Paul Tassopulos Forums Archive

Craig Ranke Challenges John Bursill Text Backup

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:08:00 +0000

The The Craig Ranke challenges John Bursill event appears to me now to have had a positive impact on many people. I'm very glad about that. Sadly though, it has had a profoundly negative impact on my relationship with Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This can be seen on my Rob Balsamo and the Ultimate Combat Area post here. This was a bitter pill to be sure. However, what I love about a good fight is that the truth can often come out in that circumstance. I'm grateful for that when it happens. I've seen more than one forum vanish due to various causes. One of my reasons for having this forums archive site is to have some of the work saved in case that happens. This beneath is the text from the event. Mr. Ranke posted in 3 parts as follows:

Post #1 - Oct 11 2009, 08:07 PM:

Paul contacted John Bursill and invited him to this forum to debate me one on one about a week or two ago. Bursill declined and said he was too busy. Bursill is a moderator at the Aussie 9/11 truth forum 911oz. The administrator of that forum, Hereward Fenton, started a thread there regarding Michael Wolsey's interview with Jim Hoffman attacking CIT by labeling us "disinfo".

After about 4 pages of discussion I was alerted to the thread and joined the forum for the first time in order to contribute. John Bursill showed up and reiterated what he told Paul when he was challenged a couple of weeks ago. He said, "Hello Craig I don't have time to enter into a debate at present".

But apparently he wasn't being sincere because he proceeded to debate anyway. Although I remained perfectly civil he threatened to lock the thread, "Ps - would you rather we lock the thread...suits me fine?" for no reason whatsoever other than to flex his authority and ability to stifle the discussion while once again suggesting he was done participating by saying "Good bye!".

But he continued to participate and showed up again with an off topic post regarding pictures of debris while implying this somehow refutes the north side eyewitnesses and supports a 757 impact. When I civilly pointed out that this was a logical fallacy he replied again but proceeded to level a personal attack by saying, "are you insane???" and proceeded to again wield his authority by announcing he was banishing the thread to the fighting pit. Bursill said, "Any way if you wish to accuse me of "a logical fallacy of the highest order" then I think this thread can go to the pit!".

And to "the pit" it went where Bursill continued the discussion.

So clearly Bursill does have time for debate after all. In light of his tendency to unjustly wield his authority at 911oz and since he has decided to take me on in their "fighting pit" he has no valid excuse to not continue the discussion one on one in the "Ultimate Combat Arena" which is where the challenge initiated anyway.

So I will post his last response to me here and then provide my response in the next post.

Quoting John Bursill:
Hello Craig, Sorry I suggested you might be insane....

Have you ever wondered why people like me that are interested in your work and actually sent it out to their list are spending time refuting your argument? It is because you state that the "fly over" is irrefutable and simply a fact...let's look at the argument again;

For CIT;

1. You have one witness that saw the "fly over" and he is now not available for further interview, still his testimony stands.
2. You have twelve witnesses that saw the north approach but all believe that the plane hit the Pentagon, still you have some valid explanations for this.
3. You have no corroborating evidence besides the one witness that the "fly over" happened.
4. You support the assertion that the fly over happened by saying that the crash scene at the Pentagon is consistent with a south side approach and you have proven through your interviews that the north side approach is the only possible approach therefore the plane must of flown over the Pentagon.
5. You assert that all the witness testimony supporting the official south side version is fraudulent and that the whole scene at the Pentagon was staged involving hundreds of people planting evidence. The cab driver is your direct evidence of this staged event even though the cab driver still accepts the official report, yes I agree he is confused...so lets just discount him.

Against CIT

1. Not one person on the public record before you sort it volunteered a statement, report or comment that a fly over happened even though hundreds could have seen it and a great many should of heard it.
2. Only after the fact has one person said they saw a fly over.
3. Your twelve witnesses say they think the plane hit the Pentagon.
4. Many witnesses support the official report and are prepared to go on the record.
5. There is much wreckage consistent with a 757 crash at the Pentagon eg. Wheels, Landing Gear. pieces of fuselage and engine pieces.
6. There is a video showing "something" hitting the Pentagon.
7. None of the DFDR info supports the CIT north approach and no radar info supports it either, but as we know it appears that all this info provided by the government is erroneous, so lets discount that as well.

Ok so lets compare it to the case for CD of building 7.

