John Bursill Schools Wannabe Debunkers
YT Wed, 11/25/2009 - 7:24pm
These guys have posted a few hitpieces on 9/11 truth but for some reason they buried these videos at the back of their site:
These guys have posted a few hitpieces on 9/11 truth but for some reason they buried these videos at the back of their site:
Nice, John! :-)
Nice, John! :-)
good job, the seeds to
good job, the seeds to thinking critically were nicely planted
Nice
Good work John. You've obviously done your homework and you're very convincing despite the interviewer's attempts to discredit you at every turn.
Hi Sheila...
Richard does not have a position on the Pentagon as AE have not done work in that area, refer to the Kim Hill interview for his last statement on this issue!
Sheila, do you think that a "flyover of 77 is fact" and do you consider there to be "no proof that a plane hit the Pentagon"?
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Hello Bruno et al...respectfully...
There are plenty of good ways to hurt this movement and it ain't by going along with the aspects of the official story that can not be successfully proven otherwise.
My opinion that a "plane" not necessarily Flt 77 hit the Pentagon is backed by the most evidence available whether it is planted or not. This is what people that wish to take the high ground with debunkers do and say! They do not speculate or announce as fact things that simply can not be proved with the current data available!
Many people tell me that you work your ass of for 9/11 Truth and you are an intense and driven truth advocate, thank you!
I have just with the massive success of the The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under shown that the way forward is to narrow our argument and concentrate on what can be proved. There by throwing off the "conspiracy theorist" tag and getting broad public support and very importantly the academics and professionals!
I would love to talk to you in person to resolve the issues we have about the "Pentagon" and I am once again in dismay over your approach to this issue as a leader in this movement!
Richard Gage does not endorse the "flyover" and accepts that his support for CIT's investigation was very controversial and tells me that that's what he supports is "research". When I explained to him that Craig of CIT says that "there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon" he was a little concerned and I would not be surprised if he withdraws his support of CIT as many others have since they hounded them into giving it!
I f you wish to continue to beat this insane line of there is "absolutely no plane at the Pentagon" drum, more support will be lost for the CIT research; so please be my guest!
If CIT took there 13 witnesses to court tomorrow they would be laughed out of there due to the simple fact that all their witnesses think that 77 hit the Pentagon and not one is prepared to state in court it (77) definitely flew over!
Once again as I have said many, many times a flyover is possible.
Please GET ON WITH THE REAL WORK and off this endless argument! We disagree:)
Respectfully John Bursill - Principle Organiser The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Um, no.
John:
When I explained to him that Craig of CIT says that "there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon" he was a little concerned and I would not be surprised if he withdraws his support of CIT as many others have since they hounded them into giving it!
Show me one person from this list who has gone on the record to fully withdraw their endorsement.
No one has.
Peter Dale Scott did clarify that he didn't endorse "flyover," but that he does support the research and the presentation en totale.
None of those endorsement statements specifically said they supported flyover.
Many of us activists "endorsed" the Second Edition of Loose Change and handed out hundreds of them on the streets, even if we didn't necessarily agree with each and every single claim in the film. (And remember, the second edition had a number of errors.) But we found enough of it to be compelling so as to spread the word by burning DVDs. Heck, the Second Edition even promoted the missile theory, but I've never seen Dylan Avery receive the kind of opposition and smearing that Craig has. For all the errors he's promoted he's still seen as a darling in the movement.
Nobody was "hounded" into giving their endorsement. I know David Ray Griffin in person, and he is the last person on earth would be "hounded" by anyone. No John, these people all watched National Security Alert from start to finish and were very impressed.
Also, the 9/11 truth movement is a mosaic. It is comprised of many researchers and activists of many stripes. Some of us have a burning desire to learn more about what happened at the Pentagon. Craig and Aldo are two of these, that's why they invested so much time and energy in travelling to Arlington and interviewing as many witnesses as would agree to be recorded. You're going to find people researching all aspects of the attack. You're also going to find activists like the NYCCAN people. We all have our place. Please stop telling people to cease focusing on a particular avenue of investigation and telling them to focus on what YOU think they should be focusing on.
EDIT:
You said Richard Gage does not endorse the "flyover" and accepts that his support for CIT's investigation was very controversial and tells me that that's what he supports is "research". When I explained to him that Craig of CIT says that "there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon" he was a little concerned
John, his support for the NSA video came AFTER he watched it. The VIDEO ITSELF argues that no plane crashed into the building. So he would already be aware of this claim before endorsing. He wouldn't all of a sudden be surprised and "concerned" to hear the "no plane crash" claim when John Bursill tells it to him, as if it somehow flew over his head while he was watching the video.
Gage was the only person to threaten to pull his endorsement on account of the infamous "Face to the Name" thread if they didn't remove the word "enemies." But whatever one thinks of Craig and Aldo personally doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they've uncovered a gold mine of information proving the OCT false.
Ok maybe that was a little too strong...
There was more than one person that withdrew support for CIT or clarified their position to be fair in P.D.S case.
Edit; Aidan Monaghan, Researcher and Peter Dale Scott have both clarified their support and in e-mails to expressed regret at giving it! None that I know of on that list support the "flyover" even Balsamo as usual has no "official" opinion. It is interesting that you would imagine from CIT's writings that they all support the "flyover" and I imagine this would not sit well with many. Gage is definitely re-considering his position on this issue.
Lets not get into pissing contest, I would of supported CIT's work and did send out there material to the Australian list. It was when off the back of support for their "research" they started demanding that it proved the "flyover" all this B/S started.
It's not about who thinks what is the best course for our research, it is about people like CIT making outrageous claims that can not be proved and then attacking all that disagree!
They started this mess by being arrogant, demanding, righteous and disrespectful to people like Dr Frank Legge et al
Are you saying that CIT did not on numerous occasions sort the support of their list of endorsement?
Anyway what about my position on the plane at the Pentagon...what is wrong with it exactly?
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Hey Bruno?
"I love the CIT video National Security Alert. It's clear that Flight 77 never made it near the Pentagon. The plane that flew over the Pentagon, on a trajectory just north of the gas station was not a commercial airliner. It's refreshing to see citizens investigating for themselves, and doing a darn good job at it. I highly recommend watching National Security Alert."
I'm sorry I was wrong one person does support the "flyover" you!
WeAreChange LA must be so proud to be so open to attack by one of their leaders stating as fact a theory that is not even close to being proven!
I'll agree to never state that I think a plane hit the Pentagon in an interview (I will have no opinion on it) if you will do the same and withdraw your support for the "flyover"?
I know this may be hard Bruno because you are an expert in this area:)
Adam still waiting for you to make contact with me?
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Sorry...
...been a bit swamped. For the moment, I'm just glad to know how to reach you.
Mine is kameelyun@gmail.com
Hey John
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth must be overjoyed that you are representing AE911Truth's position that a plane did hit the Pentagon, though I could not find that claim anywhere on the ae911truth.org website. Should I call Gage and let him know that he needs to update the website?
All sarcasm aside, John, the issue that I brought up is not whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, or flew over the pentagon. The issue I brought up is that you represented that Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth has taken the position that a plane hit the pentagon.
I guess I should not have made an issue about it. Maybe AE911Truth now takes that position. I was just unaware until now. Or is that not true. Please clarify. Thanks! :)
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Bruno as usual you missed the point!
On the record I did not represent AE911Truth in this interview!
At the beginning I said I represented Truth Action Australia and 911Oz.com.
As I have said AE911Truth has no position on the Pentagon.
This is rather boring as you will not concede any points as usual and the debates fails to move forward. What a shame...
I'm out good night:)
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
"Bruno... you will not concede any points as usual" ?
I do not appreciate a blanket statement about me, especially one that you have absolutely no support for. You adamantly claim that you did not represent yourself as a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, but you actually did, early in the first video, and then went on to speak for the organization. I'm raising the red flag about anybody representing AE911Truth when they voice their opinion about the Pentagon. AE911Truth is vital to the 9-11 Truth movement, and I hate to see it's integrity compromised in this fashion.
at about 01:45 in the first vid, John you say
"As a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, the answer to that question is we need a new investigation. We now have clear evidence that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Do you understand Building 7 fell for 2.2 seconds at pure free fall as if you dropped an apple off the roof, it fell that fast."
at about 02:39, you say
"What do I think? I think that a plane hit the Pentagon... I think that planes hit both buildings... That's what Architects and Engineers think."
Peace,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Suggestion - Take a safe stance...
Why not just take a safe stance on the Pentagon like, "There are many unanswered questions and peculiarities about the Pentagon attack that warrant further investigation." ?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
Crash Course
hapless inquisitor: "Wayah, that concerns me..." "No, i don't think there needs to be a new [investigation]..." "Thank you!"
Excellent delivery, John. The guy was dumfounded- he was obviously hoping to have a conversation about holograms, space beams and Pentagon flyovers/missiles, but instead ran into someone that cares and has done their homework.
First John schooled the guy on numerous facts about the WTC destruction, including many established in the 'official' sources. The guy had no answer for these, and tried to get John to explain how they got the bombs in the towers. Duh, that's one of the things we need an investigation for. John instead returned to schooling him on the facts, but later indulged him a little when asked to speculate on why destroy the towers completely instead of just flying planes into them. John presented reasoned observations and a credible hypothesis; Silverstein's $billion insurance bonanza demands investigation, to be sure. Plus, the effect of cowing the populace and Congress w/ shock and awe, which predictably produced a license to massively fund the MIC and launch imperialist wars- which is essentially what PNAC said they wanted to do, and which they noted would be difficult "absent a new Pearl Harbor"- also demands investigation.
couple points; afaik, Hordon didn't 'discover' the rule change, which actually was a change that the Defense Sec had to be contacted in situations requiring "lethal force"- great explanation and points about that, though. http://911review.com/articles/russell/standdown.html The families asked about the June 1 Change Order to CJCSI 3610.01A in a 9/15/03 email, and the Commission received official info on it, but it was not addressed in the report or the hearings- this is what's in the files public so far: http://www.scribd.com/documents?q=CJCSI+3610.01A#search?q=CJCSI%203610.01A Just one more example of how the report is a fraud.
6 out of 10 Commissioners saying the Commission's investigation was a farce, calling for a new investigation; what's the source for that?
Afaik, NONE of the Commissioners support a new investigation, though some, incl. Kean and Hamilton, have made statements acknowledging shortcomings, and have been critical of the Bush Administration/military cooperation with their 'investigation'. Some of these statements from 6 Commissioners are collected here: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/they-dont-believe-it-why-do...
AE911Truth.org doesn't have an official statement claiming 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I haven't talked to Gage, but his 'endorsement' of CIT's 'work' doesn't include an endorsement of the 'flyover theory', and he's told others he doesn't believe it. You obviously talked to him about it (thanks); is that what you were referring to when you said "Architects and Engineers...", or something else?
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Erik
None of the endorsements said specifically that they endorsed "flyover." See my comment above. They addressed CIT's efforts and research as a whole, en totale. No different than promoting Fahrenheit 9/11 or Loose Change even if you don't agree with each and every single claim in the film. "Flyover" is just one claim made, the other claims being the north path, staged light poles, and explosives in the building. Do you believe CIT is wrong about ALL these, like Hoffman, or that they're wrong about JUST flyover, like Chris Sarns?
It bothers me that you put 'work' in 'scare quotes.' CIT did real work trying to unravel the Pentagon mystery including spending thousands of dollars travelling from west coast to east. How unfortunate that in a country of 300,000,000, no one closer to Arlington than LA was inspired to do the kind of on-the-ground investigation they did.
The rest of your post was spot on.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
my view
Adam, we've discussed this on a number of occasions. I summed up my views in this article:
Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-end...
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
loose nuke's review
I agree with most of loose nuke's review. John you did a great job handling that tool of a reporter. My concern is that you represented that AE911Truth has any opinion at all about the Pentagon. AE911Truth is exclusive about Controlled Demolition, unless there is something I am not aware of?
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
P.S. John, I now have to read all your comments with an Australian accent in my head ;)
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.
"My concern is that you
"My concern is that you represented that AE911Truth has any opinion at all about the Pentagon. AE911Truth is exclusive about Controlled Demolition, unless there is something I am not aware of?"
It's not mine because I didn't and if that is the way it came across I apologise.
Ok lets end it here?
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Hi loose nuke...
Yes Hordon just made this info more known...thanks!
The 6 of 10 commissioners has been quoted often by many reputable people but I to are unsure of the source as it is rather a tally of multiple drawn statements?
If someone could find a story that puts them together that would be very useful indeed.
Thanks John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
What's the source for the 6 of 10 Commissioners statement?
GW's article is a good resource, although the title is more sensational than the individual quotes:
The 9/11 Commission Doesn't Believe It: Why Do You?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/they-dont-believe-it-why-do...
It's 3 years old, and personally I would include the below 2004 quote from Bob Kerrey, but I'm not sure what other relevant quotes exist:
9/11 Commission Bob Kerrey: ‘We Took an Oath Not to Talk About It During the Campaign’
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/911-commissioner-bob-kerrey-w...
GW's article may be the source for the '6 of 10' statement- if anyone knows the actual source, please post it- as you can see from this google search, it's getting widely circulated- on the first page you can see someone else is asking for the source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%226+out+of+10+commissioners%22&aq=...
I first heard that '6 of 10' comment in Sheen's '20 Minutes' piece, and it's been repeated a lot since then, but I haven't seen it substantiated:
"CS – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?"
http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/
There's a link to a WaPo article in the Sheen quote, but it only quotes Commissioners Kean and Lehman, and staffer Farmer. The Commission Report acknowledged "inaccurate government accounts" on pg. 34; the news in the WaPo article is suspicion of deliberate deception and discussion of a possible referral for criminal investigation. The statements about "the government" not telling the truth are not in reference to the Commission's Report. Certainly, the treatment the Commission gave this in their report casts additional doubt on their 'investigation' and conclusions, but afaik, none of the Commission members have outright rejected the Commission's work, and Kean, Hamilton and other members have made statements supporting it.
Anyway, John, your 20 minute crash course was inspiring.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Thanks mate!
I will in future I'll say "many question and the Co-chairs said....etc etc etc"
Thanks for your efforts keeping us and the story straight:)
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Happy to as long as you do the same?
Bruno said "Why not just take a safe stance on the Pentagon like, "There are many unanswered questions and peculiarities about the Pentagon attack that warrant further investigation." ?"
I agree, this is the best stance with the public and it is what I say!
But in terms of facing the de-bukers like I did here it is often more powerful to accept aspects of the OCT that can not be proven to be otherwise....
Kind regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au