Two and a Half Hour (!!!) Debate Between Craig Ranke and John Bursill

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

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 essay 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 independent (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!

John Bursill

I already have respect for John and his commitment to exposing the 9-11 Cover Up, including his amazing support for ae911truth and Richard Gage AIA, and especially his efforts to talk directly to the people out in the streets. His willingness to have a sincere debate with Craig Ranke regardless of the outcome shows his true integrity toward honest debate even in the face of controversy. John has an honorable sense of humility that makes it easy for the rest of us to see him for the leader he is.

"John, you've earned LOTS of respect from me for taking on this challenge. Kudos to you, and Merry Christmas down under!"

I concur one hundred percent.

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.

My discussion Round Up!

For the record the position I have always adopted on the Pentagon is one of caution and as I state many times in this discussion my position on what hit the Pentagon is most clearly reflected in Frank Legge's paper.

I also state many times I support the work of Jim Hoffman and of Michael Wolsey as important in this discussion. Even though it appears by the quotes listed below I have changed my position on CIT's work I have not I have simply clarified it.

I maintain the "fly over" is not proven and stating such is dangerous to the 9/11 Truth Movements credability.

Please remember the quotes sourced below(where does he get the time?:)) have been taken from a 2 and 1/2 hour conversation, and the context is not always given clearly.

Please listen to the pod cast for a better understanding.

I will not be commenting further on this matter!

E-mail I sent out on the 22nd of December.

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

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Thanks for your insight John.

And all your hard work. :-)

good job, John

John, i disagree that people are going to think Ranke 'won' the debate. Ranke has obviously devoted a great deal of time to studying how to present his evidence and refute arguments, but, imho, he has not made the case that the witnesses are definitive and the flyover is conclusive, for the reasons i noted in my comment below. Your common sense approach of being open-minded but cautious, and letting the debate over evidence work itself out is good. You've been focused on becoming familiar with credible evidence and responsible activism- good. There's no reason everyone needs to devote a whole lot of time to understanding the fine details of everything CIT has said and done, when there's so much indisputably credible evidence to promote. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/CIT and http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com have done a great deal of research into CIT's evidence and claims, if anyone is interested in an alternative view.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Oh come on!

You said

There's no reason everyone needs to devote a whole lot of time to understanding the fine details of everything CIT has said and done,

Studying the fine details convinced me of the legitimate weight of their work.

Studying the fine details convince me they are not legitimate

Is it possible that the directional damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the airplane?

Yes or no?

Will you answer honestly or do the deniers' sidestep?

Debates

What's next? A debate with Nico Haupt ?

That's not really fair, is it!

Don't play the man, please!

Nico bites people and is quite insane.

Lets be serious here, their are 13 clear wittiness statements.....it dose not matter if Craig is very annoying with his disrespectful approach to many of our academics, that's not the point, we have to let that go!

I was not going to comment further but we will not achieve anything by mocking Ranke and CIT as they will just use it to annoy you more later:)

If you can not engage positively, say nothing...as I am trying to do.

John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

marginalize the nuts, or the nuts marginalize you

Evidently it's OK to call some in the "truth" movement insane but not others. So you admit there are people with mental problems in the movement. Good we agree. You think Nico is more detrimental to the movement than Ranke?

Although as far as I know CIT hasn't bitten anyone, they have suggested kicking detractors in the teeth in a public forum, which they tried to cover up later but...to late...it was screen saved....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GiER20plX0U/Snzl_0FE2wI/AAAAAAAAAAM/Pf26bLTKbt...

You really think this is "normal" behavior? CIT has delusions of grandeur.......

"Look, we went there. We are the motherfucking authority on the Pentagon. We shouldn't even be debating.....I WILL force this research/evidence through the fog of stupidity/igorance here and everywhere else. I WILL NOT let pieces of shit like Dylan Avery, Russell Pickering, or Terral stand in the way of truth that myself and my partner put our names and lives on the line to obtain."
http://letsrollforums.com/light-poles-pentagon-were-t15758p5.html

You said there are 13 witness statements. No. There are more. And their own witnesses that they talked with are the ones who claim they are insane. I suggest we not ignore this.

"Craig you need help" -- Keith D. Wheelhouse
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

Why would one of the people they interviewed later suggest that they "need help"?

This is why....if they ruin the silly flyover or "Northside" BS they must be "in on it".

"So even the government threw you under the bus Keith. But all the other witnesses independently prove your story false as well as that the plane could not have hit." --Ranke
http://noliesradio.org/archives/3068

"There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth." ...."We know the plane did not hit the building, Kieth. We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this." - Ranke
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/

But there are others. They went to the home of another witness. He even fed them. But when he found out Inspector Ranke was secretly recording him, he declined to be on video. He's smarter than they are. Another witness they talked to who claims they are "crazy"......

"Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/1

"My view was very good. There were some trees...so I was being honest....I wasn't exactly sure if the plane skipped before entering or just crashed into the Pentagon at a very low point in the building. But as far as my view...that was the only part that I had any question about..the exact way it entered. I saw the plane go into the Pentagon, there is no doubt, I had a very good view. I saw the wings fold back; I saw the huge explosion, the fireball and everything else that happened that day." --Mike Walter
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-walter-pentagon-eyewitn...

Father McGraw was another witness that ruins their fantasy. He is a priest who was on his way to a funeral and gave aid and comfort to those dead dieing and injured. Isn't that "suspicious? Yea, if you're a nut I guess........

"We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable. -CIT take on McGraw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

The cab driver who drove a cab for over 40 years, and declared bankruptcy after 9/11 would seem to be a cab driver who gained nothing.... but not to a crazy person.......

"A more simple explanation is that he is a long time intelligence asset who has been driving a cab around the streets of DC with a wire in it for decades."
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406249/pg3

This is all "normal" behavior?

More delusions of grandeur....

When these guys along with Russell and Dylan went to see Lloyd(the cab driver) he showed them pictures of his car when he got it back on 9/12. The pictures showed a book by David Icke on the passenger seat. So what you say? Ranke explains in an interview with Kevin Barrett what this means. ....He said the gov put that there so that Lloyd would seem to be on "our" side. A "conspiracy theorist" and against the Government. So the truth movement would be "sympathetic" to him. But Inspector Ranke was to smart for that. Now...think about that......he is claiming the gov put a book by D Icke in Lloyd's car......and knew that Ranke would arrive and see it years in the future from pictures they knew Lloyd would take and show him? This is truly insane. it's around the 35:19 point in the interview.
http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20090714_kevinbarrett_craigranke.mp3
http://noliesradio.org/archives/3068

And here is why these guys are more detrimental and should be shunned even more than Nico. Nico is a nut, you even admitted that, he should be marginalized by the movement. I have not talked with Wosley or Hoffman, so I don't know, but I would assume they would not debate either one of those guys because there is no point in debating crazy people, and give them the feeling they are worthy of a debate. Either the movement marginalizes the nuts, or the nuts will continue to marginalize the movement.

At one time or another CIT has claimed that the following are all "government operatives" or helped murder people on 9/11. John Farmer, Jim Hoffman, Arabesque, Mike Walter, Lloyd England, Father McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse, Russel Pickering, and reprehenser at 9/11 blogger is an "operative" as well.

Acute paranoia+delusions of grandeur = mental illness

This from CIT website......

"This means that Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder. The importance of this information is critical to uncovering the crimes of 9/11.......he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators. It's imperative that we focus serious attention on Lloyde"
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic2.htm

Since we both agree that crazy people are in the movement, let's hope one of the crazies doesn't fall for this flyover BS and decide to do some crazy vigilante justice, on a person who's only crime was talking with and inviting into his home so called "truthers". Either the movement distances itself from the crazies or it will distance itself from sane rational people. So who is more dangerous to 9/11 truth? A nut called Nico or CIT?

What's clear from the witness statements?

John: "Lets be serious here, their are 13 clear wittiness statements."

