Anyone want to make a quick G?

Apparently, Case is Paul Case, the president of the Seattle Skeptics. I wish him well. However, after reading some of the comments made by his opponent, they're isn't a snowball's chance in hell his opponent would ever concede defeat...even if his ass was handed to him on a silver plater. Something we have all seen on this forum.

My prediction...his opponent will spew the standard AE911 stuff, Mr. Case will debunk it, then his opponent will claim victory.
 
All I am saying is that the debate should have a panel of judges to determine the winner and the money should be held by someone other than what ever the hell his name is. Even in poker the money stays in a neutral location.
 
Case, the debate is surely over by now, I'm inpatient, I need a video lol :-D
 
The debate will be released on Seattle Weekly's video channel within a few days- along with a write-up in SW's blog I imagine. I have my own cellphone video of the debate, but it's predictably poor. If I feel SW's video is edited in such a way that takes my comments out of context, I'll upload it.

Overall, I think it went well. I was a bit nervous at first, I think I flubbed my intro, but otherwise I think I represented NIST's science fairly well.

Salient points I made:

1) Kurt does not understand structural mechanics, therefore he is unqualified to assert the NIST's science is flawed.
2) If NIST was wrong/lied about WTC7, it does not mean CD occurred.
3) FFA does not necessarily mean CD
4) Shiyam Sunder was NOT incorrect when he said that WTC7 did not fall at FFA in the draft report hearing.
5) Free fall acceleration ALSO occurs when the net resistance is overcome by the mass
6) There is no working "controlled demotions" hypothesis
7) If Mr Benshoof further feels that FFA that occurred in WTC7 is CD, he should learn the fundementals of structural mechanics, write a white paper and submit it for review instead of harranging journalists and other scientific laypeople to explain it to him.

I am not naive- I did not expect to get $1,000 from him- this is a stunt by a 9/11 Truth activist who wants to 'say' a question instead of 'asking' one. I did this because I felt if I let the challenge go unanswered it would only feed speculation that NIST's science was indefensible and therefore suspect. I did not expect to change Kurt's mind- but to highlight the numerious weakness in his argument and his lack of education in structural mechancs. I had orginally planned on being very polite and accomodating- indeed that's one of the hallmarks of how I lead Seattle Skeptics, until I get an email from him offering his "condolences" on me accepting task I could never win and that he planned to "expose me for the skeptical fraud that I am". So if at any point you wonder why I'm being a d*bag, understand I've got that email simmering in my mind.

While I have done a fair amount of research on my own, I have you guys (Oystein, Ryan Mackey, Orphia Nay, Chris Mohr, Alien Entity to name a few) at the JREF forum to thank for educating me and sharpening my understanding of the flaws of AE911Truth and David Ray Griffin. If you ever wonder if your efforts have fallen on deaf ears, I assure you many skeptics stand on your shoulders when they engage the 911 Truth Community.

Curtis Cartier will email me when the video is posted- I promise to post the link here when he does so.

-Case
 
Last edited:
Macgyver1968 said:
Apparently, Case is Paul Case, the president of the Seattle Skeptics. I wish him well. However, after reading some of the comments made by his opponent, they're isn't a snowball's chance in hell his opponent would ever concede defeat...even if his ass was handed to him on a silver plater. Something we have all seen on this forum.

My prediction...his opponent will spew the standard AE911 stuff, Mr. Case will debunk it, then his opponent will claim victory.
Click to expand...
You are correct sir!

Despite answering his questions and showing him over and over his was wrong, he still claimed that I did not "logically" explain the 2.2 secs of FFA of WTC7. But honestly in every scenario I'd ran through my head, not a single one included "Holy cow, you're right!" moment from Kurt.

In my email discussions with him, he requested 911 debunker document/links- I sent him a single document Mackey's "2.1 DRG NIST Review", which elegantly destroys the work of David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 911 Debunking" book. If he were an honest questioner of all the facts, he would have actually read it instead of searching for "free fall", highlighting a single sentence he didn't like, and calling the work a fraud. And then his emails were stripped of civility and became hostile/insulting. To me that was the watershed moment that I was dealing with an opponent in an entrenched position who was going to use the debate embarrass as opposed to looking at the very real problems of the CD (non-existent) hypothesis.

(4 more posts until I can post a link in the JREF forums, after that someone has to show me how to post an avatar pic! ;)

-Case
 
Last edited:
cjnewson88 said:
Case, any heads up on what kind of background you have in this particular field? how much you've studied the wtc collapse etc? would be interesting to know and get an idea of what this guys getting himself into haha.

Good luck dude, looking forward to the video. Oh, and remember, no fancy talk..

"he does not understand. Explain; as you would a child"
Click to expand...
I didn't want to answer this question before the debate, as I didn't want to tip my hand as what I was studying or going to say.

I consider myself an expert (relative term here- 'expert' means vs people who haven't researched it at all) of the collapses of WTC 1&2. Indeed, I've given a presentation called "The Case Against Controlled Demotions- why AE911's "Truth" doesn't add up", so I had to do a fair amount of research to better understand the collapse of WTC7.

The real key understanding the fraud of Gage/Griffin et al was dissecting the "FFA=CD" meme. That's really Frank-Luntz-genius of the whole 911 Truth moment. It's as catchy and as easy to understand to the low-information layperson as "If the gloves don't fit you must acquit".
 
Case said:
I didn't want to answer this question before the debate, as I didn't want to tip my hand as what I was studying or going to say.

I consider myself an expert (relative term here- 'expert' means vs people who haven't researched it at all) of the collapses of WTC 1&2. Indeed, I've given a presentation called "The Case Against Controlled Demotions- why AE911's "Truth" doesn't add up", so I had to do a fair amount of research to better understand the collapse of WTC7.

The real key understanding the fraud of Gage/Griffin et al was dissecting the "FFA=CD" meme. That's really Frank-Luntz-genius of the whole 911 Truth moment. It's as catchy and as easy to understand to the low-information layperson as "If the gloves don't fit you must acquit".
Click to expand...

Nice, yeah I wondering if you were going into this with a 'there's no way I'm getting that 1000 dollars" attitude lol, as if this guy was just going to fall to the floor in front of you and expose to the world he was wrong all along.. Nice work Paul, looking forward to seeing the video when it comes out.
 
Case,

If you want to post a link, just leave the www. part off, and ask someone to do it for you. Most of us here will gladly do it for you.

Cheers!
 
Benshoof sounds like a nasty piece of work. I think this video will reinforce the negative reputation truthers deserve so well.

Well done for taking on the challenge. I doubt it will make him think, but there will be debunkers and fencesitters watching who will find it interesting.

Case said:
While I have done a fair amount of research on my own, I have you guys (Oystein, Ryan Mackey, Orphia Nay, Chris Mohr, Alien Entity to name a few) at the JREF forum to thank for educating me and sharpening my understanding of the flaws of AE911Truth and David Ray Griffin. If you ever wonder if your efforts have fallen on deaf ears, I assure you many skeptics stand on your shoulders when they engage the 911 Truth Community.
Click to expand...

:blush: Wow, you just made my day, Case, by placing me in such company. Thankyou.
 
grandmastershek said:
Sadly this fool requires you to explain things to him like a child.
Click to expand...

Not enough money.

As soon as you provide the explanation he asks for, he will refuse to pay, forcing you to sue <snip>. 1,000 dollars in most jurisdictions won't cover court, travel costs and other expenses.

Call us when <snip> bumps it up to 100,000 dollars.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any update on the video?

Just a slight peek into the mind that is "Shoof". Apparently WTC 7 was made entirely of columns.

What removed over 600 perimeter and core columns simultaneously? Interestingly, NIST's computer model doesn't show free-fall. How did those 600+ columns immediately offer no more structural resistance than thin air?
Click to expand...
 
I found this on youtube, i'll see if i can find one longer than 2 minutes...

 
The Platypus said:
That's the story behind that video. Looks like Shoof made a fool of himself as predicted, and didn't give up a cent, as predicted... Like nobody could see that one coming.
Click to expand...

Hmmm- I thought the journalist was going to email us when the video was posted...ah well.

I'm not sure how I did during this as I tend to be hyper-critical of myself, so please feel free to let me know what I could have done better.

Kurt has written to me on a few occasions since this debate, looking to re-engage me on it- but I thought it was best if he brought his WTC7 concerns to the JREF forum and talk it out to his heart's content here. I'm really glad he had the courage of his convictions to actually show up and engage you all. (I did warn him that you folks would have less patience for his shifting the burden of proof and logical fallicies than I did)

Anyhow, would appreciate honest feedback- if I got something wrong, let me know so I can correct it.

Thanks,

-Case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom