Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
John Bursi|| - Craig Ranke Debate
Topic Started: Dec 21 2009, 12:17 PM (5,282 Views)
911ARTISTS
Member Avatar

http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=562135

Posted Image
Letters from the Front by Roger Morris



Edited by 911ARTISTS, Nov 18 2010, 12:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

Craig made a very good job and a lot of effort in the past. Now he takes benefit of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Thanks to John for being the first of the limited hangout of truthaction/911blogger to have the courage to step up to the plate to discuss this with us directly and for conceding points honorably.

Here are what I would say are his most important concessions:

Quote:
 

2:52
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.


Quote:
 

7:46
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.


Quote:
 

8:57
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.


Quote:
 

11:07
To my knowledge no hard evidence has been produced publicly that proves Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.


Quote:
 

20:47
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.


Quote:
 

24:37
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.

Quote:
 

32:02
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.


Quote:
 

40:14
I’ve watched your film (National Security Alert) like 3 times, and I think it’s impressive, and I think it’s very interesting.


Quote:
 

112:07
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.


Quote:
 

113:22
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.


Quote:
 

1:15:57
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.


Quote:
 

1:16:43
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.


Quote:
 

1:23:52
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.


Quote:
 

1:37:56
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.


Quote:
 

1:40:46
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.


Quote:
 

1:51:41
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.





Quote:
 

1:59:28
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.


Quote:
 

2:01:22
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.


Quote:
 

2:08:25
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.



Quote:
 

2:08:40
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.


Quote:
 

2:20:48
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.




Quote:
 

2:24:56

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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Syed
Member Avatar

Great debate. I've posted my own entry about this at blogger.

While Bursill shies away from calling the flyover "proven," it was nice to hear, at the very least, that the flyover is a very valid "working hypothesis."

Unlike SOME people (who shall remain nameless) who insist that it is "fruit loops" and "bonkers" propagated by "liars" "frauds" and "con men."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Bursill

Hello LC Forum, it's a pleasure to be here even though it is under difficult circumstances:)

This is what I sent out as an e-mail yesterday to my list...there was some problem with my login here originally?

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

END

PS

See comment below..

This sort of comment is where I think a lot of problems have arisen for CIT....self obsessed and self righteousness? Disregard for others feelings and standing, and a contempt for any with a different view?

From 911oz.com with reference to my request for Ranke's submission to the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" our extremely important site for investigating the events of 9/11!

Quote: John Bursill said under heading "Craig Disagrees"

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.

Craig's Response....
Yes, disagreed. We already have "broad serious support by our movement". It's only the limited hangout of 911blogger and truthaction who are fighting this.

Furthermore the journal has been used as a conduit for spin and opinion in the past when concerning the Pentagon attack issue creating a less than objective scientific environment for this discussion.

END

Craig, thanks for discrediting our premier scientific medium...again; this is reckless in my opinion:( What would be wrong with actually engaging that medium in the way that it was designed to be engaged? This in my view is "friendly fire", exactly what you continue to accuse the small minority of doing while you ride your high horse from pillar to post sword in hand slashing as you go. Eventually no one will engage with you and all will be silent; then my friend I hope you'll be happy.

I do not know of more than a handful of people that believe the "fly over" is proven....please provide us all a list to back your claim that the vocal minority are the only ones that have this view dear professor Ranke:)

Also lets us all know when you have the new "journal" up so we can go back to doing the work to get us credibility:) to your standard.

As at the 911oz forum these words have brought my comments here to an end on this issue.

Merry Christmas all:)

Kind regards John


--
9/11 24/7 until justice!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

John Bursill
Dec 22 2009, 03:49 PM
Hello LC Forum, it's a pleasure to be here even though it is under difficult circumstances:)

...there was some problem with my login here originally?

Greetings John and welcome to the LC Forum - it's great to see you here. :)

There was no problem with your login, we just have a function on this forum which does not allow newly-joined members to post straight away, and requires manual validation by admin.
The list of to-be-validated members had not been checked or ok'd for about a day probably because I or the other two admin weren't online or hadn't checked it.
This function was initially instituted on the previous incarnation of the LC Forums to protect against multiple users joining simultaneously to spam the forum with offensive pornographic images.

Regards,
Jo

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Syed
Member Avatar

Here is my submission to 911blogger, which I submitted about 20 hours ago and is still not posted yet:
______________________________________________________________________________________

http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=562135

[embed code for player]

A week ago, I was excited to hear that one of CIT's critics accepted Craig's challenge to step up to the plate and engage in live, recorded debate.

John Bursill debated Craig Ranke on 12/19/09 and the entire conversations lasted longer than most full-length motion pictures! Paul Tassopulos of Artists for 9/11 Truth recorded and hosted the debate, although he virtually never stepped in as a moderator.

John has posted his own writeup over at the 911oz forum; maybe he'll submit it here too. While John and Craig still have specific disagreements mostly centering on choice of words and method of approaching people (i.e. whether to call the flyover scenario "proof" or a "working hypothesis"), I was surprised to see him graciously concede the following point:

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.

The 2.5 hour debate is intense but makes for stimulating listening. Bursill concedes many points to Craig throughout the interview. One point he makes clear is that he find's CIT's presentations to be "very interesting" and "compelling." He admitted that at one point, he suspected CIT of being "disinfo," largely because of CIT's stridency in promoting their own work. Since previous people in the movement who were promoting actual disinfo did so with much aggressiveness, the same suspicion was extended to CIT. John says he no longer suspects CIT of being disinfo or liars/frauds and that in fact they do present very real legitimate info that should make anyone site up and take note.

As mentioned above, the main points of disagreement hinge upon choice of words and approach. John takes exception to Craig's notion that CIT's work is as definitive and conclusive as the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC.

Craig explains his line of reasoning 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 10010 (more correctly spelled 1 x 1020). 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 probably 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.

Bursill suggested that if Craig and Aldo are so confident that it's scientific proof, they should submit a paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer review. Craig conceded that he will "maybe" do this, but his view is that the independently corroborating eyewitnesses themselves are the peer review. As he said: "We're not asking you to believe us, we're asking you to believe the witnesses." For the record though, I certainly don't think submitting a paper to the Journal is a bad idea.

On his write-up, Bursill says

Their is "evidence" of a plane crash and of a 757 at the Pentagon but it is not verifiable and it is possible (Craig [says] 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.

It is very encouraging to see this acknowledgment. Many people who defend a 757 crash at the Pentagon rather dogmatically point to the photos of unverified plane parts as proof that the "pentagon no planers" are wrong. Of course, most of us suspect Donald Rumsfeld to be among the prime architects of 9/11, and this was literally his back yard. The very people suspected of the crime had control of the crime scene. The photos of the plane parts could have been staged and taken days after 9/11, and they were released by official sources. Compare that to the <i>independent</i> (non govt-released) photos and videos taken immediately after the event.

Though he shies away from the word "proof," John certainly concedes that the "flyover" is a very logical inference and a very valid "working hypothesis."

With regard to the criticism from CIT detractors that "all the north approach witnesses still say/believe the plane hit the building," Craig reminds us how many people at the WTC reported characteristics of controlled demolition but refuse to publicly support that conclusion. Indeed the Loose Change boys were forced to put in a legal disclaimer at the beginning of the "recut" version of 2nd edition, clarifying the fact that the firefighters presented in the film don't support the claims. Likewise, it is a simple non-controvertible fact that the north approach means that the plane did not cause any of the damage to the light poles and building.

I could write a super long essay discussing so many points, but at that point it will be quicker to listen to the debate than read my write-up!

Overall, this was a very important and necessary debate to occur, given how virtually all of CIT's detractors have previously refused to debate, usually with the excuse that there is nothing to debate or that nothing productive would come of it. Both Bursill and Ranke feel this debate was productive and are happy to be moving the Pentagon discussion forward.

John, you've earned LOTS of respect from me for taking on this challenge. Kudos to you, and Merry Christmas down under!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Bursill

Thanks Adam and I like your overview!

I will as said make no further comment except, Merry Christmas to you to:)

Regards John
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

You have publicly admitted you were wrong in the past, apologized. This is behavior is reserved for real characters only.

Respect.

P.S. I hope I will have no problem with it, when the facts would turn against me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Syed
Member Avatar

Now it's up.

http://911blogger.com/node/22209
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flippy

So Craig posts the important parts of the debate from his perception. Not once in his post does he make slanderous or negative comments about you. He simply quoted parts of the debate. Then you come here and make a post doing the same exact thing that has caused this whole riff. With smart ass comments like "High Horse" "Professor Rainke" and other CRAP, yet, you feel like you are the bigger man?

Quote:
 
(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.


