Craig Ranke

 

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".......

Craig Ranke

 

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..........

broken sticks

Oct 13 2009, 09:20 AM

sign me up if anyone wants to debate tv fakery

RasgaSaias

Oct 13 2009, 09:44 AM

broken sticks

Oct 13 2009, 09:20 AM

sign me up if anyone wants to debate tv fakery

Has been tried once months ago.

The result was the same as usual.

http://s13.zetaboards.com/artistsfor911truth/topic/6605158/1/

Sadly that was remixed by the mods. The original conversation had 9 pages with killtown sneakily editing his comments to save his ass.

He was there to discuss anything related to 9/11. He just didn't want to discuss his identity.

Then, almost at the end, he decided to change his first post and say he was there just to talk about "his actions".

Don't know why was that cut off. Maybe "diplomacy" speaks louder than the truth. Isn't that so Paul?

Luckily I made a backup from the whole thing. A classic from killtown's bad moments LOL

If anyone what's the full thing just ask and I'll rapidshare it.

broken sticks

Oct 13 2009, 09:20 AM

d'you think bursill will even reply?

“Ultimate Combat Arena” - lol, cool. is it specifically a one-on-one arena? that would be good. sign me up if anyone wants to debate tv fakery

Quote:

 

This is a pure debate form designed to be used by two people that have a clearly adversarial relationship regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement. It’s a contest between 2 people only and can be presented on a number of different forums simultaneously. The fighters only respond to each other, but all forum members can comment. The fight consists of an opening statement, an intermediate statement, and a closing statement no longer that one page each. Each response must come in no longer than 3 days. It's exciting, interesting, and promotable. It's something that viewers can understand. It's a good and productive fight. All participants have my personal guarantee of protection, fairness, and support on it.