Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"Truth movement" conversation continues with John Bursill

Truth Jihad Radio Wed. 7/11/12, 3-5 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (archived here.) Post your questions to my Facebook page.

What's up with the 9/11 truth movement? I recently discussed this topic with Sander Hicks (listen here)  and Eric Sayward and Adam Syed (listen here).  Call-in number is ON today! 218-339-8525
Today's guest, John Bursill, an Australian 9/11 activist, begs to differ with some of the opinions expressed on those shows. John is known for his vociferous criticisms of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and he seems to be an unofficial member of the group Adam Syed mistrusts - sometimes characterized as the "9/11 thought police," the folks who are all boycotting each other because each one thinks "associating with" the others will damage his or her credibility! Personally, I agree with Craig McKee when he says "the fight among truthers over how to stay credible has caused more problems than any 'crazy' theory has." I would go even farther, and say that anyone who boycotts any event because such-and-such a person or group will be there is either a disinformation agent being paid to stir up trouble, or utterly clueless about how PR and communications actually work, and how movements actually win or lose. Such a person automatically forfeits at least 75% of his or her credibility by being either dumb enough or ill-intentioned enough to engage in a boycott.  (Any boycott targets, by contrast, automatically get double credibility points, for being important enough to draw fire from fools and wreckers.)

I'm sure John Bursill doesn't agree. So instead of boycotting him, I'm bringing him on for two hours to give him a hearing!


The phone lines will be on, so feel free to call in and express your opinion: 218-339-8525

John Bursill (Born 1968) is a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer based in Sydney Australia working on Boeing Aircraft and is qualified in Avionics (Elect/Inst/Radio) on the 767, 747 and 737 series aircraft. He is a family man and involved with numerous community events and organisations. John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR. John considers himself a true patriot of his country and a supporter of the US alliance in the sense of us together supporting our national security, freedom and justice throughout the world, unfortunately this is not the case at present!
His community affiliations include;
Delegate: Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association
Member: Returned Serviceman’s League or Australia
Member: Amnesty International
Member: Lions International



15 comments:

  1. Kevin,

    Great job with John ("we don't have the data") Bursill. I loved how you pointed out that 95% of the Truth movement believes no plane hit. That's the most deceptive thing that Bursill, Legge, Chandler, and the rest of that gang say. They'd have us believe that we have to ignore the Pentagon because we're hopelessly divided. They know this is not true.

    His insinuation that David Ray Griffin will eventually agree with his was especially reprehensible and dishonest. Griffin's Pentagon chapter in his new book - although it quotes Chandler, Legge, Hoffman, and the rest way too much - still makes a solid case that no 757 hit. DRG started this Consensus approach because Bursill and others convinced him the split was genuine and serious. What they really want is for the movement to dump some of the very strongest evidence we have.

    Full marks to you for having someone on who you strongly disagree with and then standing your ground. Too bad he and the other 911blogger enthusiasts aren't as interested in the free exchange of ideas.

    Thanks for letting me rant. My breathing is only now returning to normal.

    Craig

    ReplyDelete
  2. My plan is to fight for nanothermite. I am going to take some to court and see if I can get it to dissolve a tin foil hat.

    I will have about 1 second....as that is how long it would take the case to be dismissed.

    or...was that how it has always been planned?

    g

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kevin la prgrammation de tes radio show les dernieres semaines est surperbe !

    je trouve plus les mots pour te feliciter, c'est du tres haut niveau! masha Allah

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kevin, you're right - having your phone messed with is a badge of honor, like an award for accuracy in reporting, too accurate for those hiding under the rocks.

    I went through some real depression as the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 approached. After all we had done, all the hope and excitement in the 9/11 truth movement as it grew and suddenly the 10 year anniversary was upon us, a cold stark reminder that bullshit can stand forever, no matter what the facts are. TEN YEARS and the official baloney was paraded out and shoved in our face. The thing that really helped me was listening to psychologists and psychoanalysts explain why some people's belief system simply won't allow the concept of inside job. Their world view just can't accept the idea, regardless of any evidence we can provide. AE911tuth featured that segment in their film Explosive Evidence; Experts Speak Out.

    So those people are to be forgiven for their naivety ? Nope. They're part of the coverup, accessories after the fact. Just because they're living in a dream world does not excuse them from their obligation as citizens to at least LOOK at the evidence with an open mind. They're like Bambi. Simple minded little children. The problem is that they're helping the psychopaths ruin what's left of this country for this and future generations while murdering countless innocent people all over the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is a great quote from Mr. Zappa I found today on Information Clearing House:

    "The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your friend John is totally out of his mind. Didn’t shut up for a minute. Had to win on every nanopoint.
    Regards,
    Jerry.
    P.S. You are a very patient man.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin, I haven't listened to the show yet but the comments suggest you handled him well.

    Kevin you do a fantastic job. Your radio shows are top class. The ingredients you bring to the table provides your listeners with a balanced diet of truth, wisdom and humor. That is an unbeatable combination and likely to uncover any BS your guest may try to unload.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even from the second hour when I joined, there were things I heard him say that I could have called him out on had there not been so many callers waiting after me. As Craig McKee said in a comment on your radio blog yesterday, it was super disingenuous of John to imply that DRG is slowly coming around and backing away from his "no plane at the pentagon" position. DRG makes it super clear, even in his latest book which advocates the consensus approach, that he still firmly believes no plane hit. And he makes a strong case for it. He just stresses that the issue of "what hit" is not worth having an acrimonious fight over.

    Where is this photo on VT showing the light poles still up after the explosion?

    Adam Syed

    ReplyDelete
  9. Btw, please read a make your listeners aware of this letter at the journal as it may help us find common ground. Griffin is referred to directly in the introduction.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/Legge-Letter-June.pdf

    Kind regards John Bursill

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Pentagon picture referred to is here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/25/911-victor-bout-and-justice/

    ReplyDelete
  11. Legge's paper is complete garbage, and its publication in a "scholarly" journal is so outrageous that it basically disqualifies that journal from serious consideration by real scholars. He cites the notorious false-flag "truther" Arabesque (since when can you cite anonymous bloggers, even if they aren't documented wreckers, in a scholarly paper?!): "Arabesque had previously categorized 143 witnesses of an approaching or impacting plane..." These "witnesses" have virtually all evaporated upon closer inspection, as Legge must know if he has been following the debate between CIT and its would-be wreckers like "Arabesque" and Jim Hoffman. Yet he still cites this as if it had not been completely discredited! As Adam Syed pointed out on this show, there is not a single credible witness to the official flight path.

    Legge claims, of the discredited non-witnesses' statements: "This is evidence, by itself, that the plane’s flight terminated at the Pentagon." Oh, really?! Everyone who knows the first thing about eyewitness evidence realizes that every spectacular event generates people who imagine that they were witnesses, but were not, crawling out of the woodwork. (That's not even counting the perps' plants.) For example, huge numbers of Americans, including President Reagan, claim to have been witnesses to the liberation of the Nazi death camps. Many of them "saw the gas chambers with their own eyes." But today, we know that there were no death camps in Germany, that no American troops got within hundreds of miles of any of the Polish (claimed) death camps, and that Reagan spent the whole war in Hollywood and never went to Europe. With big spectacular media stories, lots of people delude themselves into believing they witnessed whatever the media tells them happened. If something whizzed by around 500 mph at low altitude and the Pentagon blew up simultaneously, OF COURSE everyone who heard or caught a brief glimpse of the thing during the couple of seconds it whizzed by would think they saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, not a few insisting they saw Barbara Olson waving out the window while talking to Ted on her cell phone! (In reality, few would have really "seen" anything - if something goes by at 500 mph a few hundred feet up, by the time you hear it and get a bead on it, it's already gone.) Legge's absurd attempt to distort this issue, his citation of discredited sources, etc. are beyond absurd. When the Journal publishes crap like this, NO WONDER people like Jim Fetzer refuse to submit anything!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Frank Legge says that anyone who claims to have seen the plane impact the side of the building is, necessarily, a witness to the official path. That is the most bass-ackwards piece of reasoning I've ever seen from someone who claims to be on the side of 9/11 truth.

    The Journal has, over the years, had some excellent papers published there, but Frank Legge's bogus scholarship has tarnished the Journal and the good papers in it by association, much like Obama being a recipient tarnishes the overall value of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    ReplyDelete
  13. True to form, Bursill managed to spend most of his time attacking fellow 9/11 truth activists, as if he and a few of his clique have a monopoly on what's right and what works and everyone else should be dismissed and ignored.

    Bursill seems to make the flawed assumption that the claim a plane hit the Pentagon is, a priori, true and those who think otherwise have to prove it isn't. Bursill has it arse about, those who claim a plane hit the Pentagon need to provide evidence to support the claim. The claim does not stand on its own, the claim alone is proof of nothing, in the absence of evidence, the claim is nothing more than a claim.

    Where is the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon? Bursill waffles on with fantastic notions about all sorts of things could possibly happen at those tremendously high energy levels but he can't offer any evidence, can he. He is just hot air and fluff on the subject of the Pentagon.

    Bursill is basically saying, there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and since there is no evidence that there aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden, you have to accept that there are. That is the logic Bursill employs with his Pentagon diatribe.

    Listening to Bursill, I can't help feeling he is just as bombastic and pugnacious and illogical and egomaniacal as Jim Fetzer, who he seems to loath, for some reason. They're so much alike you'd think they'd get along like a house on fire.

    I don't know what John thinks he's trying to prove, but seems to me he's just damaging his own reputation and the 9/11 truth movement, if such a thing exists, with his ridiculous, offensive and uncompromising approach to discussing the Pentagon.

    Bursill accuses Tarpley of being destructive to the truth movement with his big ego, but how much more damage has Bursill done? He's obviously a bit hot under the collar and just mouthing off much of the time. He should get a grip, cool down, chill out, take a break and reflect a little.

    He makes me angry but he did say a few good things that I agree with too :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. John, your claim that there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon is absurd. There was a hole in the wall, there was a swathe of destruction, there were eyewitnesses who said they saw it hit, there was wreckage recovered. Staff Sergeant Mark Williams saw the bodies of passengers still strapped in their seats.

    How can you expect serious truth activists to regard people who make absurd claims like yours as fellow activists?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymouse, your claim that my "claim that there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon is absurd", is absurd. There really is no evidence, no credible, independently verifiable evidence that anything remotely resembling a 100 tonne Boeing jet airliner crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

    Those who, like yourself, insist otherwise, are simply delusional. Sorry, "Staff Sergeant Mark Williams saw the bodies of passengers still strapped in their seats", doesn't carry any weight, as far as I'm concerned. The hole in the wall was too small, there was very little wreckage at first, some junk appeared later, but none of that is credible evidence.

    Anonymouse, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but serious truth activists avoid people who make absurd claims like yours as fellow activists?

    ReplyDelete