John, before you concede CIT's claim that they have 13 witnesses whose testimony support the N of Citgo path, and that all other evidence (see the 10 categories I outlined in a comment below) must be rejected out of hand, you should read this article- Morin's 2001 testimony, Paik's CIT interview and possibly Roosevelt's testimony include info that supports the official path- and Adam Larson also analyzes 14 other accounts that clearly or possibly support the S path:
THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

Also, any witness to the plane hitting lamp poles supports the S path:
Witnesses described the plane hitting lamp poles and objects
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

In addition, CIT's witnesses who had a view of the Pentagon and the airspace over it are sure the plane hit the building- CIT and their supporters claim, simply based on their assertion that the N path is a fact and therefore a flyover is a fact- that these people, and the dozens and dozens of other witnesses who gave reports to the media at the time, were deceived by a 'psyop'.

Witnesses described the plane hitting the Pentagon
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

I can understand people reserving judgment on the 'what' hit question- certainly, the govt should be compelled to release all the photos and video, and all documentary evidence of AA 77 parts and passengers recovered from the Pentagon- but there's no "clear" evidence that AA 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, or that it was on the N path, as CIT claim.

It is clear that NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon, and that CIT and their supporters are making unjustified absolute claims.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Loose Nuke,

Those "13 south side witnesses" turn out to be ZERO upon actual examination, and this has indeed been gone over in previous threads IN DEPTH! Stop pretending that these debates don't exist!

"zero", Adam? New Thread for South Side Witness discussion

new thread for discussion of "south side witnesses" which number over 3 dozen, actually (see first comment).

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED by Adam Larson
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22239

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Zero, correct.

Zero, correct.

Bruno!

Your initial comment had five positive votes when I went to bed last night, and is now down to zero. You had nothing but positive, kind words to say for John Bursill. Why on God's Green Earth would your comment be voted down?

Would anyone who voted Bruno down kindly step out from the shadows and explain what could possibly be construed as offensive in his post?

Thanks.

Beautiful words, Bruno.

Thanks for your insight.

Since this is a 2.5 hour debate, let's give a quick rundown on the "many points" Bursill concedes (if you don't have much time, skip to the bolded passages:

Quote:
2:52
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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
Bursill: 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.

The quotes here are compiled by Craig of CIT....

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Yes. You are correct. I

Yes. You are correct. I should give credit where credit is due. Not trying to plagiarize...

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=31471&postcount=7

I support 9/11 investigation, but I've got doubts about CIT

Witnesses that CIT uses are sure a plane hit the building (Thanks to Chris Sarns for transcribing the following quotes from NSA):

25:30
Craig: "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Robert: "Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) Collided."
(Robert Turcios had a clear view of the upper floors and airspace over the Pentagon)

37:56
Craig: "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"

49:40
Craig: "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse: "Yes."

Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower next to the Pentagon, very near the damage site:
Official interview 11-14-01
thepentacon.com/neit299
Boger: "I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building." and "So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

Craig Ranke explains their belief the plane hit and did not fly over:
"ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit.
pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778748

Ranke insists: "But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone."
pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778662

The 2 alleged 'flyover' witnesses:

In NSA, CIT leave out the part of Erik Dihle's quote where he says “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

Roosevelt Roberts worked security at the Pentagon and states he saw a commercial aircraft fly away to the SouthWest around 9:11-9:12am. Sarns explains that if he saw the plane on the North path flying over the Pentagon, this is that plane's path:
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4048/rrflightpathscrop.jpg
"The purple path is what Mr. Roberts surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west. The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw combined with what Roosevelt said he saw. The turning radius is about 350 feet. An airliner requires a 5,000 foot turning radius or more." - Sarns

Adam Larson compiled and analyzed statements from 13 witnesses, including CIT witnesses, and shows how what they said and did supports the South path:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

CIT maintains that all the South side witnesses have been proven wrong/not credible and must be thrown out, and that all the evidence of a 757 crash at the Pentagon from government sources is suspect and must be thrown out. However, there's no evidence the evidence was faked.

Evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon (and didn't fly over):

1) 757 parts found at the Pentagon http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

2) Damage path inside and outside the Pentagon http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

3) Close to 100 eyewitnesses to impact, in various media reports from the time, including on video; numerous specific, corroborating accounts about the plane and it hitting the bottom floors of the Pentagon http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.ht...

4) 13 S path eyewitnesses compiled by Adam Larson (no relation) http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documente...

5) Sean Boger, Robert Turcios, Chad Brooks, William Lagasse all said the plane hit the Pentagon. Turcios had a clear view of the upper floors and airspace and was sure it hit- he denied flyover. Boger was right next to the Pentagon, said he saw the plane fly into the building- then the explosion.

6) 3 video cameras aimed at the Pentagon didn't capture a flyover; Pentagon, Doubletree and passing motorist http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-flyover-theory-rip.html

7 No solid witnesses to flyover; Erik Dihle reported the statements of others, Roosevelt Roberts reported a plane on a flight path that would have required a turning radius far tighter than is possible for a 757. View Shed analysis shows the potential for thousands of people to have seen a plane flying away. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg50#pid4823797

8) Autopsy reports for 64 AA 77 passengers (the reports haven't been released- but we don't know they don't exist or were faked http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/victims/dcmilitary.html

9) Personal effects from passengers and alleged hijackers: 911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html

10) Extremely complicated to stage a fake scene/plant evidence/hire-blackmail so many people to participate- high risk of exposure at many points. The planted evidence theory requires Lloyd England to be involved in staging his cab and the pole on a highway in broad daylight. It would have been far simpler to fly a plane into the building. Only 1 NYC witness has been thought to be planted (the 'Harley Guy') in order to seed the story of the WTC destruction 'collapse' myth- yet we are to believe 100+ were hired to sow a 'plane hit the Pentagon' myth, and/or that corrupt media made up all the stories? CIT and their supporters will say this is an 'argument from incredulity'; but it's something to consider in the context of all the other evidence- and before sticking one's neck out for the 757 didn't hit-flyover claims. Why should any activist promote a theory which is supported by evidence which is contradicted by a great deal of other evidence- including the statements of their own witnesses?

Nothing should've hit the Pentagon- there was no air cover over DC until after the Pentagon was hit, despite a summer of threat and 2 WTC towers having been hit. Hanjour couldn't fly. The Pentagon was hit opposite the top brass, in the recently-(only)reinforced section, which was mostly empty except for civilian contractors and defense accountants- and 9/11 happened the day after Rumsfeld announced they couldn't track $2.3 trillion in expenditures- and he was promptly given a huge budget increase, no strings attached, no questions asked, after the worst defense failure since Pearl Harbor.

The OCT is conclusively proven false by a great deal of evidence- many warnings/foreknowledge, obstructed investigations, air defense failures, WTC destruction, promoted incompetents, corrupted investigations. [EDIT- removed redundant sentence re Pentagon, essentially duplicated in the paragraph above ]

Read Ranke and Marquis' comments in their threads at 911blogger- they were banned because of their behavior, not because of a plot to marginalize credible evidence.

More in my article here:
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

This was of course covered in the 2.5 hour debate...

you said

Witnesses that CIT uses are sure a plane hit the building

This was a military deception psyop. They were fooled into believing that plane approach + fireball = crash, just as the people on site at the WTC, many of whom still support the OCT and even despise truthers, were fooled into believing that plane crash + fires = structural collapse.

Much of the material you post in your voluminously lengthy post has already been dissected thoroughly in previous 200+ comment threads.

The "100+ impact witnesses" and "13 south side witnesses" have been long debunked.

And once again, it was all covered very thoroughly in the debate.

Read Ranke and Marquis' comments in their threads at 911blogger- they were banned because of their behavior, not because of a plot to marginalize credible evidence.

Whether or not that's true, here's what I find extremely sad: Bruno's comment at the top of this comment thread, which has nothing but kind words to say about John Bursill, had 5 points last night, and is now down to 0. I'd love for any of those down voters to explain what they found offensive in Bruno's post. They're not going to. They're simply going to take advantage of this site's high school voting system and shout down anyone who says anything that counters their anti CIT agenda.

Obvious bias

I am seeing some obvious bias going on here with regard to the way posts make the front page and how comments get voted on. This seems to be a very unpopular subject because there is not any physical evidence like thermite residue to make a person believe one theory over another. It's a shame, because John did stick out his neck and did so graciously, and there is no reason this shouldn't have been on the front page. Go ahead and vote me down, I graduated years ago and am not searching for the most popular theory or the most popular comment - I want the flippin truth.