For CD of 7

1. Many witnesses report explosions, count downs and orders to pull...on the day.
2. Forensic evidence shows unused explosives, the residue of explosives and the byproducts of explosives.
3. The video evidence proves the impossible collapse without added energy.
5. The buildings display all the hall marks of a controlled demolition.
6. 1000 A&E professionals support the CD hypothesis (with degrees)
7. Absolutely no precedent for this style of collapse with out explosives

Against CD of 7

1. NIST's computer model that no one has access to and that has failed to put many parameters into their calculation's or address the pure free fall of the building collapse.
2. Testimony from their employees that they are right and only a few at that.

Now one of those cases you could take to court and one you can do nothing with without more evidence...which one is it?

Regards John

PS _ I am not saying your "fly over" is not possible...

source

Post #2 - Oct 11 2009, 09:22 PM:

Quoting John Bursill:
Hello Craig,
Sorry I suggested you might be insane....

Hey no problem. I've been called worse.

Quoting John Bursill:
Have you ever wondered why people like me that are interested in your work and actually sent it out to their list are spending time refuting your argument? It is because you state that the "fly over" is irrefutable and simply a fact.

I'm not aware of anyone else who allegedly promotes the work while spending time arguing against it, no.

However it is a non-controversial scientific fact that if you believe the 14 witnesses we spoke with regarding the placement of the plane on the north side approach that you absolutely have to accept the flyover.

If you refuse to believe them it is your responsibility to provide evidence of greater strength to the contrary as justification for this position or else you will be exposing a confirmation bias in favor of the official narrative.

To be clear, for the record, as any true skeptic would; I will inform you exactly what I would accept as strong enough evidence to falsify the north side approach evidence.

That would be 4 or more witnesses who were on or right next to the former citgo gas station property who are filmed on location and definitively place the plane on the south side every bit as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place the plane on the north side.

To accept anything less exposes a confirmation bias against this evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Quoting John Bursill:
..let's look at the argument again;

For CIT;

I'm sorry but you are not me and you are therefore not qualified to speak for me. You have erroneously characterized my argument which is known to true critical thinkers as a "straw man" argument which is faulty logic. You really seem fond of logical fallacies. Too bad for you they are easily recognized and they expose a deceptive approach to discussing information. I will now expose why your attempt to speak for me is a fallacious representation of my "argument".

Quoting John Bursill:
1. You have one witness that saw the "fly over" and he is now not available for further interview, still his testimony stands.

There is additional evidence cited in National Security alert that others saw the flyover. Such as Erik Dihle's officially recorded first hand account that the first thing "people" reported was that "a bomb hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going". That stands too. As do the 14 north side witnesses who also prove a flyover. The north side approach and the flyover are not separate issues.

Quoting John Bursill:
2. You have twelve witnesses that saw the north approach but all believe that the plane hit the Pentagon, still you have some valid explanations for this.

Although we are up to 14 north side witnesses I can accept this statement. But it's too late, you already misrepresented my "argument" (read: the evidence) with number 1.

Quoting John Bursill:
3. You have no corroborating evidence besides the one witness that the "fly over" happened.

Incorrect as stated in my reply to number 1 already. Why are you repeating yourself? This is particularly annoying since it is a false statement.

Quoting John Bursill:
4. You support the assertion that the fly over happened by saying that the crash scene at the Pentagon is consistent with a south side approach and you have proven through your interviews that the north side approach is the only possible approach therefore the plane must of flown over the Pentagon.

Correct.

Quoting John Bursill:
5. You assert that all the witness testimony supporting the official south side version is fraudulent and that the whole scene at the Pentagon was staged involving hundreds of people planting evidence.

Absolutely incorrect. We have never made this claim. This is an entirely fabricated and false representation of my argument. You will find no quotes from me to support this fraudulent assertion of my position.

Quoting John Bursill:
The cab driver is your direct evidence of this staged event even though the cab driver still accepts the official report, yes I agree he is confused...so lets just discount him.

No we will not discount hard evidence proving the official story false. That is not scientific or logical. Nor is this an accurate representation of my argument so you have once again failed in your unjustified attempt to speak for me.

By listing these things and suggesting it is my argument you are implying you have presented the reader with the totality of my position as if we present nothing more. That is of course entirely false while most of the things you listed do not accurately represent my argument anyway. So based on this you proceeded to ferociously attack your straw man with a ridiculous list that allegedly works against this fallacious position that you have set up.

Quoting John Bursill:
Against CIT

1. Not one person on the public record before you sort it volunteered a statement, report or comment that a fly over happened even though hundreds could have seen it and a great many should of heard it.

Besides the fact that we have already proven this false since BOTH Roosevelt Roberts AND Erik Dihle are officially on record proving that people DID report this, we have shown how there is a deliberate cover-up of this evidence since the 911 call tapes and transcripts were confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI.

So you will never know how many people reported it and you have no right to say that nobody did. Particularly since you haven't talked with ANYBODY. We have talked with people and have provided evidence that the flyover was witnessed proving the north side witnesses correct.

Quoting John Bursill:
2. Only after the fact has one person said they saw a fly over.

You are repeating yourself again. You are also wrong and you will never know what people first reported because it was covered-up by the FBI. Obviously they did that for a reason and it doesn't bode well for the official narrative that you are defending.

Quoting John Bursill:
3. Your twelve witnesses say they think the plane hit the Pentagon.

This does not refute their placement of the plane on the north side any more than WTC collapse witnesses who were deceived into believing the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fire refute the evidence for controlled demo.

Quoting John Bursill:
4. Many witnesses support the official report and are prepared to go on the record.

Really? Who? Please provide the firsthand accounts of witnesses with a vantage point to see the gas station who explicitly place the plane on the south side. I am not aware of any. Real scientists provide evidence for their claims. Unsupported blanket statements will not cut it.

Quoting John Bursill:
5. There is much wreckage consistent with a 757 crash at the Pentagon eg. Wheels, Landing Gear. pieces of fuselage and engine pieces.

Do I really have to post the definition of a post hoc logical fallacy again for you?

Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.

In this case you are assuming that because debris on the lawn came after the plane flew by, that the plane caused the debris.

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.

Quoting John Bursill:
6. There is a video showing "something" hitting the Pentagon.

That video was controlled, supplied, and provided for by the same people you accuse of mass murdering nearly 3,000 people in NY with a triple covert controlled demolition on live tv. Are you really going to cite it to refute independent evidence proving their story false? That is not logical and exposes a confirmation bias in favor of what they tell you. Why would you dismiss real people who were there based on a grainy and extremely dubious govt controlled security video?

We address this on our FAQ page here:
Doesn't the Pentagon security gate camera video that the government released show something hitting the building?

Quoting John Bursill:
7. None of the DFDR info supports the CIT north approach and no radar info supports it either, but as we know it appears that all this info provided by the government is erroneous, so lets discount that as well.

Of course as you should know it doesn't support the official story either. Interesting how you would want to "discount" that! Plus this contradicts your choice to ACCEPT the dubious security video that was also provided by the govt.

The rest of your post is utterly mind-boggling as you make an attempt to pit your false characterization of my "argument" and the evidence against the evidence for controlled demo of building 7! Talk about an irrelevant point. As if this has ANYTHING to do with the veracity of the information we present. No matter how much proof we have at the WTC additional proof at the Pentagon can only HELP. Any logical person will agree that in any criminal investigation the more evidence you have the better. So unless you can make a case that the evidence we provide is invalid, which clearly you have not, you have no logical excuse to compare it to building 7.

Ok John the floor is yours. Since you have insisted on continuing this discussion it's clear that you do have time to debate. The rules of this forum allow you 3-days to respond so if we don't hear from you after that I will accept that as a concession.

Post #3 - Oct 19 2009, 02:46 PM:

Although Bursill has failed to show up and debate me in this format he has now agreed to a live radio debate on Hereward Fenton's show TNRA.

Quoting John Bursill:
Hey Craig I know you do this shit all day every day...good on you!

NOW WAKE UP FROM YOUR YOUR FRICKEN DELUSIONS AND UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT!

You never conceed a point and you spam like a mother fucker all day long and you never understand anyone eleses opinion or understanding of the issues.

For eg you ask me to demonstate that there is evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon???? Are you for real....don't you look at all the evidence people have put before you? Do they have to spend their whole fricken lives proving shit to you....why so you can ignore them? Who the fuck do you think you are?

Your case is not courtable and it aint proven, that's the point!

I will debate you on this issue on live radio with no edits after the tour we are running is over.

How you can turn your good research into the mess...I have no idea?

Ego and being determined to piss everyone off that does not agree with you seems to be your desire...well you've achieved it with me, well done.

Hereward will set a date and we will have this out in the public on the record probaly in December.

John

PS - See if you can develop some understanding of why your seen by so many in this movement as a complete asshole so that maybe we can find a way to work together? No that's right it's the two man Citizens investigation team that is important...PLEASE...

Too bad he couldn't be polite about it!

Strange how he already admitted that I "might" be right yet still wants to debate me.

