Wednesday, December 23, 2009

CIT debates Australian 9/11 Truth activist John Bursill

While our most recent presentation National Security Alert has received widespread praise and support there's a small contingency of very vocal CIT detractors within the 9/11 Truth movement who have historically failed to discuss their problem with us and the information directly. Critics like Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey have opted to personally attack us from the comfort of their own website and blogs where they know we can't respond. Australian 9/11 truth activist John Bursill has aligned himself with this clique of individuals who have taken part in a very aggressive campaign over the years for people to marginalize and ignore research and evidence regarding the Pentagon attack while calling for them to focus only on the attack of the World Trade Center. Coming off the heals of "The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under" (that he organized and successfully accomplished) John Bursill became the first of this forceful group of individuals to agree to debate us directly via podcast. Paul Tassopulos from agreed to host the debate. It's about 2.5 hours long and I was able to get John to concede several important points that I have quoted below. Listen to entire debate here :

Download available here.
I realize it’s very popular to believe that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon and I think that a majority of 9/11 truth activists believe that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Ranke: What I want to be clear here is that the only evidence you’re citing to suggest that it was in fact a 757 that hit the building are photographs that were presented by the government after the fact.

Bursill: Correct.

Ranke: So not anything to do with the damage or what was shown outside of the building on that day but rather these photographs presented by the very suspect that you believe perpetrated this crime. That is what you are basing that on, correct?

Bursill: Correct.

I think your witness testimony that you’ve got is definitely um, you know, courtable and it would be very interesting to see anything go to the court because then we would be able to ask for more data.
To my knowledge no hard evidence has been produced publicly that proves Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Ranke: The point is that you were unprovoked and you personally attacked us inappropriately and I’m just establishing that you were the aggressor and that’s why I called you out for this debate, ok?

Bursill: Ok.

Ranke: My point is that what he (Frank Legge) said in that statement and what is agreed upon by him as well as Jim Hoffman and all our detractors is that the plane unequivocally absolutely has to be on the south side of the gas station in order to hit the light poles, the generator trailer, and cause the directional damage to the building as reported and photographed leading to the C-ring hole. Do you agree with that?
Bursill: I agree what you’re saying that it has to be to the south of the citgo gas station, I agree.

Ranke: You agree that the location of the light poles and the damage to them is proven, correct?
Bursill: Yeah.
Ranke: You agree that the location of the generator trailer and the damage to that is proven, correct?
Bursill: Well I’ve seen the photos, yes.
Ranke: And you agree that the location of the damage to the outer façade of the building is proven and we know for sure where that begins, correct?
Bursill: From the building report, the internal damage?
Ranke: No no no no no…the outer façade damage, the initial damage to the building.
Bursill: Yeah I agree, that’s the damage.
Ranke: Alright, and, and we agree that the C-ring hole, the final end of the, labeled end of the damage, of all the physical damage to the building – the location of that is established independently by photographs.
Bursill: That’s correct.

I’ve watched your film (National Security Alert) like 3 times, and I think it’s impressive, and I think it’s very interesting.

You’ve been banned at two of the, two of the premier you know places that I think for activism at least, you know so, that’s in my world, that’s (inaudible) the internet, you know Truthaction, 911blogger, I never really go to many other places, uh forums except the 911oz forum where you know, we’ve controlled the debate a little bit there.

Ranke: Unfortunately you have admitted that you are in a limited hangout position at 911blogger and truthaction where the debate has been absolutely shut down and we’ve been attacked personally and you’ve fallen into that dogma, you’ve admitted, by attacking us personally unprovoked.

Bursill: I did fall into it but I’ve realized the error of my ways and I’ve apologized for it on that forum as we talked about.

Bursill: I told you I said the position, I think the position of the majority of people probably support um a lot of what you say.

Ranke: Then clearly there is a problem there if the limited hangout that is not allowing discussion of the matter. So we agree there too.

Ranke: If you don’t think that the 14 independent corroborated witnesses who definitively place the plane on the north side approach are equal to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was on the north side, how may witnesses would it take and why that number?

Bursill: Well, I, you know I think that the 14 witnesses is plenty to put it on that side of the uh to have an investigation.


I’m not contesting; I think what the witnesses say is believable and I think they are telling the truth about what they believed happened.


Like I said I think the north side approach you know has got validity, I think that it is a valid hypothesis.

I’ve tried to move on from the Pentagon numerous times and then you guys came up with this really compelling argument which ignited the debate again.

Well anyway you’re going to come out of this (debate) looking better and I think that’s good for you man and you know that’s probably why a lot of people don’t want to discuss it with you.

You know a lot of the psychological things you’re talking about, the resistance, and the dogmas and all that, there’s truth in that, that’s why I am having the debate, I wouldn’t have done this for no reason. I think that this, you know this issue needs to be moved forward, like it’s not going to go away, you guys aren’t going to just give up on it.

Ranke: But they (Hoffman, Wolsey et al) have not put out any definitive evidence contradicting that the plane was on the north side.

Bursill: No they haven’t, I agree, I agree with that.

I accept your research it’s interesting and well founded and your video was well produced. […] I support my friends and colleagues that have gone out against you but I disagree with their, if there’d been ad hominem or if they’ve played the person and not the game and I don’t support um you know them doing that and I think that’s wrong. I know that for instance Michael Wolsey agreed with me that you know he was overly aggressive with some of the things he’s done and said against CIT, ok, he’s realized also that he was caught up in some emotion on this issue and a lot of the campaign. That’s agreed. Ok so like you know we just need to move forward and accept that you know you guys, I don’t know somehow we gotta just you know try to forget about what’s happened and just keep moving forward to truth and justice for the victims of 9/11. And I agree that I won’t speak out against CIT and I think I’ve been more supportive than not.

At the end of the day with all things considered you know I think that we just need to stop fighting about this issue and I will refrain from attacking you guys and I apologize for saying what I said.

If people want to know about what happened at the Pentagon I am happy to point them to you know to your video as well as all the other information.

I think the north side approach contradicts the official version successfully and I think it definitely adds weight to why we need an investigation. But um you know the Frank Legge position about what’s going on is my position currently and, you know I think um, you know, you’ve made your points very clearly and you’ve demonstrated that you’ve probably been dealt with poorly.

I apologize for the things that I’ve done and I definitely could have got caught up in some of that dogma. But like I said you know from a political point of view I suppose that I’m being cautious and um you know so that’s why I still express to people that caution is um is the best way to approach this subject but yeah the north side approach is um is powerful stuff and like I said that’s why I sent it out to my list, um, it’s very interesting and it adds to the weight of why we need a new investigation.

The reason I was arguing for you (to Wolsey) was because I know that what you’re saying is popular and has been accepted well, um you know, by the movement and that’s probably even why you had a stronger reaction against than you should have had because of the popularity of it, sort of like the fact that I got censored at the Australian (greens?) once the nano-thermite came out, um because you know it was then forensic proof and when they saw the case was clear then they censored me. You know, so I understand where you’re coming from being through similar things. Yeah I just think we need somehow I think we just need to back off and just let it all settle for a bit and just move forward eh?

Ranke: Well good you know and if you’re taking over for Michael Wolsey in the visibility podcast I’m glad to hear that because I certainly think you’ll handle it much better than he has.

Bursill: Well I’m still going to be critical and you know Michael’s like a great friend of mine he’s a great guy and you know like, and he’s got his view and you know everyone’s got their right to their view you know? He’s done a lot of good work and it’s terrible to see, because I know that some people, you know, now don’t like Michael because of what he’s, because his position he’s taken. Um you know and he was coming off the back, he’d seen a lot of disinfo go down over the years but the problem is when information like yours is not disinfo, it’s info, uh but it appears as if it’s similar to disinfo we’ve seen prior, then you know people really, all the animosity and aggression from this absolute disinfo in the past has now been brought forward and then really been turned on you.

Ranke: It doesn’t appear as disinfo that’s just a preconceived notion that they wanted to have.

Bursill: Well it’s possible I’m just using that, you know, to be broad with it but I think uh that because of that I think, you know, that’s maybe why things have happened, because like you said because it was popular, it was taking hold and then academics and scholars jumped on and supported it and then it was like, that was really scary to a lot of people because they thought disinfo or misinfo was coming forward into the realm and then people jumped on and go way too heavy, because you know Michael has said to me that you know that it could have been handled better and um that you know it was emotional and all the rest of it so there you go and I think we are moving forward with it.

One important point I tried to make during the debate didn't come out as clearly as I had hoped.

It was the part about probability and statistics being mathematical proof of a flyover. Truth activist/CIT supporter Adam Syed put it succinctly so I'll copy his response here:
Craig explains his line of reasoning (of why CIT has proof the plane was on the north side) and uses one of Richard Gage's lecture points as an analogy. This lecture point concerns statistics and probability. With the controlled demolition proof: There are 10 (or more) characteristics of the 'collapses' that are characteristic to only controlled demolition. Gage makes the point that: Let's just say that ONE of those characteristics MIGHT have a (generous) 1 in 100 chance of occurring in a "natural" collapse without explosives. Well, for TWO of those characteristics to occur without CD would already be a 1 in 10,000 chance, meaning quite low indeed. But for ALL TEN of these features to occur without CD is 1 in 100 to the 10th degree (1 in a trillion). In other words, zero, for all practical purposes.

Similarly, at the Pentagon we have 13 eyewitnesses who independently corroborate each other in placing the plane on the north side of the gas station. Of these 13, let's say there's a 1/100 chance of one of them being wrong. But the odds of two of them both being wrong about the plane's location w/r to Citgo is 1/10,000, etc. The probability that all 13 witnesses are wrong about the plane being on the north side is, for all practical purposes, zero.

And all people, including CIT detractors, agree on the simple fact that if the plane was north of Citgo, it did not cause the directional damage beginning with the light poles and continuing on to the E, D, and C rings of the Pentagon. And since there is no directional damage in the photographic evidence to suggest a North Approach impact, the logical conclusion is that the plane continued on. Besides, why would the perps stage any of the damage if they planned to actually crash a plane into the building?

This is why Craig is so adamant and forceful about the north side approach being scientific proof of a flyover every bit as much as the nanothermite paper.

Quite true.

This is why I called flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts the "nanothermite of the flyover theory". That got John so mad that he basically refused to listen to my reasoning.

The analogy is that even without the physical evidence of nanothermitic residue in the WTC dust the 2 seconds of free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is ABSOLUTE PROOF of controlled demo, similarly even without Roosevelt Roberts or any other flyover witnesses the north side evidence is ABSOLUTE PROOF of a flyover. There simply is no other logical alternative.