The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK, straighten me out. What is the official story these days? I know it has changed several times, which is not in and of itself sinsiter. If new data or reasoning become available over time, it is reasonable for the explanation to change. Still, I'm waiting for someone to agree to write a total of about 50 pages. Anything less, and I will not have an opportunity to make my case.

Everybody keeps saying that my offer has been accepted, but I can't figure out who. Let me check my email and see if anybody is there.
Click to expand...

Excuse number 3

next.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Nope. No emails yet.

[email protected]
Click to expand...
You are Roxdog, aren't you?

Look, I don't want your money, and I don't want a book deal, and I'm not going to summarize a ten thousand page document of whose major assertions most who read here are already aware, but I'm willing to seriously debate you on any specifics that you believe are incorrect or omitted from NIST's analysis of the collapses. The thread is open if you want to pursue the truth.

Otherwise, sayonara and good luck on your grave robbing.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK, straighten me out. What is the official story these days? I know it has changed several times, which is not in and of itself sinsiter. If new data or reasoning become available over time, it is reasonable for the explanation to change. Still, I'm waiting for someone to agree to write a total of about 50 pages. Anything less, and I will not have an opportunity to make my case.
Click to expand...

This 'offer' is starting to seem less appealing by the minute, even assuming the $1k ever materialised* ts1234, you didn't mention the 50 pages - or that the debate needed to be publishable - when you first suggested the debate. Allowing 2hrs per page (faster than I can write an essay to a decent standard) that means you're talking $10/hr. Add in the time taken to read and respond to your posts, and this doesn't look like such a good deal at all :mad: That's assuming the debater got paid* - assuming you found an excuse to avoid paying, there'd have put in the equivalent of 2.5+ weeks of full time work, for no money.

Of course, you could prove my cynicism wrong. There's a debate thread ready and waiting for you - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65027

*Oh, look, a flying pig...over there!
 
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following homepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.
Click to expand...

How about a rebuttal to Chipmunk Stew, who started the debate? And do it in the debate thread.

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Clearly? EVERYTHING?

PROVE OR RETRACT.

Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all.
Click to expand...

WTF?!!?! You are an ignorant fool, TS.

Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.
Click to expand...

You have no idea of scientific method, TS. No idea at all.


THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
Click to expand...

How can we satisfy your terms when you keep altering them, moron???
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following homepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
Click to expand...


I love ... love ... the fact that you posted your response to Chipmunk Stew here rather than in the proper debate thread. That way, your pathetic little post can't even be considered a response to CS or a part of the debate. And since you haven't engaged him in the debate, you can go ahead pretending that no such debate exists, not keep your word, not pay as you promised, and (most of all) not be shown to be wrong on every single point you've ever made.

You are a jerk. A jerky jerk jerk jerk. And a lier. I would not be surprised to hear from the LAFD that your pants were, in fact, on fire.

As poor a thinker as you are, you are a moral cesspool.

I leave you to wallow in your own filth.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following Exciehomepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but please provide a link to the post of mine that you purport to be refuting.

You claim to be quoting or citing me but you have not linked to or quoted my post and I do not know what post you're talking about. I suspect that, though, given your history, that if it exists, you have taken it entirely out of context.

You have shown yourself to be a fraud and a liar repeatedly. I suspect that you're just doing the same tap dance that you do whenever you find yourself in a corner and when you hope that your tinhat friends won't notice how badly you're representing them here.

But, back to the main point. Please post a link to the post of mine that you are purporting to rebut. I have no idea what post you're talking about.


And for future reference, here's a Message Board 101 hint: any time you are purporting to 'rebut' someone's post, you should actually cite it.

Once again,
Please provide a link to the post of mine that you are purporting to rebut.

And after you do that, don't forget that the debate you asked for, nigh begged for, is still waiting for you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65027
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following homepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
Click to expand...
to ease understanding of your rebuttal ive searched the st911 page for articles directly addressing the NIST report, i found a whole 2

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/nistcomm.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

the first is about 2 pages long, most of which is shoving words into NIST's mouth to make it seem liek they didnt do their job

the second is a bit longer, and i think worthy of a good fisking
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Rebuttal of LashL.

