The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[rwguinn]

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

Can we kill this moronic thread now?

Once again someone has pointed out the obvious(to everyone except CT'ers), proving that the "Loose brains" crew have no reading comprehension skills at all--or have the moderators on "ignore"

See Darat's post above about turning a profit off the forum...

 

[rwguinn]

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.

We already have. Several times.
Pointed out the lack of inconsistencies, combined with the presence of the direct science, application of scientific method, mathematics, and hard evidence in the Official report. (that's 5, by my count)
Pointed out the obvious lack of same in the CT hypothesis (or rather, hypotheses)
R. Mackey, Myself, Architect, Billzilla, and numerous others have continually done so, to the point where, instead of repeating ourselves forever and ever amen, we merely knock the straw houses you keep building down.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

Why don't you make your challenge to NIST and FEMA instead of posters on an Internet forum. To me that says you don't have a case. You are afraid of confronting the experts and presenting your evidence because you don't have the data or science behind you.

If you have a shred of science and evidence to support your assertion you would be pounding on the doors of NIST and FEMA. You would be enlisting lawyers to sue. You would perusing civil and criminal options.

Instead you anonymously posting on an Internet forum. To me it's obvious you are afraid of confronting the experts.

You are a pathetic troll.

Edit to add.

You're like a boxer who runs around proclaiming you're the best boxer in the world but instead of actually stepping into the ring to challenge the current champion, you stand outside the stadium with a sign that says world champoin.

In other words, you are a delusional fraud.

yes, the spelling error was intentional

 

[Gravy]

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.

Are you simply too lazy to read the NIST report? Why ask us to do your homework?

What about Stellafane? He accepted your original terms, with a few small additions, which you agreed to. You then changed the terms. What do you have to say about that, UntruthSeeker?

 

[Gravy]

abby boasted

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.

The day people show a book of your 9/11 ignorance to their friends as a great resource, I will eat my shoes. All of them. Just yesterday, you posted that the insurance companies must be in on it because they didn't argue that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. That's among the stupidest arguments I've heard, and I've heard some doozies.

As I said before, you need help, not an argument. Start by reading as much of the NIST report as your parents will allow before bedtime.

 

[Gravy]

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.

This has been explained to you again and again. The "official theory" defends itself with documentation. Read it. If you have problems with it, state them, and be prepared to back up your claims. You have been unable to do so.

Do you understand that?

 

[Pardalis]

I really don't understand why everybody is even answering Truthseeker.



He's just a liar and a bully who craves attention. Stop playing his game and ignore the bastard already.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...I guess Arkan has agreed to moderate, is that correct?

1) No one has asked me to moderate, so it is not possible for me to have agreed to do so.
2) I do not agree to do so as I would then not be willing/able to post in the peanut gallery thread.
3) I recommend whoever does mod to not post in the peanut gallery thread.

 

[Dazed]

Has anyone taken this offer up yet? Please tell me, cause I'm a little low on cash and this sounds easier than working.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Dazed

Has anyone taken this offer up yet? Please tell me, cause I'm a little low on cash and this sounds easier than working.

Dazed, I do not take you seriously. Defending the official scientific account of WTC will indeed involve work.

 

[Dazed]

I'm offended that you'd presume to get anything less.

 

[Dazed]

By 'easier than work' I meant 'can do it in my underwear'

 

[Skylark]

This is ridiculous. If you want to write a book, compile the facts yourself for christ's sake - there's already 4 150 page long threads about how stupid loose change is :\

EDIT: Also dazed there's an edit button; you don't need to post 1 minute after you posted to add an amendment :|

 

[DavidJames]

Defending the official scientific account of WTC will indeed involve work.

Correct, doing so will require understanding of engineering, mathematics, physics and other related disciplines. CT's like yours only require an imagination.

Now answer my questions:

You are claiming the biggest crime in U.S. history is being covered up, in part by the U.S. government and your response is posting anonymously on Internet forums.

1. Why don't you make your challenge directly to NIST and FEMA instead of posting anonymous challenges on an Internet forum.
2. Why aren't you enlisting lawyers to sue?
3. Why aren't you perusing civil and criminal options?

 

[qarnos]

TS, what the heck is the point of all this?

You claim you want someone to defend the official version. Well, look no further than these forums.

The official version of 9/11 has been defended here ad nauseum. Every ascept of it has been questioned by a troofer and thoroughly proven correct by the posters here at some point or another, often many times over.

What is your real motive? Do you want a debate so you can shred the contents to your own purposes?

All of the information presented in these threads can be found in the public domain, with not much more than a little googling, so don't give us this "exclusive rights" crap.

James Randi once commented on his decline to a debate on Art Bells (IRC) "Coast to Coast AM". He said something along the lines that he was not going to go into a debate where his opponent makes up the rules as he goes along, because he can never win in that situation.

I think the same applies here.

 

[R.Mackey]

Dazed, I do not take you seriously. Defending the official scientific account of WTC will indeed involve work.

What? We're still turning people down?? I thought you kept saying we were the ones stalling?

Or are you pondering whether to morph your fake "challenge" into the format of epic poetry, or interpretive dance, perhaps? Puppet show?

Get on with it already!

 

[WildCat]

Dazed

Dazed, I do not take you seriously. Defending the official scientific account of WTC will indeed involve work.

When a challenger raised his hand
TruthSeeker bravely turned and fled
Brave, brave TruthSeeker...

 

[LashL]

When a challenger raised his hand
TruthSeeker bravely turned and fled
Brave, brave TruthSeeker...

The last thing "truthseeker" seeks is the truth.

The truth is staring him/her in the face and he/she refuses to see it. Evidence be damned, facts be damned, science be damned. He/she simply hasn't a clue, cannot be bothered to read and learn despite the fact that he/she has been provided with all manner of facts, evidence and resources, and he/she instead chooses to wallow in his/her ignorance rather than put any effort into educating him/herself.

He/she has absolutely no interest in truth or knowledge. He/she is a typical "troofer": one who prefers to play juvenile games online while pretending to be something he/she is not and pretending to understand things that he/she does not, in hopes that it will impress the gullible, the naive, the uneducated, and the utterly-incapable-of-being-educated, that is, his/her fellow troofers. After all, it is far easier to remain ignorant than it is to actually read, conduct research and learn, so that's what troofers do - remain ignorant.

It's sad, really, but oh so predictable.

 

[WildCat]

Typical "troofer". It's easier to remain ignorant than to actually read, research and learn, so that's what they do - remain ignorant.

That's impossible! He's on the "Scholars for Troof" site!! He's a scholar!!! A scholar!11!11!!

Is there a bigger collection of idiots around than the self-proclaimed "Scholars for Troof"?

 

[LashL]

Is there a bigger collection of idiots around than the self-proclaimed "Scholars for Troof"?

No, the "skawlers 4 troof" have been holding strong in the number one position for the "biggest collection of idiots" for several weeks now on the Billboard charts.

A few other groups (most notably, "Illuminati R Us", "the Joooooos Did It", "Space Shuttles Don't Exist" and "UFOs R Us") are reportedly rising and perhaps making a surge that could knock the "skawlers" from their perch, but that is merely rumour at this point.

Film at 11.