The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boycott This Thread, Please!

Foolmewunz said:
This is my penultimate post on this topic - only offered in the hopes that my suggestion above might push him to the debate thread.
Click to expand...

And this one is my final post in this thread!

I think we should all declare carpal and cease writing. No more feeding the troll! If he wants attention let him go to the debate thread. TS, I'll be over in the "peanut gallery". Chipmunk Stew awaits you.
 
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...

What you want seeems anal
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Clearly everything cited in the NIST report has been shown to be either false or irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Garnos caought this earlier, but I missed it.

You don't have to give us everything, TS, just give a couple of examples of NIST findings that are false or irrelevant, and back up your claims. That's what we do here, in case you didn't notice. It's a forum for critical thinkers. If you fail to do that, it's back on ignore for you.
 
You don't have to give us everything, TS, just give a couple of examples of NIST findings that are false or irrelevant, and back up your claims.
Click to expand...

Gravy, pay attention. The struture of the proposed debate is that someone will present their explanation of why the towers "collapsed" as they did. It is that person which has the responsibility to back up his/her claims. I then will present the negative case against that.

If the challenger endorses a concept from NIST, and explains it, I will comment upon it. Thus far no one has accepted the challenge, as ChipmunkStew pathetic thread amply demonstrates. My providing a single link was in response to Chipmunk's providing a single link. If you have objection to this technique, you should criticize Chipmunk.

Each day that passes makes me more and more confident that nobody here is willing and able to articulate a theory. This is why you all resort to name calling and trolling. It isn't very persuasive.
 
Fool said
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.
Click to expand...

No "official" story??? Is this true?? No, I didn't know that. I thought there was an official story. What is it you guys believe in then? Do you each have your own individual pet theroies? Or what?

No wonder nobody will present the postive case. According to Fool, there isn't one to present. Hmmmmmmm. No wonder this is so difficult.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Each day that passes makes me more and more confident that nobody here is willing and able to articulate a theory. This is why you all resort to name calling and trolling. It isn't very persuasive.
Click to expand...
CS agrees w/ the NIST findings. Everything in the NIST reports are backed up w/ evidence, facts, and math resulting from years of careful study of the matter.

CS is not an expert, thus he defers to the actual experts. If you think you are an expert, and have evidence to show that the NIST reports or any part of them are wrong, present it. If you can't do that, you're in agreement that the NIST reports are the best explanation we have for the WTC collapses.

Now, put up or shut up.
 
If CS is not able to present his theory in his own words, he is not qualified for the challenge. If someone challenged me to explain special relativity, and I provided a link to a 10,000 page treatise on Einstein, and said "I agree with this", how would you guys respond? Hmmmm? Pathetic.
 
Ah, I see the problem BakedBeansForBrains1234 needs NIST explained to him .
Click to expand...
Go with that. It's not just me. It is the general audience. Assume an intelligent payperson who has time to read a book, but not a 10,000 page cross-referenced treatise. Assume you were explaining the collapse to someone who had never heard any collapse theroy one way or the other. Use whatever quotes and pictures are needed, from sources you consider to be reliable. Explain it with sufficient detail to satisfy the curious layperson. Account for all of what you consider to be the relevant evidence.

I would estimate that a decent job of the first positive case could be done in around 10-20 pages perhaps. Less? Maybe, I don't know. Try it! If you guys are so invested in this belief, why not write it down?

Yes, the challenge is to explain NIST to me, in around 10-20 pages with pictures. The total debate will be around 100 pages, 50 by each side.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If CS is not able to present his theory in his own words, he is not qualified for the challenge. If someone challenged me to explain special relativity, and I provided a link to a 10,000 page treatise on Einstein, and said "I agree with this", how would you guys respond? Hmmmm? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I see you are still squirming about.

Ok let me try to put this in very simple terms for you.

The final report from NIST is accepted by the vast majority of the engineering and scientific community as the most plausible explanation for the cause of the collapse of the Towers.

You clearly do not agree with it. Now all you have to do is the following.

1. State which points you disagree with.
2. State why.
3. Offer an alternative or more plausible explanation.

Now is this clear enough for you? Do you understand that by laying down your challenge you have in effect challenged this report?

Stop dismissing it, address it and show us why it is wrong, as you have been promising to do for the past week or so.
 
State of Grace issued his own challenge!
The final report from NIST is accepted by the vast majority of the engineering and scientific community as the most plausible explanation for the cause of the collapse of the Towers.

You clearly do not agree with it. Now all you have to do is the following.

1. State which points you disagree with.
2. State why.
3. Offer an alternative or more plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, State. But it is not the challenge I presented.

If you are interested in the TruthSeeker1234 $1000 challenge, please send me an email and we will work out the details

[email protected]
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
State of Grace issued his own challenge!

This is interesting, State. But it is not the challenge I presented.

If you are interested in the TruthSeeker1234 $1000 challenge, please send me an email and we will work out the details

[email protected]
Click to expand...
Run away, coward. You have no facts, no coherent hypothesis of what happened, no nothing. You are a fraud, plain and simple.
 
I am not interested in a one on one debate with you, simply because I have not got the time, patience nor do I pretend to be something I am not. Nor will I indulge in stroking your paranoid ego. I rely and trust experts that investigated this event. You are the one that does not.

I laid down no challenge I asked you three questions which you have refused continually to answer. So do yourself a favour and stop trying to call peoples bluff, you have done so in the past and ended up with egg all over your silly smirking face.

You have challenged individuals on this forum to this debate; it has been accepted by members and you refused continually to back your case.

Now simply go to thread which as been set up for your little ego trip and state your case.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
State of Grace trolled

Then please stay off of this thread. THis thread is for people interested in a one on one debate with me.
Click to expand...

No.

Censorship and suppression of opinions maybe the norm in your world but in the real world freedom of speech and expression are alive and well.

This is an open thread that you started and all opinions are valid and unless I am asked by those who run this forum not to post here...........screw you
 
So far you seem to be debating what a debate is, rather than any issue that you've stated you wish to debate. Several here have given you great starting points, and one gave you a whole thread, but you keep avoiding actually discussing the topics presented. You don't have to answer everybody, just pick one topic and stick with it until it resolves itself. CS presented his/her position in the title of his/her thread and gave his/her source, now is your time to rebut his/her statement (I'm willing to give you a "mulligan" on the first post). What part of the statement "Resolved: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires," do you disagree with? Answer on the thread of the same name.
 
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