Kudos to the adults that have the guts to ask the real questions and demand honest answers. Take notes, kiddies. Sorry to say, but after it is all said and done, this website is just that, no different than Facebook, YouTube, or any other page on the web. 1's and 0's on a server somewhere. The debate is what matters and the justice that hopefully comes from it. Investigate for yourself. Ask the hard questions. Don't sell out your beliefs.

Thank you John for being a man and stepping up when we needed you to, and thanks to Craig for the same.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Yup.

This important debate was relegated to the back page. When National Security Alert came out with the unprecedented level of endorsement earlier in 2009, it was back-paged.

Yet the relative non-story of Richard Gage's "clarification" that he doesn't necessarily support the flyover conclusion but was merely endorsing CIT's hard work in assimilating witness testimony - THAT made the front page. It would have arguably been more newsworthy if Gage had actually pulled his endorsement - but he didn't. He merely distanced himself on one particular conclusion in the presentation, and he never even explicitly said he supported that conclusion in his original statement of endorsement.

I pointed this front-page/back-page discrepancy out to the blogger team via e-mail and was greeted with deafening silence. After sending a second e-mail demanding an answer, I was simply greeted, from one team member, with a generic "it's impossible for us to please everybody all the time" dismissal.

And several months ago, the podcast of Michael Wolsey's interview with Jim Hoffman, both of whom are CIT critics/detractors, made the front page.

So yes, the bias is pretty clear to anyone with open eyes. It is in the best interests of the site for this bias to cease.

Elsewhere

When I talk to others in the 9-11 Truth movement, those on the front line (actually talking to live people to wake them up rather than regulating themselves to the internet) by the vast majority have never heard of 911blogger, and by an even greater majority, support CIT and Pilots for 911 Truth. They are not caught up in the games of cliques, but rather look at the evidence from an objective perspective.

I think the purpose of the debates on the back pages of 911blogger are for those who have such an objective perspective to hone their debate skills when it comes to these issues. As far as the front page articles, those are great opportunities for the same to use their honed debate skills to quickly and effectively speak truth to power.

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.

as a matter of fact...

Adam: "This was a military deception psyop."

Speculation, a simple assertion based on CIT's work, which involves selective quotation and handwaving dismissal of even their own witnesses' statements and other evidence that contradicts their flyover theory.

Adam: "Much of the material you post in your voluminously lengthy post has already been dissected thoroughly in previous 200+ comment threads."

Another assertion- the 10 categories of evidence I provided above that indicate AA 77/an 757 hit the Pentagon have not been shown to be faked, in any of the previous comment threads- it's simply asserted they're faked or can't be trusted, and then asserted they must be dismissed out of hand.

Adam: "The "100+ impact witnesses" and "13 south side witnesses" have been long debunked."

That list Adam linked to is not a 'debunking' of the 100 or so eyewitnesses to an AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. It's a collection of witness names categorized by CIT's description of what they saw, sometimes w/ no notes, sometimes w/ a note about what they said, whether CIT attempted contact/spoke w/ them/interviewed them, or notes about their affiliation (CIT has claimed people affiliated w/ MSM/military are automatically suspect). No quotes are provided.

The section "Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one:" only has 23 names- one example from it, Sean Boger, a CIT witness (who isn't yet included in Arabesque's list):
"Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced due to seeing NoC approach)".

As I noted above, what Sean Boger (heliport control tower near the crash site) said in his 11/14/01 interview: "I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building." and "So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Loose Nuke" by Adam Syed

The Josef Goebles method

"It's a simple non-controvertible fact that if the plane is on the north side, it cannot cause the physical damage to the poles or the building."

Something other than the airplane caused the directional damage to the Pentagon in the flyover and fly into theories. The exterior damage is roughly consistent with a 737. You and Craig are not an experts in damage assessment so you cannot say a plane on the north path could not cause the damage to the exterior wall. There is no proof the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

"To refute CIT and the witnesses they interview, one needs to provide evidence of equal or greater strength."

Of the five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon, four said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon and a fifth said the plane did NOT flyover the Pentagon. The claim that they were all "deceived" is baseless.

Chris, this thread is not about your "north of Citgo 737 impact

theory."

Good luck finding even one other CIT critic who will back you up on your North of Citgo impact theory.

In all of those blogs that Loose Nuke posted, NOT ONE person tries to argue that the witnesses are correct about a north approach but that the plane still hit. That's why the method is to try and discredit the veracity of the north side witnesses, as if to imply they're all wrong about their placement of the plane.

You are completely alone on this one.

Like I said, good luck. I'm not debating you here.

PS - It's spelled Goebbels.

This is not a popularity contest

There is no "proof" that a plane on the North flight path did not hit the Pentagon.

"We know already that 9/11 was a military deception psyop."

Truth be told Adam, you don't know what REALLY happened on 9/11, or who was responsible. An honest person would admit that. Those who state theory as fact do not help this cause at all, and never have, and I honestly wish those who participate in this practice would stop. Just stop. We have so much incriminating information that suggests elements within our Government have EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11, we don't need any flashy theories to make the case. We don't need them, period.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

You're denying the obvious? That 9/11 was a military deception

psyop?

Adam...

You don't have a clue what happened on 9/11, and neither do I. We know we were lied to about a great many things, but we don't know what happened on 9/11. Stop acting like you know exactly what happened because you don't.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Well that's pretty damn insulting...

You don't have a clue what happened on 9/11

Well, I have a "clue" that among other truths about 9/11, the buildings came down with CD. I have a "clue" about many other truths too.

Stop telling me how to behave and what information to promote. As you continue to do your own thing, I will continue to do mine. We know that the WTC was brought down with demolition (we have peer reviewed scientific proof of this) and we know that the govt told us that it was planes and fires. The only logical conclusion, therefore, is a govt/military deception.

Yes, we don't know EXACTLY TO THE TEE how 9/11 happened. For all we know, Israeli agents might have placed the explosives. Regardless of whether there was some level of involvement from Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Britain, or Israel... but it is not unsafe to conclude that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were certainly in the know and an active part of a military psychological deception.

I find psychology and 9/11 truth to be an interesting thing. Some people on this site seem to have a psychological resistance to accepting the definitiveness of the North Side Evidence, just as you seem to have a psychological resistance to accepting the definitiveness of the Controlled Demolition Evidence.

I am terminating this dialogue as I have better things to do than burn calories arguing with you.

Over and out.

Truth hurts...

Happy Christmas.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Yeah, Adam!

Enough already with the wild, way-out theories! What are you smoking? You think that 9/11 involved deception? That it was a black op, specifically a psychological operation? That's plain crazy. You know you discredit the movement by going so far out on a limb like that.

Why make any claims at all when the possible perps could be, well anybody?

It could have been done by aliens.

Or Tinkerbell.

Maybe the Findhorn elves had a reason to want to invade the middle east and establish a police state in the USA.

Maybe there was no deception and we only think we heard Bush, Cheney and Rice blame brown skinned dialysis patients in Afghani caves.

Until you've eliminated all those possibilities, who are you to say you know squat about 9/11?

No "proof" the plane did not hit the Pentagon

"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."

You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It is not true.

Craig believes "flyover" which means he believes something other than the plane caused the directional damage to the Pentagon so the directional damage cannot be used to say the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Not required

Full and conclusive proof is not required where a party has the burden of proving a negative, but it is necessary that the proof be at least sufficient to render the existence of the negative probable, or to create a fair and reasonable presumption of the negative until the contrary is shown.

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.

No so

Someone claiming to have proof must have proof.

In the flyover theory, the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane. The same holds true for the fly into theory. So there is NOTHING even "probable" about Craig's claim.

Craig claims he has "proof" that the plane did not fly into the Pentagon. He does not.

ETA: He then uses this false claim to make the assertion that all the witnesses who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon were "deceived".

The proof is in the pudding

It's physically impossible for the plane that the witnesses saw fly north of the CITGO station to have caused the damage at the Pentagon; therefore, every photo you show of the Pentagon damage is proof that the plane north of the CITGO station did not hit the Pentagon.

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.

