Paul contacted John Bursill and invited him to this forum to debate me one on one about a week or two ago. Bursill declined and said he was too busy. Bursill is a moderator at the Aussie 9/11 truth forum 911oz. The administrator of that forum, Hereward Fenton, started a thread there regarding Michael Wolsey's interview with Jim Hoffman attacking CIT by labeling us "disinfo".
After about 4 pages of discussion I was alerted to the thread and joined the forum for the first time in order to contribute. John Bursill showed up and reiterated what he told Paul when he was challenged a couple of weeks ago. He said, "Hello Craig I don't have time to enter into a debate at present".
But apparently he wasn't being sincere because he proceeded to debate anyway. Although I remained perfectly civil he threatened to lock the thread, "Ps - would you rather we lock the thread...suits me fine?" for no reason whatsoever other than to flex his authority and ability to stifle the discussion while once again suggesting he was done participating by saying "Good bye!".
But he continued to participate and showed up again with an off topic post regarding pictures of debris while implying this somehow refutes the north side eyewitnesses and supports a 757 impact. When I civilly pointed out that this was a logical fallacy he replied again but proceeded to level a personal attack by saying, "are you insane???" and proceeded to again wield his authority by announcing he was banishing the thread to the fighting pit. Bursill said, "Any way if you wish to accuse me of "a logical fallacy of the highest order" then I think this thread can go to the pit!".
And to "the pit" it went where Bursill continued the discussion.
So clearly Bursill does have time for debate after all. In light of his tendency to unjustly wield his authority at 911oz and since he has decided to take me on in their "fighting pit" he has no valid excuse to not continue the discussion one on one in the "Ultimate Combat Arena" which is where the challenge initiated anyway.
So I will post his last response to me here and then provide my response in the next post.
John Bursill
Hello Craig,
Sorry I suggested you might be insane....
Have you ever wondered why people like me that are interested in your work and actually sent it out to their list are spending time refuting your argument? It is because you state that the "fly over" is irrefutable and simply a fact...let's look at the argument again;
For CIT;
1. You have one witness that saw the "fly over" and he is now not available for further interview, still his testimony stands. 2. You have twelve witnesses that saw the north approach but all believe that the plane hit the Pentagon, still you have some valid explanations for this. 3. You have no corroborating evidence besides the one witness that the "fly over" happened. 4. You support the assertion that the fly over happened by saying that the crash scene at the Pentagon is consistent with a south side approach and you have proven through your interviews that the north side approach is the only possible approach therefore the plane must of flown over the Pentagon. 5. You assert that all the witness testimony supporting the official south side version is fraudulent and that the whole scene at the Pentagon was staged involving hundreds of people planting evidence. The cab driver is your direct evidence of this staged event even though the cab driver still accepts the official report, yes I agree he is confused...so lets just discount him.
Against CIT
1. Not one person on the public record before you sort it volunteered a statement, report or comment that a fly over happened even though hundreds could have seen it and a great many should of heard it. 2. Only after the fact has one person said they saw a fly over. 3. Your twelve witnesses say they think the plane hit the Pentagon. 4. Many witnesses support the official report and are prepared to go on the record. 5. There is much wreckage consistent with a 757 crash at the Pentagon eg. Wheels, Landing Gear. pieces of fuselage and engine pieces. 6. There is a video showing "something" hitting the Pentagon. 7. None of the DFDR info supports the CIT north approach and no radar info supports it either, but as we know it appears that all this info provided by the government is erroneous, so lets discount that as well.
Ok so lets compare it to the case for CD of building 7.
For CD of 7
1. Many witnesses report explosions, count downs and orders to pull...on the day. 2. Forensic evidence shows unused explosives, the residue of explosives and the byproducts of explosives. 3. The video evidence proves the impossible collapse without added energy. 5. The buildings display all the hall marks of a controlled demolition. 6. 1000 A&E professionals support the CD hypothesis (with degrees) 7. Absolutely no precedent for this style of collapse with out explosives
Against CD of 7
1. NIST's computer model that no one has access to and that has failed to put many parameters into their calculation's or address the pure free fall of the building collapse. 2. Testimony from their employees that they are right and only a few at that.
Now one of those cases you could take to court and one you can do nothing with without more evidence...which one is it?
Regards John
PS _ I am not saying your "fly over" is not possible...
Have you ever wondered why people like me that are interested in your work and actually sent it out to their list are spending time refuting your argument? It is because you state that the "fly over" is irrefutable and simply a fact.
I'm not aware of anyone else who allegedly promotes the work while spending time arguing against it, no.
However it is a non-controversial scientific fact that if you believe the 14 witnesses we spoke with regarding the placement of the plane on the north side approach that you absolutely have to accept the flyover.
If you refuse to believe them it is your responsibility to provide evidence of greater strength to the contrary as justification for this position or else you will be exposing a confirmation bias in favor of the official narrative.
To be clear, for the record, as any true skeptic would; I will inform you exactly what I would accept as strong enough evidence to falsify the north side approach evidence.
That would be 4 or more witnesses who were on or right next to the former citgo gas station property who are filmed on location and definitively place the plane on the south side every bit as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place the plane on the north side.
To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job.
John Bursill
..let's look at the argument again;
For CIT;
I'm sorry but you are not me and you are therefore not qualified to speak for me. You have erroneously characterized my argument which is known to true critical thinkers as a "straw man" argument which is faulty logic. You really seem fond of logical fallacies. Too bad for you they are easily recognized and they expose a deceptive approach to discussing information. I will now expose why your attempt to speak for me is a fallacious representation of my "argument".
John Bursill
1. You have one witness that saw the "fly over" and he is now not available for further interview, still his testimony stands.
There is additional evidence cited in National Security alert that others saw the flyover. Such as Erik Dihle's officially recorded first hand account that the first thing "people" reported was that "a bomb hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going". That stands too. As do the 14 north side witnesses who also prove a flyover. The north side approach and the flyover are not separate issues.
John Bursill
2. You have twelve witnesses that saw the north approach but all believe that the plane hit the Pentagon, still you have some valid explanations for this.
Although we are up to 14 north side witnesses I can accept this statement. But it's too late, you already misrepresented my "argument" (read: the evidence) with number 1.
John Bursill
3. You have no corroborating evidence besides the one witness that the "fly over" happened.
Incorrect as stated in my reply to number 1 already. Why are you repeating yourself? This is particularly annoying since it is a false statement.
John Bursill
4. You support the assertion that the fly over happened by saying that the crash scene at the Pentagon is consistent with a south side approach and you have proven through your interviews that the north side approach is the only possible approach therefore the plane must of flown over the Pentagon.
Correct.
John Bursill
5. You assert that all the witness testimony supporting the official south side version is fraudulent and that the whole scene at the Pentagon was staged involving hundreds of people planting evidence.
Absolutely incorrect. We have never made this claim. This is an entirely fabricated and false representation of my argument. You will find no quotes from me to support this fraudulent assertion of my position.
John Bursill
The cab driver is your direct evidence of this staged event even though the cab driver still accepts the official report, yes I agree he is confused...so lets just discount him.
No we will not discount hard evidence proving the official story false. That is not scientific or logical. Nor is this an accurate representation of my argument so you have once again failed in your unjustified attempt to speak for me.
By listing these things and suggesting it is my argument you are implying you have presented the reader with the totality of my position as if we present nothing more. That is of course entirely false while most of the things you listed do not accurately represent my argument anyway. So based on this you proceeded to ferociously attack your straw man with a ridiculous list that allegedly works against this fallacious position that you have set up.
John Bursill
Against CIT
1. Not one person on the public record before you sort it volunteered a statement, report or comment that a fly over happened even though hundreds could have seen it and a great many should of heard it.
Besides the fact that we have already proven this false since BOTH Roosevelt Roberts AND Erik Dihle are officially on record proving that people DID report this, we have shown how there is a deliberate cover-up of this evidence since the 911 call tapes and transcripts were confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI.
So you will never know how many people reported it and you have no right to say that nobody did. Particularly since you haven't talked with ANYBODY. We have talked with people and have provided evidence that the flyover was witnessed proving the north side witnesses correct.
John Bursill
2. Only after the fact has one person said they saw a fly over.
You are repeating yourself again. You are also wrong and you will never know what people first reported because it was covered-up by the FBI. Obviously they did that for a reason and it doesn't bode well for the official narrative that you are defending.
John Bursill
3. Your twelve witnesses say they think the plane hit the Pentagon.
This does not refute their placement of the plane on the north side any more than WTC collapse witnesses who were deceived into believing the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fire refute the evidence for controlled demo.
John Bursill
4. Many witnesses support the official report and are prepared to go on the record.
Really? Who? Please provide the firsthand accounts of witnesses with a vantage point to see the gas station who explicitly place the plane on the south side. I am not aware of any. Real scientists provide evidence for their claims. Unsupported blanket statements will not cut it.
John Bursill
5. There is much wreckage consistent with a 757 crash at the Pentagon eg. Wheels, Landing Gear. pieces of fuselage and engine pieces.
Do I really have to post the definition of a post hoc logical fallacy again for you?
Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
In this case you are assuming that because debris on the lawn came after the plane flew by, that the plane caused the debris.
Faulty logic does not refute evidence.
John Bursill
6. There is a video showing "something" hitting the Pentagon.
That video was controlled, supplied, and provided for by the same people you accuse of mass murdering nearly 3,000 people in NY with a triple covert controlled demolition on live tv. Are you really going to cite it to refute independent evidence proving their story false? That is not logical and exposes a confirmation bias in favor of what they tell you. Why would you dismiss real people who were there based on a grainy and extremely dubious govt controlled security video?
7. None of the DFDR info supports the CIT north approach and no radar info supports it either, but as we know it appears that all this info provided by the government is erroneous, so lets discount that as well.
Of course as you should know it doesn't support the official story either. Interesting how you would want to "discount" that! Plus this contradicts your choice to ACCEPT the dubious security video that was also provided by the govt.
The rest of your post is utterly mind-boggling as you make an attempt to pit your false characterization of my "argument" and the evidence against the evidence for controlled demo of building 7! Talk about an irrelevant point. As if this has ANYTHING to do with the veracity of the information we present. No matter how much proof we have at the WTC additional proof at the Pentagon can only HELP. Any logical person will agree that in any criminal investigation the more evidence you have the better. So unless you can make a case that the evidence we provide is invalid, which clearly you have not, you have no logical excuse to compare it to building 7.
Ok John the floor is yours. Since you have insisted on continuing this discussion it's clear that you do have time to debate. The rules of this forum allow you 3-days to respond so if we don't hear from you after that I will accept that as a concession.
Although Bursill has failed to show up and debate me in this format he has now agreed to a live radio debate on Hereward Fenton's show TNRA.
John Bursill
Hey Craig I know you do this shit all day every day...good on you!
NOW WAKE UP FROM YOUR YOUR FRICKEN DELUSIONS AND UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT!
You never conceed a point and you spam like a mother fucker all day long and you never understand anyone eleses opinion or understanding of the issues.
For eg you ask me to demonstate that there is evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon???? Are you for real....don't you look at all the evidence people have put before you? Do they have to spend their whole fricken lives proving shit to you....why so you can ignore them? Who the fuck do you think you are?
Your case is not courtable and it aint proven, that's the point!
I will debate you on this issue on live radio with no edits after the tour we are running is over.
How you can turn your good research into the mess...I have no idea?
Ego and being determined to piss everyone off that does not agree with you seems to be your desire...well you've achieved it with me, well done.
Hereward will set a date and we will have this out in the public on the record probaly in December.
John
PS - See if you can develop some understanding of why your seen by so many in this movement as a complete asshole so that maybe we can find a way to work together? No that's right it's the two man Citizens investigation team that is important...PLEASE...
Too bad he couldn't be polite about it!
Strange how he already admitted that I "might" be right yet still wants to debate me.
No matter. Glad to see he has finally committed to stepping up to the plate!
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.
Nice work in the debate Craig. I listened to about the first 45 minutes and found it difficult to remain calm while listening to some of John's "ideas" about the Pentagon. Exploding plane before impact?
I'll have to listen to the rest another time to get the full effect. I'm very interested in what he had to say about the South side witnesses.
Oh, Turbofan! You blew my concept for the arena! It's supposed to be 2 combatants and a referee only inside! Comments going in the stands! Well, I'm certainly not moving your post. No big deal. The execution hasn't been true to my original concept so far anyway because both fighters are supposed agree to the match before the first post is made. That wasn't the case here. We'll get it dialed in as we go.
Sorry! I actually did read the forum descriptions but didnt' realize it was a 'no post' zone once the debate ended. Feel free to move my post, I wont be offended!
Nice work in the debate Craig. I listened to about the first 45 minutes and found it difficult to remain calm while listening to some of John's "ideas" about the Pentagon. Exploding plane before impact?
I'll have to listen to the rest another time to get the full effect. I'm very interested in what he had to say about the South side witnesses.
Haha thanks man.
You'll be amazed what happens when we address these alleged "south side witnesses".
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
6:57 PM Feb 9