No matter. Glad to see he has finally committed to stepping up to the plate!

That's the story. As I publish this here, it has been 33 days since Mr. Ranke's 3rd post on 911 Artists Interactive.

Rob Balsamo and The Ultimate Combat Arena

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:52:00 +0000

On 10/12/09 I posted this on Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum to promote the Craig Ranke challenges John Bursill event:

John Bursill And Craig Ranke Mano-a-mano

QUOTE
Paul contacted John Bursill and invited him to this forum to debate me one on one about a week or two ago. Bursill declined and said he was too busy. Bursill is a moderator at the Aussie 9/11 truth forum 911oz. The administrator of that forum, Hereward Fenton, started a thread there regarding Michael Wolsey's interview with Jim Hoffman attacking CIT by labeling us "disinfo".

After about 4 pages of discussion I was alerted to the thread and joined the forum for the first time in order to contribute. John Bursill showed up and reiterated what he told Paul when he was challenged a couple of weeks ago. He said, "Hello Craig I don't have time to enter into a debate at present".

But apparently he wasn't being sincere because he proceeded to debate anyway. Although I remained perfectly civil he threatened to lock the thread, "Ps - would you rather we lock the thread...suits me fine?" for no reason whatsoever other than to flex his authority and ability to stifle the discussion while once again suggesting he was done participating by saying "Good bye!".

But he continued to participate and showed up again with an off topic post regarding pictures of debris while implying this somehow refutes the north side eyewitnesses and supports a 757 impact. When I civilly pointed out that this was a logical fallacy he replied again but proceeded to level a personal attack by saying, "are you insane???" and proceeded to again wield his authority by announcing he was banishing the thread to the fighting pit. Bursill said, "Any way if you wish to accuse me of "a logical fallacy of the highest order" then I think this thread can go to the pit!".

And to "the pit" it went where Bursill continued the discussion.

So clearly.................

Craig Ranke challenges John Bursill

Original Concept for “Ultimate Combat Arena”

Mr. Balsamo (head of the pilots group) moved my post from the Latest News section to the Debates section there. Also, he initiated a series of personal messages with with me upon the move. He emailed our exchange to a group of people I barely know, some anonymous, in an incomplete fashion creating what I think would be an inaccurate picture to them. I'm very concerned about this. I fear now that my words will show up out of context somewhere on the internet because of his actions. I'm very concerned with the unwarranted string of insults that you will see beneath. I'm very concerned with this threat: rob balsamo - "If you reply to tis post thinking equating the above with "ignoring" the issue. I show you the real definition of ignoring the issue and delete your thread from this forum completely." A threat like this has nothing to do with the ethical administration of a group Truth Movement effort. The gentleman has refused my requests for conversation to resolve this. I'm publishing this here due to the necessity for clarification to all on this matter now and in the future. Beneath is our complete exchange to date.

rob balsamo: your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 11:27 AM
(no cc to anyone)

Truth movement infighting and bickering doesnt belong in our Latest News section. Its not news, its drama and this forum is not a Romper Room. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18196&st=0&#entry10777939

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 11:36 AM

O.K. Rob.I disagree with your view and action though. What I'm doing is an effort to turn bickering into a promotable, interesting and effective form of activism. I think that if you look at my work and history you'll see that. Everybody loves a good, clean, and honest fight. Everybody wants to know what going on. Situations like this, presented the way I'm proposing, could turn this negative into a positive. I think you really jumped to a premature and incorrect negative conclusion here, Rob. http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=29494#post29494

rob balsamo: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 11:43 AM
(CC: dMole, Leslie Landry, painter, Sanders, Turbofan)

Your post is not Latest News. You posted a debate thread in the wrong section of our forum. Your post was moved to the proper forum section just as if you posted AA77 data in our WTC Complex section. Also, we do not focus on Truth Movement drama on this board. You wish to promote such drama, do it elsewhere. This is a professional research board, not a debate/bickering board. Read our rules.
Rob
cc: noted above

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 12:07 PM

This situation is to complex to address in this manner between us. The bickering will not go away if ignored. If we turn it into a positive in the manner I'm suggesting, not only will it go away but it will be transformed from a negative into a positive. I'm presenting you with no pressure to go along with this, Rob. How do you fly, Rob? Someone invented that plane. Hope lies in invention in this case, I'd say. I'm talking about an invention and a solution here and taking off. This is an insufficient form of communication for this situation. We should talk. You there right now? I'm ready to dial.

rob balsamo: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 12:27 PM
(CC: dMole, JFK, Leslie Landry, painter, Sanders, Turbofan)

Paul, If i were to "ignore" it, i would have deleted it. Paul, you're not hearing me. Your post is not Latest News. You posted a debate thread in the wrong section of our forum. Your post was moved to the proper forum section just as if you posted AA77 data in our WTC Complex section. I bolded it this time so hopefully it sinks in. Next time i'll increase font size if you fail to see it again.
cc: noted above

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 01:10 PM

O.K. Rob. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2942&st=260&p=10774901&#entry10774901 Listen man, when you bold text it's like yelling someone. When you say stuff like this: "I bolded it this time so hopefully it sinks in. Next time i'll increase font size if you fail to see it again.", it's disrespectful, insulting, and completely uncalled for. You did this after all I did was disagree with you in a respectful manner in private and ask you to talk about it on the phone instead of text so that we could get straight with each other and avoid any misunderstandings. What's going on, sir? What's going on? http://www.911artists.com/, http://www.911truther.com/, http://911truther.name/ .....among many, many others

rob balsamo: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 01:23 PM
(CC: dMole, JFK, painter, Sanders, Turbofan) No cc to Leslie Laundry

Paul, Your post is not Latest News. You posted a debate thread in the wrong section of our forum. Your post was moved to the proper forum section just as if you posted AA77 data in our WTC Complex section. Paul what part of "Your post is not Latest News" do you not understand? Do i need to put it in a different color next time? This is the third time i have had to repeat myself. My patience is wearing extremely thin. If you reply to tis post thinking equating the above with "ignoring" the issue. I show you the real definition of ignoring the issue and delete your thread from this forum completely. Keep in mind, the debate section of this forum is the second most viewed section of this board only to Latest News. For you to accuse me of ignoring the issue just because i moved your post to the correct forum, only exposes your ignorance of our forum sections and your disrespect of the rules.

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 12 2009, 11:03 PM

Rob, Like I said, we should have talked on the phone. We still should. Would you ever talk to someone you barely know like this face to face or even on the phone? A colleague, someone who has made repeated efforts to be a positive force in your life and work? Someone who has reached out to you in friendship and that you have made efforts for as well? http://s13.zetaboards.com/artistsfor911truth/topic/6534499/1/ Rob, everyone who is spending a lot of time on the computer dealing with this information and situation and communicating with others in text like this is getting their mental activity stimulated wildly out of control negative. It's the great danger of this work. You appear to me at this point to have lost a great amount of perspective and propriety of speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoN1XtrNAV0, http://www.myspace.com/paultassopulos

rob balsamo: Re:your post moved, Oct 13 2009, 12:41 AM
No cc to anyone

Paul, Yes, I treat everyone the same as they treat me. You have accused me of ignoring the issue, when in fact all i did was move your post to the appropriate forum. I was polite at first, but appears i needed to be more stern as you still are not getting it. Now, you're crying about the fact i was stern... I would have been the same on the phone if you still ignored the reason for the moved post... Paul, your post was moved because it was off topic for the forum section you posted. If each time you are going to cry about such a move, either post threads in the correct forum section or dont post at all. And FYI, the people who were cc'ed on the PM are staff.... not some arbitrary friends. Rob

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 13 2009, 01:09 AM

I never accused you of anything, sir. I never insulted you once, but you did me. "Paul what part of "Your post is not Latest News" do you not understand?" I'm not crying about anything. I'm getting it. I understand what your saying I did from the beginning. I was trying to talk to you as a friend and colleague. You appear to be talking to someone else and not to me. Let's just drop it. This is a "go nowhere". I gave you my best effort as I do with all humans. I can do no more.

rob balsalmo: Re:your post moved, Oct 13 2009, 01:30 AM
(CC: JFK, painter, Sanders, Turbofan) No cc to Leslie Laundry, No cc to dmole, A new thread started for no apparent reason and taking my words out of context without showing the full original material

QUOTE
i never accused you of anything, sir

QUOTE
i disagree with your view and action though

QUOTE
the bickering will not go away if ignored..... i'm presenting you with no pressure ot go along with this rob

The above is an accusation in my book. Your words, not mine...Paul, no one focuses on the "Movement" bickering except some in the "Movement" and our detractors. I dont know how long you been researching 9/11, but if 9/11 was truly an "inside job" (something we dont even claim at this point in time), there is no doubt state of the art cointelpro at work just itching for a crack to wedge open. Their main tactic is Divide and Conquer. To focus on and promote such infighting is absurd in my opinion. I prefer to focus on my work and let our work speak for itself. Dont get me wrong though, im always up for a good debate and have an open invitation to anyone wishing to debate our work. But to "promote" a Debate as "Mano y Mano" or the "Ultimate Combat Arena", well, that belongs on TMZ, WWF, or some other High School junk-food-for-the-mind programming, it doesnt belong in our Latest News Section. I hope i make myself clear. cc: staff

myself: Re:your post moved, Oct 13 2009, 01:58 AM

Well, your book's wrong on this one. When I said "bickering will not go away if ignored" I was stating my view on the subject matter. The fact that you saw it as an attack against you, well Rob, your not seeing me. Your seeing your own mind. If we were on the phone like I asked you, we could have worked that out. And how is this an accusation? "I'm presenting you with no pressure to to along with this, Rob" As far as the rest goes, we disagree. So what!? It's your site your can do what want. If you do something that involves me that I disagree with, I'll say something. Which is what I did. It's no reason to start hurling insults, sir.

There was no response from Mr. Balsamo.

myself: Rob, Nov 7 2009, 10:43 AM

Rob, It's been a few weeks since my series of actions and our exchange. I think it's apparent that my actions have not damaged yours or Craig's situation in regards to this situation of internet attacks. It looks like the attacks on forums and blogs have been at the very least paused partially due to my involvement and approach on this. What you saw was only half of my effort. Things like this are the other half and it's complementary aspect:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/1757813/1/, http://truther911.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/robert-sherman-los-angeles-9-11-truth-106/

The flashy peacock-like rhetoric that I used on the adversarial portion of this was an effort to get people's attention, get them talking, and shock those who were doing these dishonorable attacks to a pause. For God's sake man, I've taken many efforts to connect with you in friendship. You have taken many efforts on my behalf as well. Let's not lose each other over this. Let's talk about it. Paul

Again, there was no response from Mr. Balsamo. This is where the situation stands now as I finish making this post at Wednesday November 11 2009 1:02 p.m. It is a great mystery, shock, and sadness to me.

Craig Ranke vs. John Bursill

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:07:00 +0000

Craig Ranke with the Citizens Investigation Team challenged John Bursill moderator of Australian 9/11 Truth Forum 911oz for the first entry in the new Ultimate Combat Arena Forum on 10/11/09.

Craig Ranke challenges John Bursill

It's very exciting and I hope a productive event for all concerned. I'm making this Blogger post 5 days after Mr. Ranke's publication. To my knowledge, Mr. Bursill has not responded publicly or privately as of yet. Beneath are 4 threads that I started on other forums to publicize the event. I put the Loose Change topic originally in "Breaking News. It was move the "Lounge". I put the Pilots for 9/11 Truth topic originally in "Latest News". It was moved to "Debate".

Craig Ranke "One on One" w/ John Bursill
Craig Ranke, John Bursill, and the "Ultimate Combat Arena"
John Bursill And Craig Ranke Mano-a-mano
John Bursill and Craig Ranke

Interviews One on One Forum

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:10:00 +0000

The concept for an Interviews One on One Forum is a strong one, I think and hope. I know that a lot of people have something to say about our subject matter here. They want to say it in public, too. I'll give interviews here to anyone that wants to set the record straight, ask some questions, or whatever.

Ultimate Combat Arena

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Ultimate Combat Arena is concept I came up with witnessing the conflict between John Bursill and Jeff Hill in Spring of 2009. It's my hope with this effort to create a productive and exciting debate form to benefit all those involved, all observers, and the Truth Movement itself.

Diplomat's Island Forum

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:07:00 +0000

I just took this shot of the "Diplomats Island" Forum concept that I posted there at Jun 6 2009, 02:35 AM. I think it's a good idea, resource, and opportunity for whoever wants to take it. There are many rifts, grudges, and misunderstandings in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Those have got to go. We can all heal ourselves, each other, and the world if we each make the decision to do that. I have no doubt of it.

The Beginning of Forum 2

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Tassopulos) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:06:00 +0000

This is a shot I took of the index page while creating some new forum concepts such as "Diplomats Island" and "Ultimate Combat Arena" in June of 2009. Forums are really a highly specialized, unique, and exciting new art form, I think. They certainly can be a little bit tricky to participate in and administer sometimes though. I'm hoping some of my new concepts for the 2nd forum will a generate a positive, steady, and effective platform for anyone that wants to participate.