The proof is in the building

One piece of this that seems to be overlooked here, and since we are on the topic of proof, this fits in really nicely - If a Boeing airliner, regardless of specific number, we'll say 7-series to satisfy the varying arguments (737, 757, 767), actually hit the Pentagon as alleged by the OCT, then why did the laws of physics cease to apply yet again on that day by allowing a relatively hollow aluminum tube to puncture multiple layers of blast-proofed and highly reinforced concrete when the outboard engines which are quite dense and massive by comparison did nothing at all to even the face of the building? My 8 year-old son asked me that on his own. It is a simple question, and needs no eyewitnesses or anything. That is where the burden of proof really lay on the shoulders of the people that want to say a jetliner hit the Pentagon.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Yes, the proof is in the pudding.

Glad some people are capable of seeing this obvious deception. Even your 8 year-old son could see it. Great post.

Still voted down

People's voting on here is a joke...

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Ignoring the fact

It is not necessary for the plane to cause the directional damage.

Craig's flyover theory does not cause this damage so it is not necessary for fly into cause it.

Why can't you grasp this simple concept?

Wait a sec...

"Craig's flyover theory does not cause this damage so it is not necessary for fly into cause it.'

Huh? I don't understand. Can you please explain ^ this statement?

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.

I have been explaining that statement.

In the flyover theory the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane.

In the fly into theory the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane.

Craig's assertion that the plane on the north path would have to cause this damage is false.

Since this is the basis of his "proof", he has NO "proof".

ok then

In your fly into theory, what happened to the plane on the north path if the plane did not cause the damage?

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.

Irrelevant to Craig's claim of proof

What happened to the plane has nothing to do with which path the plane took.

Please explain

If the plane on the north side of the CITGO would not, could not, did not cause the directional damage to the Pentagon, then what happened to it?

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.

Law of evidence

"Full and conclusive proof is not required where a party has the burden of proving a negative, but it is necessary that the proof be at least sufficient to render the existence of the negative probable, or to create a fair and reasonable presumption of the negative until the contrary is shown."

I quoted the law of evidence above ^, so if you voted it down, then you voted down the law of evidence which is in effect for an 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.

The hole in CIT's circular logic

"We're not asking you to believe us, we're asking you to believe the witnesses."

OK, the 5 witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
CIT uses circular logic to say they are wrong.

Craig Ranke: "ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit."

His position is: A plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage and therefore it did not hit the Pentagon so the witnesses must be wrong.

The hole in this circle is Craig's belief that the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane.

hole in the laws of physics

"His position is: A plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage and therefore it did not hit the Pentagon so the witnesses must be wrong. The hole in this circle is Craig's belief that the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane."

Chris, the plane that the witnesses saw fly north of the CITGO station could not have caused the damage that we were shown. The laws of physics dictate this. To say this is a 'hole in this circle' is to say this is a hole in the laws of physics.

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.

John Bursil is a great example to us all

Good to see one of CITs detractors actually willing to defend their position on this issue, and you did so in a respectful and gracious way, rightly conceding when found incorrect.

You're a great example of the way people should act when there is a contentious point within the 9/11 truth community. Bravo.

I've listened to the first half before someone else closed the window it was playing in. I'll get around to listening to it all soon. The most interesting part for me was when you insisted there were confirmed South of Citgo witnesses. Interesting because you believed it and yet were unable to produce one.

There are many people who seem to genuinely beleive this based in a mis-placed trust in other researchers they beleive worthy of "taking the word of". If there is one lesson to be learnt from this it is that you can never, ever, logically "take someone's word" for something. Trust is emotional and based in subjective judgements. It has nothing to do with facts or the truth.

There has been a contingent of people - Hoffman, Ashley, Arabesque among others who have persistently claimed these witnesses exist and persistently ignored requests to produce them. When I first found CIT compelling they told me they existed too and urged me to drop the issue. I imagine the same happened to you. I went and looked for them and found nothing, you took their word for it and unwittingly joined a disinformation campaign (which for your part was misinformation, a concession I will absolutely not extend to the originators of the claim).

So months later you find your self in a pod cast repeating claims made by other people and then finding yourself backed into a corner unable to back your claim.

Your only fault was to be a nice guy, and trust people you respected. They let you down in the same way they have let the whole truth community down with their dis and mis information, and they owe you answers.

I understand you want to back away from this, and god knows after the amazing hard work you have put in this year you deserve some time with your family. But when you start thinking about this issue again, I hope the first thing you do is to contact Hoffman, Arabesque and Ashley, whoes false claims you took on trust, and ask them for their facts. Ask them why they have been repeating these claims for months on end and never produced a shred of evidence to back them up, and ask for their apology for putting you in the position you were put in.

You're clearly a great bloke John, and a nice guy, but perhaps you need to be a little less nice, trust people a little less and get back to the motto of "the hard evidence".

All the best, merry christmas, and a happy new year.

Stef

Show "..." by Adam Syed

John did not know the facts about the "flyover" witnesses

He said the plane Roosevelt Roberts describes could make the necessary turn and that is wrong, it could not. This is a key point because it takes away Craig's so called "eye witness" and establishes that Craig is not telling the truth about there being flyover witnesses.

Ranke says Roosevelt Roberts, Erik Dihle and Maria de la Certa are flyover witnesses.

Roberts described a plane flying away to the south-west. Ranke insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. The plane Rooberts described could not be the plane approaching from the west. Roberts is NOT a flyover witness.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
The purple path is what Mr. Roberts surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west. The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw with what Roosevelt said he saw. The turning radius is about 350 feet. An airliner flying at 200 mph requires a radius of about 5,000 feet.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
From Pilots for 911 Truth video at 14:37
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509#

* * * * *

Erik Dihle is NOT a witness, he overheard conflicting accounts.
CIT misrepresented this second hand account by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building. It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made.

“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3

* * * * *

Ranke says Maria de la Certa is a flyover witness. She is not. Here is the double talk and omission he uses to justify calling her one:
58:27
NSA shows the PDF of her statement. The camera zooms in, excluding "it seemed" and just shows "like it struck the other side".
58:50
Maria says and the screen has the subtitle "Yea my mind's eye I saw it hit on top."
They underline "saw it hit on top" and ignore "my mind's eye".
59:10
My sense of it was not that it was a side impact but rather that it was on top.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

In other words, she did not see the impact with her eyes, she just thought it hit top.

You never cease to amaze me...

...what is more likely Chris -

Roberts getting his compass mixed up...

-or-

Roberts thinking he saw a large twin engine commercial jetliner flying at light pole height over a parking lot when he actually saw nothing?

...and how likely exactly is this little scenario? -

A plane has just hit each world trade centre, the whole world knows key targets in the US are being hit by planes now. A plane flies over Arlington and hit the Pentagon...

...And more people on the scene near Dihle think it flew on that think it hit...

This is within the scenario where it did in fact hit?

I'm sorry Chris but your views and reasoning are very confused...

Sarns' theory...

is that a "breeze" caused a 737 loaded up with bombs to blow off course to the north side while all the physical damage was staged and the plane blew up and completely disintegrated just prior to impact without causing a crater in the lawn.

THAT is the result of his attempt to reconcile the North Side Evidence with a scenario other than the flyover.

Read before posting

Roberts did not get his directions mixed up. He said:
"the plane . . . was facing west, so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon. . . around the lane one area [west end of south parking lot*], and it was like banking just above the light poles like. It was heading . . .back across 27.. . . that plane was heading . . . southwest.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1

*Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The plane Roberts described is NOT the plane approaching from the west on the north flight path. He is not a "flyover" witness.

Erik Dihle is NOT a witness

His statement is hearsay. What the people THOUGHT is irrelevant. It is not known what if anything these people SAW and no assumptions can be made.

hallucinating?

Chris what is more likely?

(1) The "people" that reported by Erik Diehle who claimed that "a bomb hit the pentagon and a jet kept on going" were hallucinating seeing a plane continue onwards.

(2) The "person" who said "no, the plane crashed into the building" deduced that because s/he saw the plane approach, then the fireball, and concluded that it was a crash given that the entire country knew that the nation was under attack and that high value targets were being hit?

I would highly wager my bets on (2).

If anything, THIS person is a good example of your "What the people THOUGHT is irrelavant" statement.

What part of "hearsay" don't you understand?

It is not known what if anything these people saw and no assumptions can be made.

You are assuming they saw something.

This will not be acceptable in a court of law or the court of public opinion. You are grasping at straws.

I concede, Chris.

I have come to the conclusion that you are absolutely correct when you say that "everybody and their third cousin" would have seen the flyover.

In addition, I have come to the conclusion that they would all have reported it.

They would have all gone to their local authorities and media, as well as the corporate media, and they would have said: "Hey! What Dan Rather and Larry King are telling us is not true! I saw something that proves that this whole 'terrorist attack' is a big hoax!"

And while I used to think that the media and law enforcement would write these testimonies off as anomalous, I now agree that these people in authority would have listened. And taken the testimonies seriously. And given them ample time on the corporate airwaves. I came to this epiphany five minutes ago.

And then, while everyone is waving their flags and vowing to find Bin Laden 'dead or alive,' the media would have then actively challenged the government on their claim of a plane crash into the Pentagon.

Tim Russert, in his very first interview with Cheney a few days after the event, would have challenged Cheney on these flyover witnesses. And he would have been a true patriot and asked the toughest of questions: "Is this all a staged hoax by the government?" And Cheney would have gulped and struggled for an answer. And the entire 9/11 deception would have unraveled right then and there on Meet the Press, just as the "balloon boy" hoax unraveled on live national TV.

And the entire War on Terror would have been terminated before it could get started. I can imagine Rumsfeld: "DAMMIT!!! We actually FOOLED the world with the World Trade Center deception, but GOD DAMN those Pentagon eyewitnesses! They came forward and ruined our whole plan!!! ARGH!!! CURSES!!!! I was SO wanting to start a series of invasions of the Middle East... Now I'll end up being publicly put to death before a worldwide TV audience for treason and mass murder. #*&%(#*&%&!!!!!!!!!!"

Yes, you're right. Thank you Chris for helping me wake up to my logical fallacies. At this point I consider you to be the most superlative critical thinker in the whole history of the movement.

Once again, I concede. I hope this makes your Christmas Eve.

Disingenuous

You did not concede anything. Roberts and Dihle are NOT "flyover" witnesses. You cannot dispute and will not concede this point so you changed the subject. Address the point directly and give cause for rebuttal or concede the point by refusing to do so.

Bruno finally acknowledged that the directional damage does not "prove" the plane did not hit the building after reading this:

In the flyover theory the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane.

In the fly into theory the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane.

Craig's assertion that the plane on the north path would have to cause this damage is false.

Since this is the basis of his "proof", he has NO "proof".

Do you have the integrity to admit that the above is true?

Chris

Stefan was talking about the approach witnesses, and was referring to a specific moment within the debate posted in the OP. Flyover witnesses were not even the subject of his post. As the creator of this blog entry, I would appreciate it if the comment thread can stay focused on the specific content of the Ranke-Bursill debate. You have posted your "flyover" take ad friggin' nauseum. You've admitted in the past to personally disliking Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and your ferocious attempt to discredit their investigation is beyond transparent.

If you agree that the north path is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which you do), and if you agree that the light poles were prepared in advance (which you do), and if you agree that explosives caused the directional damage in the building (which you do), then you agree the official story is a lie beyond a shadow of a doubt, a staged deception every bit as much as the WTC.

I suggest you start expending your energy getting the word out about this much of the picture even if you take exception to the flyover conclusion.

Song for CIT

Paul Tassopulos of 911artists.com, who hosted the debate, has composed a song for CIT. It's really beautiful! Awesome job, Paul!

Beautiful

Paul you are talented. Merry Xmas, Happy Holidays and all that cheerful stuff. God bless. Peace.

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.

WOW!

Paul if you're reading this, that is fantastic, as are the rest of the tracks on that page.

Do you have any albums out I'd love to get one.

CIT should get you do the backing track of their next film. :-)

Btw - who ever voted down Adam's flagging of this beautiful piece of music should take a good look at them selves in the mirror and ask them selves what they have become...

Thank you

Thanks Adam, Bruno, and Stefan. Stefan, you could search my name on iTunes or CD Baby to get my piano music there. Also, I'd be happy to pm you temporary urls so that you could download for free if you register at 911 Artists Interactive.

Further comments...

I'm currently at 2 hours in and now I can comment further:

The frustration that Craig was exhibiting mid-way through the interview was completely understandable and a frustration I shared listening to the round-and-round in circles dialectic.

Crystalisation:

CR: Do you agree that 14 witnesses stating a north approach, in the absence of any witnesses who could see the Citgo stating a south approach, demonstrates the validity of the north approach?

JB: Yes

CR: Do you agree that a plane flying on the north of Citgo cannot have caused the damage to building and surroundings?

JB: Yes

CR: So what is the problem?

JB: You haven't proved a flyover, it's only a working hypothesis, you need to get a peer review and then we can discuss it. It's causing division and that isn't helpful etc etc etc

Over and over and over again.

Why is it that people who are in the circle of Arabesque, Hoffman and Ashley seem unable to put two and two together without coming up with a blank slate? Note I do not include Legge in this trinity as from my discussions with him he appears to be every bit as manipulated by and reliant on repeating the false claims of those three as John has been.

It should be obvious to anyone with an once of logical reasoning ability that since:

a) It is proved that the plane flew on the north path
b) It is self evident that a plane flying on the north path could not have caused the physical damage

That a plane on the north path did not cause the damage.

Since we all understand that planes cannot teleport or vanish in a puff of smoke, and we rule out the theory of a holographic plane through the most basic level of rational thought:

The plane was there, but did not hit the building. Ergo, it flew away or flew over the building.

No controversy for 99% of us but a tiny contingent seem unable to grasp this.

But to respond to Johns objections:

Yes, it is a hypothesis; a theory. However, everything we know is a hypothesis and a theory. Gravity, evolution, atoms - the whole sum of human knowledge is theory waiting to be challenged and overthrown: this is the nature of science. That does not mean the originators of these theories or their supporters are required not to speak of their theories with caution - because a fact is just a theory that has not yet been disproved.

Peer review is something that happens with scientific theories which need complex calculations, discussion of the effects of one substance on another etc. This is because only people with the correct expertise can determine if the findings are valid based on the experiments. Jouralistic theories based on testimony and observation like CITs work does not undergo peer review because no expertise is required to judge them. It is for jury review - common sense review: it is what it is and you need no phd to judge it. Will peer review change what the witnesses said? What extra knowledge will it bring us? None. We can see for ourselves without an assembly of scientists to confirm our common sense. This is precisely why CITs work is so valuable, it is accessible to the everyman and not a case of "our scientists" VS "their scientists".

There is division... Now let's look at the nature of this division: We have CIT presenting their evidence, we have a small number of individuals - Arabesque, Hoffman, Ashley and their groupies calling them names and making incredily weak arguments trying to debunk them. This is division certainly, but what is causing it? The work? Or the people attacking the work and the people presenting it? This is a manufactured division, and the people causing the division are using this division as one of the justifications to continue manufacturing it. A perfect circle. They cause division, then they claim division is a good reason for them to keep causing division. Furthermore, the view that "the public" (which they clearly do not see themselves a part of, instead "the public" seems to sum up some kind of cattle-like entity which can't grasp basic logic and need their stellar intellect to guide them) will reject this evidence, is based on their rejection own of it, which is based in turn on the fact that they feel "the public" will reject it... anyone else feeling dizzy?

Now on to journalists in Oz trying to get Gage to talk about the Pentagon. A friend of mine Mohsin is an absolute expert on PNAC and the backstory. He's a master at debating this issue and I have seen time and time again when he discusses this with debunkers, media figures and others that they will try and bring the issue onto controlled demolition. Why? Because they want to take him away from his area of expertise. They want to bring Gage onto the Pentagon because they have seen his website and know they will be crushed by him if the discussion stays on that topic. If you had taken CIT on your tour, in their interviews the jouralists would have kept trying to get them to talk about controlled demolition...

Now if you had CIT AND Gage on your tour, in the studio with those journlists, to put it mildly those jorunalists would be f*cked. Add Dale Scott or Griffin to that hypothetical interview to cover back-story and history and the journalists would have no chance as you would have experts on every issue. Instead you want to reduce our focus to a single issue and make their jobs easy for them?

Regarding caution. You say Jim Hoffman laid the ground work for Jones and others to go on to prove controlled deomolition. You're right, he did. And he did this by expressing controlled demolition with certainty. Why? Because the speed of the collapse and totality of the destruction made gravitational collapse impossible. He did not have proof of the alternative - controlled demolition - that only came recently with Nano Thermite. He expressed it because it was the only logical alternative when the presiding theory had been disproved.

CIT have proved that the plane did not fly on the south therefore they express with certainty that the plane did not hit the building because it is the only logical alternative. They have disproved the official story of a south approach, as Hoffman did with gravitational collapse, and have pointed out the only logical alternative: flyover and controlled demolition respectively.

You can't back-date evidence. We only proved controlled demolition recently, we all know this. Do not act like it's only been OK to talk about controlled demolition openly for the last several years because we proved it a few months ago. It's been OK to talk about it openly because it was the only logical explanation. Just like the fly away/fly over.

You are wrong on 2 key points

You forgot to mention that the 100 feet of free fall acceleration proves conclusively that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

CIT did NOT "prove" the plane did not hit the building. That claim is based on the false requirement that a plane on the north path cause the directional damage while the flyover requires that damage to be caused by something other than the airplane.

We get it Chris

Chris,
We get it. No need to keep hammering home your theory. We understand what you are claiming; we think it is absurd.

You think the plane flew on the North path towards the Pentagon...

Then you think they blew it up in mid air just before it reached the Pentagon...

Then you think they staged the light pole damage and damage to the internal structure of the building...

Then you think Roberts hallucinated a large commercial jet flying above his head...

Am I missing anything out?

Fine.

We understand your theory, and respectfully decline your invitation to make ourselves look like complete raving lunatics giving it any further consideration.

Cheers.

You don't get it

You ignored the point and changed the subject to "my theory".

The problem is Craig's theory. He claims he has "proof" the plane on the north flight path did not hit the Pentagon.

That claim is false.

I think it is correct

But I don't think it is false. I think it is completely logical and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you present is unreasonable doubt.

Your position on this issue is not credible in that it is clearly borne out of an irrational vendetta you have with CIT.

Yeah OK Chris, they could have flown the plane into the building, then blown it up at the point of impact, then used explosives to give the impression it flew in on a different path, then staged the light poles to give further credit to that false flight path...

Of course there is no reason they would, and there is no evidence they did. Your reason for forwarding this is based on your dislike of CIT and nothing else and everyone can see that. You can almost see your thought process laid out on the screen.

"OK so CIT are wrong, that's our starting point... I hate CIT...

But the plane did fly north of Cigo...

So it can't have caused the damage...

So they faked the damage and the lightpoles....

So what happened to the plane?

It flew away... NO NO NO it didn't fly away, that would make CIT right...

So...

It teleported away.. No no no... too fantastical....

It was a hologram! No... that won't sell.....

ummm....

ummm....

GOT IT!

They blew it up on impact! That's right!

They blew it up on impact AND they faked the damage and the light poles!

Oh happy day! CIT are wrong!

Now all I have to do is call Roosvelte Roberts a liar or a mad man and get everyone to ignore Erik Dihle and my work here is done"

Your approach, accepting the clear cut evidence for a NoC flight path makes you marginally more honest than the others on the wrong side of this debate, but it doesn't make you any more credible.

Bravo again to your last 2 posts.

Stefan, your posts on this subject are the best from anyone I've seen. I'll send you a private message over at the pilots forum soon.

You're absolutely right about "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" doubt. Chris seems to think that it is "reasonable" that the perps would stage the damage path and also actually crash a plane into the building. The only "reasonable" explanation for any staging at all is if they planned from the get go to NOT have a plane crash there. I think most any jury member or judge would agree with this.

Bravo again, Stefan.

Irony and illogical logic

You accuse me of a personal attack while attacking me. I was originally impressed with NSA. When I looked into it, I found lies and deceit. I am exposing those lies and deceit. You and Adam try to frame this as personal. By that measure, the claims of govt. lying are "personal". It is impossible to point out lies and deceit without being "personal" so that is just double talk to misdirect the focus from the message to the messenger.

It is illogical to require a plane in the "north flight path/fly into theory" to cause the directional damage but not in the "flyover theory".

It's good to have a bit of a sense of humour

If you feel personally attacked then I am sorry, it's Christmas and I'm feeling a little cheerful and tongue in cheek. OK so my last post was a little sarcastic but it wasn't meant to hurt your feelings, it as meant to be light hearted.

My points, however, were about your argument and not your personality, and as I understand it you have admitted to personally disliking CIT and that must be considered as a part of your whole take on the issue. If that is not the case and I was misinformed, again I apologise.

But, as I pointed out, the entire scenario you lay out is based around a starting question:

How can I refute CIT without ignoring the evidence?

The exploding plane theory is your answer to that question, but it's a question only you are asking and so to the rest of us it is meaningless.

You cannot really expect us to take your proposed theory on this issue seriously?

Any explanation that comes from a starting point of disproving something cannot be honest, as the only variables once the argument begins is in which fashion the author will reach the conclusion they started out with.

The "lies and deceit" you have outlined to me elsewhere and I think you are being extremely unrealistic and unfair with your choice of words.

You pointed out things they didn't say in NSA and said they were "lying" by not including them. Yet you had no response to the fact that they had included all of those points in other videos they have produced and have been in the public record for a long time, and that they have written about them extensively.

You have a tendency to accuse others of lying quite unfairly. For instance you regularly call people liars for saying Roberts is a flyover witness, your justification being that you don't think he is. That is a difference of opinion, not a lie, and it's a difference of opinion you are in a minority in expressing.

You missed the point again

As I explained in my last post, my starting point was respect for CIT and NSA. It was when I discovered the lies and deceit that my opinion changed.
My "personal" feelings are due to the lies and deceit I found in NSA. You continue to ignore the facts and talk about me.

I am not asking you to believe "my theory". I did not claim to have "proof", Craig did.
He does not have "proof".

Stop talking about me and address this point.

What point am I supposed to be addressing?

What point do you want me to address?

Perhaps list the "lies" that you feel CIT have told and we can discuss them?

I've already said I do think he has proof

I've already said I do think he has proof and explained why...

This one

Craig believes "flyover" which means he believes something other than the plane caused the directional damage to the Pentagon.

Therefore, the directional damage cannot be used as "proof" that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Can you be more precise?

Craig, and many others, have concluded the plane cannot have hit the Pentagon because the damage to light poles and Pentagon do not line up with where the witnesses place the plane flying.

Yes?

Precisely

The directional damage was caused by something other than the airplane.

Do you understand this point?

I'm trying to understand the point...

I'm sorry, maybe it's the mulled wine but I'm having trouble understanding your objection to my previous post. :-)

The plane did not cause the direction damage, or the light pole damage, yes we agree.

I state this because there is overwhelming corroboration by the best placed eye witnesses that the path of the plane was not compatible with this damage.

Context is important.

Do you understand "flyover" does not cause this damage?

Do you understand that the directional damage is not "proof" the plane did not hit the building?

Of course

Of course; the directional damage was used by the official story as evidence that the plane did hit. This damage, and it's precise line up with the light poles which were down was intended to give the public a trail of damage indicative of a low flying plane.

It is the eye witnesses thorough and conclusive placing of the plane on a flight path irreconcilable with that damage which demonstrates that the plane did not cause the damage and therefore did not hit the Pentagon.

The two things together are the proof.

Doublespeak

You agree and discount the fact in the same sentence.

The directional damage does NOT "prove" the plane did not hit the building.

Again, I'm having trouble following you

I'm sorry mate, I am really not following you.

Let me try and be clearer:

If there was no directional damage, no light pole damage - the eye witnesses placing the plane on the north of Citgo would mean nothing.

If there were no witnesses corroborating a north of Citgo approach - the directional damage and light pole damage would mean nothing.

The two together mean something very significant, as the two are not compatible with each other.

The plane flying on the north of Citgo means it cannot have caused the damage to the building and light poles.

This means it did not hit the building...

And that is pretty much the sum total of the CIT argument.

Which part of that distresses you?

The flaw in your reasoning

The plane flying on the north of Citgo means it cannot have caused the damage to the building and light poles.

Correct

This means it did not hit the building...

Incorrect. You persist in ignoring this FACT:

The directional damage does NOT "prove" the plane did not hit the building.

It only proves that that damage was caused by something other than the plane in the flyover and fly into theories.

It's not a flaw in logic

I'm working in the real world here. You appear to be working in some kind of logic puzzle.

As I have expressed to you several times I fully understand the point you are making, I simply reject it as absurd and based on no evidence. It also requires ignoring the evidence which supports the much likelier explanation - namely Dihle and Roberts.

Let me demonstrate to you again that I perfectly understand your point:

We both say: The plane flew on the north side
We both say: The damage to the building and light pole damage therefore can only have been staged
We both say: There is not the internal damage that would be caused by a plane hitting from the confirmed NoC flight path.

Now, for me, the only plausible explanation, and therefore proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is that this evidence shows the plane did not hit the building.

There is not the damage to the building it would cause, there would be no reason for them to fake damage to surrounding area and pentagon at put the whole plan at risk of being rumbled if they were going to fly the plane into the building anyway, and there are reports of people seeing the plane fly away, which would be INCREDIBLY unlikely to the point of being absurd to imagine had the plane in fact hit.

But for you this evidence suggests something different:

It suggests the plane hit the building, and at that exact point was detonated, hence it not causing the internal damage we would expect from a plane on that path. At the same time they staged the downing of light poles and directional damage inside the building in order to...

...make people think the plane flew on a SLIGHTLY different flight path that would make NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever to the official story.

Next, both the people around Dihle and Roberts hallucinated a large commercial jet flying away.

I'm sorry Chris, but the only reason someone would embrace these absurd claims is if they really, really, really, really, really did not want to agree with CIT. It is a fabulous series of concocted ideas, none of which have any evidence to support, none of which make any sense and none of which have any purpose but to avoid accepting CIT's perfectly logical conclusions.

This is why it seems very odd to me that you say you believed CIT at first.

So let's run through what changed your mind.

You can't have it both ways

"Now, for me, the only plausible explanation, and therefore proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is that this evidence shows the plane did not hit the building."

In the "flyover theory", the directional damage is caused by something other than the plane.

If the directional damage proves a plane on the north path did not hit the building then it also proves the plane did not fly over the building.

How?

How does the directional damage prove a plane did not fly over or away from the building?

Try and break it down point by point...

It doesn't, that's the point.

The directional damage does not prove that the plane did not fly over or into the building. It only proves that that damage was caused by something other than the plane.

Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt, Chris

Chris,

Let me paste what I already posted to Stefan above, since it is an especially important point and might help explain to you WHY no one else is backing you on your NoC Impact theory.

You're absolutely right about "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" doubt. Chris seems to think that it is "reasonable" that the perps would stage the damage path and also actually crash a plane into the building. The only "reasonable" explanation for any staging at all is if they planned from the get go to NOT have a plane crash there. I think most any jury member or judge would agree with this.

Oh and finally, good luck convincing me that there's evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon from ANY approach. Don't forget, many people both online and in the streets that I've observed or talked to, tell me that even before ever watching any online documentaries "telling" them what to think, they simply looked at the news footage during the aftermath and privately thought, "Where the heck is the plane?!"

Given the lack of airliner debris at the Pentagon coupled with the proven north approach, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane flew over/away from the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways Adam

You cannot dispute that the directional damage is common to the flyover and fly into theories yet you persist in claiming that it proves one and disproves the other.

I do dispute...

The position you lay out, with the damage being faked AND the plane hitting, is an extremely uncommon one.

The majority of people attacking CIT propose that the damage to the Pentagon and light poles was caused by the plane, as the official story states.

They then go on to ignore the evidence it did not fly on that path, and go to extreme lengths to ignore it.

They do this because there is no way to claim that they faked the damage AND the plane hit the building without sounding slightly unhinged...

We are talking about CIT's claim

You refuse to address the point directly and keep talking about something else.
Stop evading this critical point and answer directly:

The directional damage does NOT prove the plane did not hit the building.

Yes or no?

This is giving me a headache...

Chris,
I don't know how to be any clearer with you, I really don't.

The COMBINATION of

a) The corroborated flight path

and

b) The damage to building and surroundings

Proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

There is my view, I have expressed it several times now and I don't want to be asked to repeat it again.

Now above you claimed that the direction damage disproves a flyover/flyaway...

Perhaps you could talk us through the logic behind that claim?

That is not what CIT claims

You are ignoring this point. I did not ask for your opinion, I asked you to answer this directly:

The directional damage does NOT prove the plane did not hit the building.

Yes or no?

Will you answer directly?

I thought we were having a discussion here...

But Adam's view will be the same as mine - it is the view of the majority of people who have seen this evidence.

The directional damage/ light pole damage on its own proves nothing;

The plane being on the north of Citgo on its own proves nothing;

The combination of the two and the fact they are not compatible proves that the plane did not cause the damage, which proves it did not hit the building.

We both know that you think the possibility that it was detonated on impact means it does not prove that it did not hit the building;

We both reject this doubt as an unreasonable doubt for numerous reasons already outlined for you.

Sorry Adam for speaking for you, but this is getting tiresome. I hope you agree with my above statement.

It's getting late in the UK now and I want to hear Chris' explanation for his previous statement before going to bed.

So with no further dodging and tap dancing...

Chris, you say that the directional damage DISPROVES the plane not hitting the building...

...Why is this?

[EDIT: If this post doesn't make sense, it's because Chris keeps editing his posts in a way that changes their meaning. Above he wrote the heading as "again you miss the point" to which I responded that I didn't understand his objection, then he changed the heading to "precisely". Here he originally wrote that he wasn't speaking to me, and had asked Adam to answer a question. When I responded he edited it to asking me the question, hence my references to Adam now not making any sense.

Chris, unless it is a change in spelling or grammar, I recommend using the format of editing I'm using here, where it's clear to those reading that you have made an edit.]

Wrong

"The directional damage does NOT prove the plane did not hit the building."

Wrong. The faked directional damage proves the plane on the north side of the CITGO did not, could not absolutely did not crash into the Pentagon.

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.

Your refusal to address the point directly

is an admission that you cannot deny that it is true.

The directional damage does NOT prove the plane did not fly into the Pentagon any more than it proves the plane did not fly over the Pentagon.

How much more direct do you want me to be?

How much more direct can I be?

I feel like we're having this conversation:

Me: 1 + 1 = 2

You: 1 is not 2!

Me: No, 1 +1 = 2...

You: Do you deny that 1 is not 2?

Me: No, I don't deny that, I'm saying 1 + 1 = 2

You: Stop avoiding the point! Is 1 2 or not?

Me: No, 1 is not 2, 1 + 1 = 2

You: 1 is not 2, in fact 1 is 3

Me: I'm sorry? How is 1 3?

You: Stop dodging the point, is 1 2 or isn't it?

Me: No, it isn't, but can you explain how 1 is 3

You: Your failure to back up your claim that 1 is 2 speaks volumes

...

OK fine, but I feel you can carry this conversation on just as well without me.

Merry Christmas, I'm off to bed.

Love it!

Love it!

You're right there Adam

This is a point the detractors seem to miss - that there is wide spread suspicion of the Pentagon story above all other elements of the official story among the non-9/11 truth community public.

I don't feel I realised 9/11 was a false flag until 2006, but I, just like everyone I knew, did not buy that a plane hit the Pentagon.

From day one I looked at my TV and said... "Ummm..... no".

I assumed that they were covering their arses for the security cock up of allowing a car bomb or even a bomb inside the building happening, rather than assuming an inside job, but I didn't believe a plane hit. Almost no one did.

That is what makes the view that talking about solid evidence regarding the Pentagon should be avoided at all costs all the more ridiculous.

Understandable Caution on this subject

witnesses on the street would not be able to see the fly over if that was what happened.... for one thing the explosion would have drawn all attention from the witnesses.... a plane flying over the Pentagon with the visual angle from the street would have been obscured within seconds.... a plane could have easily flown away from the Pentagon without the people on the ground having any angle of vision to see the plane evading the scene.

Could the light poles have been rigged to explode.... very easily.

Could there have been a secondary missile or Global Hawk? .... I don't see that as being difficult. Two planes are approaching the Pentagon at low altitude.... Which one would draw your attention.... the tiny Global Hawk or the huge commercial airliner?
___________________
Together in Truth!

0 + 0 = 2

The directional damage/ light pole damage on its own proves nothing;

The plane being on the north of Citgo on its own proves nothing;

The combination of the two and the fact they are not compatible proves that the plane did not cause the damage, which proves it did not hit the building.

Leap of assumption

The combination of the two and the fact they are not compatible proves that the plane did not cause the damage,

Correct

which proves it did not hit the building.

Incorrect

It's the only beleivable explanation...

The kind of reasoning you are indulging in is very much in the school of Descartes with his cogito ergo sum.

In modern times this train of thought has been reflected by "the Matrix". The Matrix was actually a glossy re-make of a Descarte passage where he asked the reader to consider that perhaps we had never really lived our lives and were all lying on beds, unconscious with a wizard projecting our perceptions into our brains.

And we don't know it's not true do we? We think, therefore we exist. that's the only real certainty isn't it? Everything else could conceivably be false.

However, it is a philosophical dead end, and even Descarte knew this, adding with tongue in cheek at the end of a lengthy piece on the uncertainty of perception that, with all being said and done, he must asume that he did have a body as it was tired and he wanted to go to bed (and right now I can relate).

The point is in order to function logically, we need to make certain assumptions, to isolate which doubts are reasonable and which are not. And we have the mental faculties to do this.

We can say that since the twin towers rapid and total disintigration could not have been caused by gravitational collapse. So we say it must have been a controlled demolition, and there is plenty of reason to believe that as many people said they heard and felt explosions. Then someone else can say "it couldn't have been gravitational collapse, I agree, but that doesn't mean it's controlled demolition - it could have been a beam weapon in orbit of earth".

And yes, sure enough, it could have been. No evidence for it, no logic behind it, no reason to sensibly propose it as there is no problem with the existing and far more likely theory of controlled demolition. But it's possible yes. But it's not enough to generate a reasonable doubt about controlled demolition, not for me and not for 99.99999% of people either.

Now with the Pentagon, we see that the true flight path means the plane could not have caused the damage to the Pentagon or the light poles, therefore the damage was staged. So we say the plane did not hit the building, and sure enough, there are witnesses to the event that said the same at the time. Then someone else can say "the damage could not have been caused by the plane, I agree, but that doesn't mean it didn't hit the building - it could have hit the building and then been detonated so it caused no internal damage, and then they faked the actual internal damage and the light pole damage in order to make it look like it came in on a slightly different flight path".

And yes, sure enough, that could have happened. No evidence for it, no logic behind it, no reason to sensibly propose it as there is no problem with the more likely theory but it is possible.

It is also possible we're all in the Matrix. Can you disprove that? It's also possible a wizard is projecting our perceptions into our minds. Can you disprove that? No, none of us can.

But they are not reasonable doubts therefore we reject them.

There is no pressure on you to do the same, but I hope you can understand and accept this decision.

All the best,

Stef

Do you want to dance all night?

"Now with the Pentagon, we see that the true flight path means the plane could not have caused the damage to the Pentagon or the light poles, therefore the damage was staged. So we say the plane did not hit the building,"

You keep stating this as if that will make a lie the truth.

CIT claims the directional damage "proves" the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

That is simply not true.

You persist in denying that the flyover theory assumes the damage was staged.

Context

When CIT say that the directional damage proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon, you understand that this is within the context of the witnesses placing the plane on a path not compatible with that damage right?

I understand that you believe this is not proof because they could have blown up the plane on impact and then faked the directional and light pole damage for no reason whatsoever, but this does not make CIT or anyone else liars for disagreeing with you that this is a scenario worth consideration.

And what is it about the dozen or so times I have explicitly stated that the flyover theory states the damage was staged that makes you think I am denying that point?

"When CIT say that the

"When CIT say that the directional damage proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon, you understand that this is within the context of the witnesses placing the plane on a path not compatible with that damage right?"

Correct

"I understand that you believe this is not proof because they could have blown up the plane on impact and then faked the directional and light pole damage for no reason whatsoever"

Incorrect

I believe this in not proof because the directional damage need not be caused by the plane. The directional damage does not prove the plane did not hit the building.

To you, perhaps

To you, perhaps Chris, but to the rest of the world - it does.

You speak for the rest of the world?

I did not know I was debating with God. ;-)

The flyover theory assumes the directional and light pole damage was faked.

Correct?

ETA:
If it was faked in the flyover theory then it was faked in the fly into theory.

I have a lot of trouble understanding your logic

You put things in a jumbled order and then end with a conclusion that seems to have popped out of nowhere.

You say the flyover theory assumes the directional and light pole damage was faked?

Actually the north approach witnesses extreme corroboration of that path proves the directional damage and light pole damage was faked. You don't seem to argue with the proof of a N. path, so can I assume you agree it must have been faked?

Then you say:

ETA (estimated time of arrival???)

If it was faked in the flyover theory then in was faked in the fly into theory

As though this were some kind of obvious statement. Actually it is a very outlandish claim that requires more than your endless repeating of it to solidify it as anything but nonsense verse.

Why is it you believe that we should even consider it a possibility that if the plane flew into the building, then obviously the "perps" would go to great lengths to fake it flying towards that building at a slightly different angle? This theory requires them not only staging light pole damage, and planting bombs inside the building and aircraft but also bringing the risk of a clearly unreliable participant in Lloyde England into the mix, who would ulitmately blow the lid off this deception.

So what is the motivation for the deception?

The blowing up of the plane is easier to explain that the rest, as it displays the same motivation as the flying away of the plane - to obscure the fact that the plane was not what it was claimed to be. In a straight aircraft crash we would have abundant wreckage to identify the plane, the passengers and so on. So in both theories, the notion of a remote controlled drone, or a modified Boeing in some form seems to have a lot of weight and offer an explanation for the deception. In New York the planes would be blown to pieces by nano thermite and so there would be no risk if they happened to be empty or have components in them foreign to a commercial jet liner.

There is, of course, no benefit to the official story for people to have considered the plane flew in on a slightly different angle. It changes precisely nothing and lends no favour to the perpetrators aims. In fact it creates massive risk.

Why go to the trouble of staging these light poles, staging the scene with Lloyde and his cab to make people think the plane flew in at a slightly different angle?

You have to answer that question to turn your scenario from an unreasonable doubt into a reasonable doubt, or you need to produce some evidence it happened.

As it stands, what you are doing, and this is pretty clear for people on both sides of this debate to see, is playing logic puzzle games.

CIT show that the N. path is accurate and therefore damage must have been faked. They present the only logical explanation that the plane didn't hit the building.

So they say - "This evidence proves that the plane didn't hit the building".

You put your thinking cap on and dream up a scenario whereby the damage can be faked, the N. path be correct, and there can still be no internal damage suggesting the crash on a plane on that path.

Congratulations, but dreaming up an illogical if possible hypothetical scenario is not enough for us to reject a logical conclusion drawn from the same evidence, especially when at the end of it you still have to call Roberts a liar, or insane, and still have to tap dance your way around the implications of Dihle's testimony, or the motivation for Wheelhouse's obvious lies.

But you don't do this, having come up with your utterly logic defying scenario, you then start calling other "liars" because they don't propose it too?

Chris, it's not enough.

The complete lack of

The complete lack of damage of an airplane if it had hit the Pentagon from the north side approach is proof that the plane from the north side approach did not hit the Pentagon.

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.

Please

You know that is not true. Why did you say it?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

right click - view image

CITers are just like JREFers, they refuse to acknowledge anything that goes against their theory.

You cannot dispute nor can you deal with the reality that Craig's claim of "proof" is based on a double standard for the directional damage so you all tap dance and subject change endlessly.

Hilarious

Look at the original photo, the one without all those colourful lines all over it...

Do you see the comical "plane shape" in the actual damage?

I don't.

What I see when I see this image is a very clear picture of it's creator as a manipulative person who relies on idiots to buy his claims.