IMO you can get right back on your high horse and ride off into the sunset. 911blogger and Truthaction.net ARE the problems with this movement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Flippy
Dec 23 2009, 05:19 PM
So Craig posts the important parts of the debate from his perception. Not once in his post does he make slanderous or negative comments about you. He simply quoted parts of the debate. Then you come here and make a post doing the same exact thing that has caused this whole riff. With smart ass comments like "High Horse" "Professor Rainke" and other CRAP, yet, you feel like you are the bigger man?

Quote:
 
(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.


IMO you can get right back on your high horse and ride off into the sunset. 911blogger and Truthaction.net ARE the problems with this movement.
Great point Flippy.

I didn't even see his angry "p.s." the first time around.

John is mad because I have taken issue with his demand for us to submit a paper to the Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies otherwise known as J.O.N.E.S.

He keeps suggesting that somehow the evidence we present will only be validated if we write a paper about it and submit it to J.O.N.E.S.

The problem is, as I stated, that that the journal has been used as a conduit for spin and opinion in the past when concerning the Pentagon attack issue creating a less than objective scientific environment for this discussion.

Legge's paper "What Hit the Pentagon" is not scientific.

It amounts to an opinion piece that turns the scientific method inside out by resting entirely on a negative hypothesis (by demanding others to provide evidence) while he simply ignores and dismisses the evidence that already exists (and proves his negative hypothesis false) without providing a shred of evidence to the contrary.

An argument from incredulity (faulty logic) is not a valid excuse to dismiss the evidence we present as John conceded in this debate.

The timing of the release of Legge's paper only about a month after National Security Alert came out is no coincidence. We knew he was aware of the evidence we present and that his article was likely the RESULT of all the attention National Security Alert has received yet he completely failed to address it.

If he stands by his paper Frank will be the next person I challenge to a debate although it's clear he is not willing to address the evidence we present on paper so I highly doubt he'll be willing to address it with me directly.

Bottom line the evidence we present as proof amounts to video recorded firsthand eyewitness accounts that can not be presented on paper. Given the fact that J.O.N.E.S. has already established a clear precedent that they have no problems publishing non-scientific opinion pieces and spin articles regarding the Pentagon issue there is no legitimate reason that we should be required to throw our hat in that ring.

Presenting this evidence on paper to them only sets them up to continue the spin that they have already started.

People have to VIEW the testimony. You can't spin National Security Alert.

There is only ONE way to debunk the evidence we present and that is by presenting counter-evidence of greater strength (eg: firsthand accounts from witnesses who were on or right near the gas station property who definitively place the plane on the south side as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place it on the north side).

It can't be done because we already have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was on the north side.



Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 23 2009, 08:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

John Bursill
Dec 22 2009, 03:49 PM
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.
I agree that CIT isn't perfect in every way; I myself was banned from their forum; I certainly think the banning was unjust (no explanation was even given). But although they may be imperfect, I have seen no fault in their logic concerning the witnesses, which is what we should focus on I think. As Craige Ranke says, you don't have to think so much about what he thinks, so much as what the witnesses say. Personally, my pet project has been Lloyd England; when faced with all those north of citgo gas station witnesses, he decided that he wasn't, in fact, on the bridge, but instead in a position to -also- be a north of citgo gas station witness. The only problem is that the photographic evidence makes it clear that he wasn't. Not only that, but even if he was, there's no way that his taxi cab could have been speared by one of the downed light poles as the north path didn't cross any of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Adam Syed
Dec 22 2009, 05:22 PM

Craig explains his line of reasoning 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 10010 (more correctly spelled 1 x 1020). 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 probably 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.

Adam,

Thanks for highlighting this and wording it so succinctly.

I don't feel I was able to get this described as clearly in the debate.

I could tell that John eventually understood what I was getting at but you summed it up very well above.

This is why I called 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 nano-thermite the 2 seconds of free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is PROOF of controlled demo while even without Roosevelt Roberts or any other flyover witnesses the north side evidence is PROOF of a flyover. There simply is no other logical alternative.

I'm going to borrow this for the other threads if you don't mind.
;)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Syed
Member Avatar

No prob... knock yourself out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adam Syed
Member Avatar

LOLz, look at the reaction over at the premiere anti CIT and P4T hangout, truthaction

From Truthmover (posts as "Jules" at blogger though not for awhile):

Quote:
 


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 Victoria Ashley (victronix01) still insists that CIT are professional disinfo artists:

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
(Bursill): CIT has been portrayed as "diss info" wrongly in my opinion now.



I also disagree on wrongly aspect. Sorry, I just do.

