The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[Mr. Skinny]

I hope this debate with Triterope and TS1234 is not associated in any way with this forum.

After all, Triterope joined this month and has 30 posts (as of this writing)...not that I think that anyone on this forum could speak for the JREF. It's just not possible.

If Triterope and TS want to do a book deal outside of this forum, I don't care, but it should be done away from here.

What happened to TS debating Abby according to Arkan's proposed rules? Five pages of this thread to accept a debate TS? Color me confused.

 

[Oliver]

What a stupid discussion - i get back if it´s as long as christopheras crap.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I hope this debate with Triterope and TS1234 is not associated in any way with this forum.

After all, Triterope joined this month and has 30 posts (as of this writing)...not that I think that anyone on this forum could speak for the JREF. It's just not possible.

If Triterope and TS want to do a book deal outside of this forum, I don't care, but it should be done away from here.

What happened to TS debating Abby according to Arkan's proposed rules? Five pages of this thread to accept a debate TS? Color me confused.

I concur.

TS - as Gravy and I and others have pointed out, this is a forum and there is no single voice and there is no "Official JREF" version of the events of 9/11. Please add that to Mr. S's misgivings above!

Nothing personal, Triterope, but there's a certain validating process one ought to go through before being picked out to be the spokesperson. (Didn't TS actually suggest that at one point? Has this been totally ignored. Oh, never mind, dumb question... everything agreed upon has been ignored!) I've been around for a very short time, also, and while I feel I could clean TS's clock in either a debate or a barroom brawl, I wouldn't offer myself up as the voice of this forum. There are some folks out there (many on this thread) who've earned their spurs over the course of years and thousands of posts.

I think the senior spokespersons in any decision on behalf of JREF members should be Gravy, Mackey, Abby (naming the first three off the top of my head - replace with Arkan, The Ninjas, Gumboot, etc... at whim). If TS ever nails himself to terms and agrees to the closed thread idea that he already agreed to, then let's have those three or three similar persons select from the willing applicants. (Abby - no fair voting for Abby just for the cash, fame, and bright lights! )

I think it ain't gonna happen or TS wouldn't be drifting towards all these copout arrangements. The deal was for a closed-thread debate, one on one. He had no preference of the opponent - we could pick ourselves. Then he objected to Abby as "not serious", then decided he wanted to debate that 'chick' Stellafane, then backed off of that and is now proposing an email argument. Next? Water balloons? Paintball combat? Finger-pointing? Competing letters to the editor of My Weekly Reader?

TS, get your s*** together. Make up your mind on the debate-in-closed-thread. Put up or get off the pot, to mix my metaphors! As Mr. S has mentioned... Five Pages to accept a debate, THAT YOU PROPOSED!!!!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Correct that I did not take Abby seriously. Abby said

Hell 1000 bucks for a few posts on a message board? I'll pretend that the positive case is "Monkeys ate the World Trade Center."

Let's go!

I don't wan't a few posts and I don't want Monkeys. I want a serious debate. A document that both sides are proud of, and that would serve as a great resource for anyone studying 9/11.

Triterope has shown serious interest in making this a book and concurs that a debate format has not been done, at least to his knowledge. He and I are discussing this, and will report in a few days.

 

[qarnos]

Correct that I did not take Abby seriously. Abby said



I don't wan't a few posts and I don't want Monkeys. I want a serious debate. A document that both sides are proud of, and that would serve as a great resource for anyone studying 9/11.

Triterope has shown serious interest in making this a book and concurs that a debate format has not been done, at least to his knowledge. He and I are discussing this, and will report in a few days.

Once again, completely ignoring her post #2 response of "Hell, yes".

You have a very selective memory, TS.

 

[Gravy]

Correct that I did not take Abby seriously. Abby said

I don't wan't a few posts and I don't want Monkeys. I want a serious debate. A document that both sides are proud of, and that would serve as a great resource for anyone studying 9/11.

Triterope has shown serious interest in making this a book and concurs that a debate format has not been done, at least to his knowledge. He and I are discussing this, and will report in a few days.

Another CT coward reneges on an agreement, turns tail, and runs. Say hello to DJLegacy and the rest of your buddies, "Truth"Seeker.

Disgusting.

 

[Shrinker]

I think I must have read this thread too quickly. Let me get this straight.

BS1234 wants someody to post 5 claims on behalf of the official story. He posts 5 'rebuttals'. This is then sealed, stamped as the Official JREF Last-Word-On-911 Debate, and made sticky for one year? And he thinks anybody will fall for this? Surely I have this wrong.

If you badly need the validation from your LC buddies, let me just make up a 'I pwnt teh JREF' badge for you.

 

[LashL]

Correct that I did not take Abby seriously. Abby said



I don't wan't a few posts and I don't want Monkeys. I want a serious debate. A document that both sides are proud of, and that would serve as a great resource for anyone studying 9/11.

Triterope has shown serious interest in making this a book and concurs that a debate format has not been done, at least to his knowledge. He and I are discussing this, and will report in a few days.

You're the one who has been moving the goalposts ever since YOU started this thread, you moron.

You made a challenge, it was accepted, and you have been running away from your own "challenge" ever since.

Pathetic.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Abby, if you want to say that you are serious, I will consider what you have to say. I understand that anywhere I post on JREF, there will be many who delight in making jokes and calling names. That's fine as far as it goes, JREF is what it is. Still, this does not get me what I am after.

Undertand, I want a serious debate. I want to find someone who can and will debate the scientific merits of the government theory of the WTC. THis is going to involve a commitment of time and effort. If somebody puts forth a watered down Thomas Eagar that I can easily destroy, then people could dismiss the whole thing as a mismatch.

The idea of making this into a published work is a good one, but really only occured after I posted the original offer. The orignal challenge is good, it will be honored, and we will do this. But the book idea is too great of an idea to throw away just because I didn't think of it right away. It complicates, but does not invalidate the original challenge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Surprise, Surprise - TS and CHRIS are online at the same time. Using two different browser on the same machine? Hey, just asking questions...

Just a note: Back when sockpuppets were legal here (or at least not explicitly disallowed ), I tried out this, and all you need is two browser windows. You can run two different logins at the same time.

Not that I find it particularly probable that TS1234 and Christo are the same person. ... Not that I give a d...

Hans

 

[Darat]

I have not had time to read all of this thread but a few points I wish to make:

The only person on this forum that can speak for the James Randi Educational Foundation are Randi, Jeff Wagg and Linda.

All views, opinions and or claims expressed here are the views of the Member making such a view and do not represent the views of the JREF.

The JREF Forum is not an appropriate forum for discussing any potential commercial enterprise or soliciting support for such an enterprise.

As Forum Admin let me make it clear that any suggestion of payment for participating in a thread is not acceptable. Unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Moderating Team there are no exclusions on who can or cannot participate in any particular debate.

Further - we will not consider any requests from TruthSeeker1234 for any Mod Team "moderated threads" - these take a lot Mod Team resources and since the evidence is that TruthSeeker1234 is not interested in a reasonable discussion of his/her claims then we will not be wasting our limited resources in playing some childish game. The Forum's standard format is more then adequate to support serious and reasonable discussions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Gravy]

Abby, if you want to say that you are serious, I will consider what you have to say. I understand that anywhere I post on JREF, there will be many who delight in making jokes and calling names. That's fine as far as it goes, JREF is what it is. Still, this does not get me what I am after.

Undertand, I want a serious debate. I want to find someone who can and will debate the scientific merits of the government theory of the WTC. THis is going to involve a commitment of time and effort. If somebody puts forth a watered down Thomas Eagar that I can easily destroy, then people could dismiss the whole thing as a mismatch.

The idea of making this into a published work is a good one, but really only occured after I posted the original offer. The orignal challenge is good, it will be honored, and we will do this. But the book idea is too great of an idea to throw away just because I didn't think of it right away. It complicates, but does not invalidate the original challenge.

You selected Stellafane (when you thought he was a she) to participate in your challenge. Then you completely changed your terms. That makes you just another dishonorable intellectual coward (as if we didn't already know that about you).

 

[Horatius]

Abby, if you want to say that you are serious, I will consider what you have to say. I understand that anywhere I post on JREF, there will be many who delight in making jokes and calling names. That's fine as far as it goes, JREF is what it is. Still, this does not get me what I am after.

Truth1234,

You've had numerous acceptances to your debate. Pre-rule change.

And though, yes my second reaction to you was one of humor, because everyone here knows that you won't put your money where your mouth is.

Plus, I can hold my own, thankyouverymuch. You should have seen the recent video before Jon Gold took it down. I have a good serious face.

That seems like a pretty straight forward assertion that she's serious. What more do you want?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I can't help but think of this when I read through this thread.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am not Christophera.

I will respond to people interested in the challenge. I will not respond to people who have already declined the challenge.

The goal of my effort here is to find an individual who is willing and able to put forth a compelling, thorough scientific explanation of the WTC collapses based on impact damage and fires.

This is the spirit of the challenge. You may post your insults and sarcasm all you wish, these are not likely to convince me of your sincerity to make this a credible project. The challenge will be honored, and the resulting document will make a positive contribution to the public discourse on this very important topic.

 

[Josh Redstone]

Cand I ask you a question TS1234? Why not go ask a demolition expert, rather than offer your hard earned cash to someone here? I'm sure someone who has professional knowledge regarding this subject could 'put fourth a compelling, thorough scientific explanation of the WTC collapses based on impact damage and fires.'

 

[chipmunk stew]

I will respond to people interested in the challenge. I will not respond to people who have already declined the challenge.

Which challenge? It seems to me that "the" challenge changes every time someone expresses interest.

Pick a challenge. Stick with it. Or drop it.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

abby boasted

everyone here knows that you won't put your money where your mouth is.

We shall see. Abby, If you are interested in the challenge, let me know. Give me the sense that you will take it seriously, and not resort to "Monkeys Ate The Towers". If I came out with a book in which I debunked the "Monkey Theory", everyone would think I just created a strawman.

I want a sincere effort. In the end, people on both sides of the debate will show this book to their freinds, convinced it is a great resource.

 

[Z]

Yep - he's trying to make a fast buck.

Can we kill this moronic thread now?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Cand I ask you a question TS1234? Why not go ask a demolition expert, rather than offer your hard earned cash to someone here?

It began when i offered to debate R.Mackey on live television, and he declined. I would be glad to debate a demolition expert, or a structural engineer, or anyone who wants to defend the official theory (which is different than criticizing the alternative theory).

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a distinct shortage of people actually willing to do that. If you know of anyone who is ready willing and able to defend the official theory, in detail, and submit to my criticism, and actually have a formal debate, and allow that to be published, then please send them here.