John Bursill - Craig Ranke Conference Call

[Paul Tassopulos]

John Bursill and Craig Ranke came on my show on the 12/19/09. I was very impressed with both of them. Both strike me as being authentic human beings. Neither has the appearance to me of being "disinfo", "gatekeeper", or "shill". Their combination of research, activism, and reaching out to others in the Truth Movement I believe will be the win for us all. Thanks, John and Craig. Let's take it right into the end zone now.




Letters From the Front by Roger Morris


Podcast Alpha Pictoris - Bursill / Ranke Conference Call

[blavatsky3]

I mistakenly clicked back arrow and the clip stopped playing.
I would like to continue from where I left off.

I got to about 30-40 min into clip.

thanks

[Paul Tassopulos]

Originally Posted by blavatsky3

Is there a download link for this mp3 file ?

Hey, blavatsky3. Yes. You should see a direct download if you go to my Libsyn site.

Podcast Alpha Pictoris by Paul Tassopulos

[blavatsky3]

Does eyewitness testimony prove that there is only one aircraft ?

Could there be more than one aircraft near the Pentagon?

Is/are 'all' eyewitness testimony/reports admissable as evidence ?

Is it possible for the Pentagon to release 'new' evidence which
changes what we know?

How many witnesses did Craig interview ?

What did the witnesses who saw the video at the Marriott Hotel see ?

Craig is very emotional but that's OK he has a right to be.

John is very objective and protective of where the 'MOMENTUM' of the 9-11 Truth Movement lies.

Do I think Craig Ranke has some proof ? Maybe.

Do I think Craig Ranke has all the proof ? definitely not.

Does Craig Ranke provide us with physical evidence which parallels the Controlled Demolition evidence ?
I have yet to find any....

I wish to encourage more people to investigate like Craig Ranke but they should also be able to tow the line
which is most constructive to the 9-11 Truth Movement.

While I do not agree with some of Frank Legge's proposals of what happened I do agree it is
VERY IMPORTANT for the sake of the 9-11 Truth Movement that we are seen by the Public to be growing stronger
and not fragmented and diversive. So the PRE-CAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (coined by Prof. Frank Legge) should be UTMOST in our thinking to help spearhead the 9-11 Truth Movement. Afterall we should ALL be wanting a NEW INDEPENDENT investigation into the events surrounding 9-11.
Personal agendas/ideas should come last if they do little to help or stifle the MOMENTUM of the 9-11
Truth Movement.

But I could be wrong...

[John Bursill]

As posted to my e-mail list...

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 have been done better.

See and find discussion of the podcast here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911...5731&t=2390085

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...pic/2678072/1/

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showt...1452#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

[KP]

Hi John,

Kudos to you for doing this and for revising your position based on new information. Too many people take a position and stick to it long after logic has departed their original argument.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

John,

Thanks for most of that but I must say I am a bit taken aback by your decision to frame my position in your words without quoting me once.

You have in essence set the stage to continue to the debate here.

I did not plan that as I figured you would want to "back off and just let it all settle for a bit" but I will certainly answer your additional questions and address what you have identified as the "weak point" of my "argument".

But first I would like to simply quote and reference with time code what I believe to be your most important concessions from our discussion. They are rather poignant and I would like to thank you again for stepping up to the plate by participating in this dialog and showing a true sense of honor by conceding these important points.

Here are what I have identified as your most important concessions:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tezzajw]

Originally Posted by blavatsky3

I wish to encourage more people to investigate like Craig Ranke but they should also be able to tow the line
which is most constructive to the 9-11 Truth Movement.

People are free to proceed however they wish to proceed.

Given the CIT are independent researchers, they can do what they like.

The idea that there is a centrally controlled 'Truth Movement' is misleading. Where can I sign up to this Truth Movement? I can't.

No one should 'tow the line'. Screw that. It might take the effort of someone not 'towing the line' to make a big break or discover something new.

'Towing the line' could possibly limit the opportunity for some people to think outside of the box.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally Posted by John Bursill

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.

But I don't wear baseball caps backwards or forwards.

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.

Actually we established during the debate that you ALREADY KNEW that this was our position as it is stated unequivocally not only in National Security Alert but in The PentaCon as well.

So if you had watched either it is not accurate to say that you only later were "gaining" an "understanding" that the flyover was a proven fact in our opinion.

In other words, you could not have "originally" been a supporter of National Security Alert without that knowledge.

Did you forget that we had addressed this in the debate as you were composing this email response to your "list"?

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.

Even though it's supported by the evidence?

My that seems similar to Jon Gold's position on controlled demo.

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.

Don't they use arguments from incredulity like that about controlled demolition?

I think you know that they do which is exactly why people like Jon Gold argue against it.

If you choose to adopt his philosophy don't you think you should be consistent?

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.

An argument from authority is faulty logic but it's particularly bad when the authority figures you are referencing are admittedly NOT studied researchers on the topic in question.

Furthermore I take issue with your false implication that there are MORE "prominent members" of the truth movement who have buckled under pressure to "clarify" their endorsements for National Security Alert.

You know darn well that those are the only two.

And both of them stand by their endorsements to this day.

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.

Thanks for that.

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.

Agreed.

2. The North side approach is the most well supported by independent and clear witness testimony.

Agreed.

3. A "fly over" is possible (Craig says proven) as I have always stated from day one.

Agreed.

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.

Mostly but not fully agreed. The images you are talking about are not evidence of a plane crash at all even if they are valid. To suggest they are would be faulty logic.

Specifically a post hoc logical fallacy.

This was discussed by us during the debate as well as prior to it.

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.

Absolutely agreed. Great point.

6. We were both happy we have had this discussion and that we are moving this debate forward.

Agreed.

7. Craig came out on top in the debate, which I new would be the case before and so did he.

Agreed.

8. I have acted in an aggressive manner and have discouraged support of CIT's "fly over".

Agreed.

9. I will no longer discourage people from taking CIT's work seriously but will be silent on the matter from now on.

Fair enough and thanks.

10. Resistance to the CIT evidence is due to a dogma in some cases.

Agreed.

11. CIT will produce a letter/paper for review at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (Craig did wavier on this point)

Haha. Actually I did not agree to that. I'll be honest in that my main resistance to this is due to the fact that I believe the journal has lost credibility by posting spin articles from an anonymous blogger (Arabesque) as well as Legge's non-scientific opinion piece with a forced negative hypothesis.

That is not science.

People have the "right" to publish all the opinion and spin they want but when it's done under the false flag of "science" in what's supposed to be a scientific journal I have a problem with it.

That being said I may still submit a rebuttal to Legge's paper anyway.

I Disagree

1. The "Fly Over" is a fact.

Yes I know you do.

2. I have prevented CIT's work from being discussed as I sent it to my list and have posted it on the net.

You admitted that you have publicly called for it to be marginalized.

3. Pilots for 9/11 Truth information is 100% accurate.

Then it's up to you to debunk it.

As it stands you have not shown ANY of the info in ANY of their presentations to be incorrect.

4. CIT's research is as important as the Controlled Demolition research.

I understand that is your position.

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.

True, I disagree.

It is no more wrong than having that definitive of an approach for controlled demo.

2. Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey et al had good reasons to speak out against CIT calling them dissinfo/missinfo.

Of course I disagree. There is never a valid excuse for inappropriate and fraudulent personal attacks.

3. Dr Frank Legge's paper "What Hit The Pentagon" is the best position for the movement regarding the Pentagon.

You better believe I disagree.

It is nothing more than a hollow opinion piece that uses faulty logic (an argument from incredulity) to simply dismiss the information we present with a hand wave while failing to provide a single piece of counter-evidence to the north side approach.

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.

Yes, disagreed.

The north side evidence proves it just as much as 2 seconds of free-fall of building 7 proves controlled demo without any nanothermite evidence.

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.

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.

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?

Is it my fault that you made no points worth conceding?

Your ONLY point is that you personally don't believe the north side evidence is proof of a flyover even though valid.

What's odd is that you contradict yourself by ADMITTING the plane has to be on the south side to hit!

I feel it's clear that you are simply in denial concerning the clear implications of this evidence.

Let me know if you have another point that you want me to consider conceding because that's the only one I can think of and you are correct in that I will NOT concede that.

This will continue, I believe (as I have said many times) to CIT's continuing detriment.

It's not to our detriment at all because evidence, logic, and truth is on our side.

It is to YOUR detriment if you continue to fight us on this. You claimed you were going to stop and remain silent.

I recommend you live up to that promise or provide us with an endorsement and simply refer people to us when the Pentagon comes up.

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.

Agreed.

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?

You LOVE to generalize the question, don't you? This is specifically about the location of the plane in relation to the citgo!

You really should understand that by now.

Until you have firsthand accounts from people who were in a position to see the citgo and definitively place the plane on the south side as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place it on the north side you will not have evidence strong enough to refute what we present.

To accept anything less would expose a confirmation bias against this information that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

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.

Whoa whoa whoa!

This is where you have incorrectly spoken for me.

I have NO PROBLEM discussing anything whatsoever.

We DID discuss this and the fact is that while it's clear they believed the plane hit when we initially interviewed them we do not know what they believe now that they know the implications of a plane on the north side.

However since they ALL stand by their original statements and we have provided ALL of them with copies of the presentation there isn't a reason on earth to suspect that they STILL think the plane hit.

Getting them to openly talk about it without subpoena power is another story all together.

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.

Wrong.

I didn't say that.

We are very open about our belief that the damage was caused solely by pre-planted explosives since there is no independent evidence for 2 planes or a 2nd flying object of any sort at the time of the attack.

We simply feel the exact type of explosives or combination of weaponry used is irrelevant and unprovable since the suspect had complete control of the crime scene and there is no "dust" to analyze.

Agreed?

[blavatsky3]

they should also be able to tow the line
which is most constructive to the 9-11 Truth Movement.

COMMON SENSE !

and yes I am all for thinking outside the square.