John, I think you are being taken in by salespeople who know how to work you -- and anyone who gets close to them -- over. You aren't the first or the last and many many people are taken because that's what they do for a living. They do it everyday.

Your intentions are good but their's, ultimately, are likely not. I'm sorry, but they have manipulated much evidence for their own gain, not for the scientific reality, the facts, but for themselves.

I think what you have to ask yourself is, how is my time best spent?

For example, if Steve Jones endlessly engaged and debated Jim Fetzer, he would not have time to do experiments on nanothermite.

Importantly, you just hosted an amazing event and probably had a huge amount of energy happen in your life from that.

CIT will also engage that energy with you -- just like Jim Fetzer's dozens of emails per week, debating issue after issue after issue, also provided fuel the served to keep an 'energy' going that can become addictive -- but it likely will not end up being meaningful, for many reasons. Like the interactions with Jim Fetzer about DEW, nukes and everything else, ultimately, they have an uphill battle to achieve something because they have rejected the basic means to do so -- they are not scientific.


Here are the words of Erik Larsen, aka "loose nuke" who is a moderator at 911blogger:

Quote:
 
CIT's work is 'interesting', and it's significant in that they've gotten attention and garnered endorsements from some notable people, but I don't see the point in debating them either- they're getting attention and energy from it. Like Vic said about Fetzer- he's already been discredited by his own actions and this has been pointed out- so why dignify him and waste time endlessly debating him?

CIT's work has been examined in depth by Arabesque and Frustrating Fraud, and numerous flaws in their claims have been pointed out. Their work isn't going to be taken seriously by anyone that looks into it- and it's easy for Congress and the MSM to dismiss it.

Also interesting from the interview is that Ranke said they're independent researchers and focus on their own evidence- but they stand behind PFT "100 %". They take the endorsements of PDS, Gage, DRG and others- but don't link to them- they only link to PFT, and PFT contributed to NSA.


Finally, Truthmover chimes in with the following love fest:

Quote:
 
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.


Good friggin' God. No wonder they've earned the reputation of "true faction." :(

I agree, I think Bursill is a genuine, committed activist whose view of CIT was shaped by the sites at which he hangs out, and is now realizing it.

Great job Craig! I bet you were drained after that! Here's to ya! Drink up... :cheers:
Edited by Adam Syed, Dec 23 2009, 10:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

just as a thought - would it be possible to meet together face to face, maybe for now not as an open debate, bring all available evidence and with an open brains + friendly attitude try to add up all the puzzles. This movement needs to unite somehow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Can't unite with people who are not truly part of the movement to begin with. Victoria Ashley loves to talk about the scientific method, but her own paper is anything but scientific. For one thing, she uses some fake topographical analysis she found on a message-board from a blogger named jthomas, who is no friend to 9-11 Truth. If she really cared so much about the scientific process she would have checked the validity of jthomas' "View Shed analysis" and found that it is completely fake. I see no reason why someone who supposedly believes in strict adherence to the scientific method, would just take at face value the claims of someone like jthomas, who is so steadfastly ANTI-truth.

Same thing with the 15 second claim by Arabesque. Had she bothered to check this so-called video evidence, she would have seen that the Anthony Tribby video is actually video evidence of the exact opposite of what Arabesque claims. And she would've discovered what some of us have known for some time. That Arabesque has been perpetrating one of the biggest frauds in the movement. That's assuming that she doesn't already know him to be a liar.

I have my doubts that she is just some naive, misguided truther. The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives.
Edited by Avenger, Dec 25 2009, 02:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

Avenger
Dec 25 2009, 02:09 AM
I have my doubts that she is just some naive, misguided truther. The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives.


Doubts are fine. I think the real problem is when people take their doubts and make drastic decisions based on them. There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.
Edited by scott75, Dec 28 2009, 03:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
911ARTISTS
Member Avatar

scott75
Dec 28 2009, 03:02 PM
Avenger
Dec 25 2009, 02:09 AM
I have my doubts that she is just some naive, misguided truther. The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives.
Doubts are fine. I think the real problem is when people take their doubts and make drastic decisions based on them. There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.
Hey, Scott. Thanks, buddy.
By the way, I never said that I was thinking of shutting down 911 Artists Interactive.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19254&view=findpost&p=10780857
In fact, nothing could be further form the truth. It's a new site. It's my baby. It's my favorite of all the sites I'm making.
That's the sun just about to come up, my friend. You watch.






Edited by 911ARTISTS, Dec 28 2009, 04:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

Paul Tassopulos
Dec 28 2009, 04:29 PM
Hey, Scott. Thanks, buddy.

By the way, I never said that I was thinking of shutting down 911 Artists Interactive.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19254&view=findpost&p=10780857
In fact, nothing could be further form the truth. It's a new site. It's my baby. It's my favorite of all the sites I'm making.
That's the sun just about to come up, my friend. You watch.






You're welcome Paul :-).

Anyway, I've relaid your statement that you weren't thinking of shutting it down over at PFT and I certainly hope that the sun is just rising on it. Regardless, you certainly met me here at a time at a time when I think I needed another perspective :-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

scott75
Dec 28 2009, 03:02 PM
Avenger
Dec 25 2009, 02:09 AM
I have my doubts that she is just some naive, misguided truther. The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives.


Doubts are fine. I think the real problem is when people take their doubts and make drastic decisions based on them. There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.
It's not my fault her article is a piece of crap. It's not fault she used a fake topographical analysis concocted by some JREFer. It's not my fault that much of her article relies on the 15 second claim which is a complete fabrication. It's not my fault she has aligned herself with a liar like Arabesque.
Quote:
 
There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.

People have been talking all along. Talking is one thing, but debating is quite another. It's debating that people like Arabesque, Hoffman, and Ashley are afraid of. Why? Because they've told too many lies. It's easier for them to slander people who are not there to counter their claims. It's easier to beat up on a scarecrow than a real live person.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

Avenger
 
It's not my fault her article is a piece of crap.


Is it though? I don't see it that way.

Avenger
 
It's not [my] fault she used a fake topographical analysis concocted by some JREFer. It's not my fault that much of her article relies on the 15 second claim which is a complete fabrication.


No, it isn't. I suppose you could say it's hers, in the sense that she's misinformed. The real issue is why she relied on them. You stated that you felt that "The fact that she chooses not to address the eyewitness testimony DIRECTLY is, in my opinion, a sign of ulterior motives." I don't see that this has to be true, however.

Avenger
 
It's not my fault she has aligned herself with a liar like Arabesque.


I've had my fill of people who disagree with each other regarding aspects of 9/11 calling each other liars. I certainly believe that Arabesque is misinformed in regards to their view of CIT's theory, but I have seen no evidence to support the accusation that Arabesque is being deceitful. I firmly believe that it's these types of accusations, which are being hurled by both sides, that is distracting people from the evidence itself.


Avenger
 

scott75
 
There are some people, such as Paul Tassopulos, who are able to reach out to the different sides and get them to talk. Unfortunately, these types of people are rather rare.


People have been talking all along. Talking is one thing, but debating is quite another.


And insulting each other something else as well, to be sure.


Avenger
 
It's debating that people like Arabesque, Hoffman, and Ashley are afraid of. Why? Because they've told too many lies. It's easier for them to slander people who are not there to counter their claims. It's easier to beat up on a scarecrow than a real live person.


I agree that Arabesque, Hoffman and Ashley have made mistakes. I agree that they've slandered CIT. However, I -also- believe that people like you may well have slandered them, by saying, for instance, that Arabesque is a 'liar', or taking Victoria's approach in her article as a "sign of ulterior motives". Fighting fire with fire is generally a bad approach. Instead, I think we should simply focus on the evidence. I firmly believe that the truth regarding what happened at the Pentagon is on CIT's side; if we focus on the evidence supporting it, I think that'll be much more persuasive to those who are fence sitting or are in the "Hoffmanite" camp, than assuming that the motives of those who disagree with CIT are sinister.
Edited by scott75, Dec 29 2009, 02:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

the more (constructive) debates we have, the better for us ... especially if people like Mr Roberts is in. The only thing is to stay focused on the very topic and not allow for circling around ...

... well Craig is good in it :) ... he is not leaving the topic without definitive assertion/confirmation from both sides ...
Edited by Michal, Dec 29 2009, 02:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Avenger
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I've had my fill of people who disagree with each other regarding aspects of 9/11 calling each other liars. I certainly believe that Arabesque is misinformed in regards to their view of CIT's theory, but I have seen no evidence to support the accusation that Arabesque is being deceitful. I firmly believe that it's these types of accusations, which are being hurled by both sides, that is distracting people from the evidence itself.

Misinformed in what way? Did he or did he not claim to have video evidence of Steve O'Brien's C-130 arriving 15 seconds after the attack?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply