John Bursill Debates 9/11 on 2GB radio

07 September 2011 (Original: 2011-09-06) | Permalink | comments: 3
By Hereward Fenton

Share |

Categories: [ 9/11 First Responders, 9/11 Truth Movement, ae911truth ]

John Bursill was on one of the biggest radio shows in the country yesterday, debating Mike King from the UK on the the subject of 9/11.

Download the audio here.

Comments

I listened to this interview, I thought John Bursill did a reasonably good job under the circumstances, given the superficial and trivializing nature of the interview in general. The other two came across as incredibly naive and poorly informed on the whole subject, which is not at all uncommon for mainstream media mouth pieces and propagandists promoting the official canard.

By John Scrivener on 2011 09 22 - 00:34:10

Why don’t people go straight to the point when discussing this topic. Building 7 was not hit, had no real fires to talk about and fell like the other two towers at freefall speed. Impossible!

By Greg Brown on 2011 10 07 - 14:45:17

Great, it ended on the “yucky” argument. ie. “Its too yucky to believe powerful men murder for money, so it can’t be true, it just can’t be!”

If only people actually studied history, they’d know false flag terror is the rule, not the exception.

By Louise on 2011 10 14 - 23:37:34

In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.

Recent Comments

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.

So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.

1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?

2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?

3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?

If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.

Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.

By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.