LashL has offered no explanation, no evidence no recounting of events, no indication that he even knows what the subject is. He has offered none of his own words.

As evidence, he has offered a single link to a government homepage. Please see the following homepage, please read every linked article, and every article linked within every linked article.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant. Furthermore, the most interesting observations were not accounted for at all. Thus NIST is in gross violation of the scientific method, which requires that all relevant observations and data are accounted for.

THus we must reject LashL. QED.

When there is nothing to refute, it does not satisfy the terms. You guys know what I want, your'e being silly.
Click to expand...

Enough of this crap, TS. You jerked me around when I accepted your debate, coming up with some nonsense about a book deal. When I insisted on the original debate format, you proceeded to act like I didn't exist. Now Chipmunk has accepted your "challenge," and has even started the thread for it, per your instructions. And instead of honoring your challenge, you're going off on some stupid NIST thing, as if that has anything to do with anything.

Listen, go to Chipmunk's thread -- right now -- and engage in the debate. Or prove once and for all what we've suspected all along, that you're a lying coward.
 
Stellafane said:
Enough of this crap, TS. You jerked me around when I accepted your debate, coming up with some nonsense about a book deal. When I insisted on the original debate format, you proceeded to act like I didn't exist.
Click to expand...

And then when I accepted TS's debate, he proceeded to act like I didn't exist.

Even though I'm the one who first suggested the book deal (see post #190 of this thread) that TS is now offering to Abby and everybody else under the sun, as if no one were willing to do it.

TS then claimed not to have heard from me (#317), when I had PM'ed him my email address 18 hours before that (#344). He then (post #345) wrote a lengthy point-by-point response to everybody on the thread but me, and then in #349 said "I do now have a note in my box from Triterope" as if this were not the same message I sent almost a day previous.

Since then, TS publicly posted an email address to reach him (#381) and less than two hours later gloated that no one had emailed him yet (#398), even though he's had my acceptance of his challenge and my email address for over 30 hours and couldn't be bothered to reply to me during that time.

Not to mention all the tangents this thread has taken into the role of JREF, the NIST report, and other crap that is of no relevance to my or anyone else's acceptance of TS1234's offer.

This is my last missive to TruthSeeker1234:

You made a challenge. I have repeatedly accepted it, and made good faith efforts to discuss it with you. YOU are to send ME an email in which you will respond to the point I raised in my private message to you, and discuss the project in general. You have my email address. If you need it again, send me a PM and I will reply with another PM containg it. If you do not do this, I can only conclude that you are not sincere in this offer.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
...Undoubtably, plenty of evidence for the inside job will be presented in my destruction of the official story.
Click to expand...
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The debate will be started by someone presenting the positive case. It will be an essay that satisfies the scientific curiosity of the layperson observer who wonders just what caused those buildings to do what they did.

I will then respond by demolishing the positive case.
Click to expand...
"Destruction?" "Demolish?"

Visiting this forum every day and finding this guy's ongoing bloviating is like turning to the daily funnies and seeing another "Garfield" strip. It's easily among the most banal creations ever (He likes lasagna! OMG, that's soooo funny!), but still I can't help but read it. Some small voice deep down suggests that once, if only once, it'll pay off. I know it won't, but hope springs eternal.
 
TS knows there's no "official" story. The NIST is not even the sole version, just a heavily documented study of certain elements. The official version that TS refers to is a concatanation of the facts in various reports; the facts that the troofers have turned into their grand CT. There are so many variables on 9/11 CT that there is no way the NIST addresses all of them.

Chipmunk - maybe post five bullets.
1. The twin towers were brought down by the effects and after effects of two passenger airlines being flown into them.
2. There were no extraneous/exterior elements introduced to aid in the destruction of the towers.
3. WTC 7 collapsed as a result of structural damage from the collapse of WTC1.
4. 93 / Shanksville was REAL. Not an optical illusion.
5. A real plane, not a missile, hit the Pentagon.
That'd be my "official version". You don't have to go any farther, because those are the items most of us believe are true. It's the CT side that has to provide their proofs that these items are not true.

Most of TS's "evidence" is from Ross, so he has to be willing to come to the party on at least items 1, 2, and 3.

This is my penultimate post on this topic - only offered in the hopes that my suggestion above might push him to the debate thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom