Pentagon, Craig also now disputes this but would not be drawn on the number, this in my opinion was a weak point of his argument and clearly something he does not want to discuss. He also does not want to discuss how they created the damage at the Pentagon as it he says "is not important", I also disagree with this position.

Kind regards John
_________________
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!

[Rancho Truth]

discussion at blogger http://www.911blogger.com/node/22209

I listened to the whole thing. I think you did a good job, especially for someone who has not devoted hours and hours to becoming familiar w/ CIT's arguments and how they refute opposing arguments and the details of what they present in their films. You came across as relaxed, honest and sensible. Ranke had a really hard, unpleasant tone in his voice almost the entire time, and was working really, really hard. I got the impression he's devoted a lot of time to studying how to make their case seem reasonable and the only possible explanation. Sounded like he was working from notes. He kept recycling the 'you attacked us, your trying to marginalize us, you've bought the dogma of those you associate with'...
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

[truebeleaguer]

I didn't listen to 2-1/2 hours. No doubt much of the circularity of the discussion came from Craig's tendency to change the subject when he gets in trouble.

He likes to fall back on the "If you don't accept my bullshit you're supporting the official story" line as well.

John, you probably did better than you think you did. Don't give an inch to his nonsense.

[truthmover]

With all due respect, this was a bad idea from the start. Akin to debating Mark Roberts. I know Roberts is full of shit, but I also know he can argue circles around me even if he's wrong. Same with Ranke. He's an expert at argumentation and I don't for a second think he's being genuine, so the deck is stacked in the favor of the person who isn't arguing in good faith. And the result is sure to be a draw at best.

On the other hand, it seems that there was some kind of information drawn from the experience. I hope it was worth being in that guys presence for more than an hour. You're a brave man. Yeck!

[victronix01]

[Rancho Truth]

[truthmover]

Most people don't know much about search engine optimization, or how you get higher search rankings. This ignorance is utilized by people who would like to generate traffic to their site.

Let's say that I started a site called Bigots4911Truth.com. My intent is to get high search result when people search for "9/11 truth." I'm only trying to associate bigotry with 9/11 truth, I'm not even a bigot myself.

The things that will help drive up my search ranking the most are people linking to my site, mentioning it on their sites, or commenting on my site. So anything I can do to make those things happen benefits my intent.

So then I write someone in the movement telling them I hate their race but that we agree that 9/11 was an inside job.

What is the best response?

Only a personal e-mail. No matter how you respond publicly, for any reason, you are helping this person increase traffic to their site.

The CIT situation is a bit more complicated, but my approach is similar.

I agree that we needed to have the debate with CIT. I applaud many efforts at standing up to their crap. I've certainly done my tour of duty.

However, I refute the idea that we all need to have that opportunity indefinitely into the future. Experiences are had. Lessons are learned to be passed on. I had the argument so someone else didn't have to.

Good work, all around. It's time to truly dismiss CIT, put up the warning cones, and use the energy for constructive action.

[John Bursill]

Thanks for the replies:)

I'm walking away from this one and I chose not to answer your questions here Victoria; as I AM REALLY WALKING AWAY FROM THIS ONE:) Happy to e-mail or chat on phone?

My view on the Pentagon is best represented by Dr Legge's paper and my view on CIT is best represented above.

I am withdrawing my energy from this and putting it back to what I think will help us all.

As you may of all heard I am taking over the hosting of "Visibility 9-11" from Michael in the New Year. Michael will be producing/directing and stepping in from time to time. The show is hopefully ramping up to a show a week and the interviews will be with activists and academics. The show will also include a weekly round of news and reviews to keep people that are to busy to visit blogger etc in the loop! I take this job very seriously and am extremely honoured to be a part of the number one 9/11 pod cast in my personal opinion.

My first interview will be with Janice Matthews and I will also be having a short conversation with Michael as a "hand over".

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This will be my last post at TruthAction until the 1st of January, family is coming first for a change:)

Kind regards John
_________________
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!

[Arcterus]

Things are hectic right now but I'll listen to it in a few days. Sounds interesting.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

[waitew]

Wow,this is indirectly all my fault.

[publicx]

[rbiah]

[quote="publicx"]

[rbiah]

[publicx]

[publicx]