The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way:

General Question:

Did someone in here saw Christopera and Truthseeker1234 online at the same time?
 
Oliver said:
By the way:

General Question:

Did someone in here saw Christopera and Truthseeker1234 online at the same time?
Click to expand...

3" rebar on 4' centers.

Well I am seeing a pattern of large round things.
 
Surprise, Surprise - TS and CHRIS are online at the same time. Using two different browser on the same machine? Hey, just asking questions... :p
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, the response is encouraging. The suggestion of using a PayPal or similar account is fine.

I need to contact someone from JREF, as I need a deal from them.

I would like a pledge from JREF that the thread is to be titled "The Official JREF WTC Collapse Debate", and that it will be a "sticky" thread, located at the top of the "conspiracy theories" front page, and that it will remain there for at least one year. And I need clearance to republish the thread, in whole or in part, forever.

Can someone more familiar with JREF tell me who and how to contact?
Click to expand...

You do realise there is almost zero chance of JREF agreeing to anything?

Of course you do. That's the point.


[quote="[rule8]hole"The offer is for one person and one debate. I did not consider how I might choose between multiple applicants. Perhaps the peanut gallery can decide by consensus who they think would best represent the official story.

I also need to do some work clarifying the requirements for the positive position. A summary of relevant evidence is essential, for that is one of the main criticisms we have, namely, that so much relevant data is so often ignored.

First things first. If I can't come to terms with JREF, I'll have to go back to my original idea of getting someone to debate on television.[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah.

Be careful TS. When I was younger, if I peddled backwards to quickly, I'd end up locking up the brakes on my bicycle.
 
TruthSeeker:

If you never post here again, and I mean you and not your user name) I will personally pay you $20,000,000,000* U.S. I am totally, totally serious here bra.

































*Payable 5 cents a year over the next 400,000,000,000 years.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Gravey, I accept, as long as you spend the first part of the first day starting a thread here call "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 came down because of impact damage and fires". And after that we continue the debate, per Arkan Wolfshade's guidelines.

Actually, a round trip ticket from NY to LA, plus hotel, and some spending money sounds like around a grand.
Click to expand...
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Mackey officially turned down my offer to debate on live T.V, which is still my first choice of what I'd like to do. Gravey, if I buy your plane ticket and hotel room, will you come on T.V. and debate me for an hour? Please?
Click to expand...
As usual, you miss the point. I was offering a friendly, educational experience, not an adversarial debate. You have continually refused to address the questions put to you in the threads here, many of which you started. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of how to approach answering these questions. With statements like "complete powderization," "Shredded steel," and "pyroclastic flow," you've displayed a stupefying ignorance of reality. That's what I'm offering to help you with.

I would debate with leaders of the "truth movement," such as Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Dylan Avery, Les Jamieson, Alex Jones, because these people have shaped public opinion about the terrorist attacks. You have not. You have played the fool again and again. You need help, not someone to argue with. If you'd like help understanding these things, my offer stands.

By the way, it's Gravy, no "E." Jennabell/SBrown kept making the same mistake.
 
I need to contact someone from JREF, as I need a deal from them.

I would like a pledge from JREF that the thread is to be titled "The Official JREF WTC Collapse Debate", and that it will be a "sticky" thread, located at the top of the "conspiracy theories" front page, and that it will remain there for at least one year. And I need clearance to republish the thread, in whole or in part, forever.
Click to expand...

TS1234, time will tell, but this seems to be leaving you a quick escape clause. Firstly, the JREF does not have an official position on anything discussed in this forum. They host it and moderate it for civility and clarity (of structure). They (nor James Randi) do not authorize any "official version" of anything.

Nor, to the best of my knowledge, would anyone here propose that we could get together a symposium to decide that Gravy or Abby or Triterope or Shemp is the "official" spokesperson for members who frequent this sub-forum. Therefore, an "Official JREF Debate" is probably not going to happen.
Perhaps someone from admin or mods could disabuse this notion quickly, so that we can cotinue?


The offer is for one person and one debate. I did not consider how I might choose between multiple applicants. Perhaps the peanut gallery can decide by consensus who they think would best represent the official story.
Click to expand...

The "official" story is in the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports. Our interpretation of that evidence (our "support" of that evidence, if you will) is what you're reading here. None of us really proposes that every word on every page of those massive documents is carved in marble.

I also need to do some work clarifying the requirements for the positive position. A summary of relevant evidence is essential, for that is one of the main criticisms we have, namely, that so much relevant data is so often ignored.
Click to expand...

I presume your post of summary evidence is going to be in the form of links? You cannot be offering to post every single word of your various "documents" on this forum, can you? This, IMHO, is a blatant trojan horse, in either form. You would be allowed to post reams of documents from other sources (which we've already seen and debunked) and start the whole obfuscation process over again).

Any summary of evidence needs to be clearly defined as a precis or outline in bullet points of the documents or sources you feel support your CD/implosion theory. A debate consists of two individuals stating and supporting their cases/theories from their own knowledge and within their own abilities, not two bro's whacking each other over the head with reference tomes.

First things first. If I can't come to terms with JREF, I'll have to go back to my original idea of getting someone to debate on television.
Click to expand...

Again with that escape clause.

So, TS... What is the ultimate purpose? Truth or publicity. The requirement to give you lifetime rights to the material (including the words of your oponent) would allow you to slice and dice to your little heart's content.

Are you seeking truth? Gravy is one sincere dude, TS. He's willing to sit with you, with no "peanut gallery" or smartass Greek Chorus (I'm guilty of this) cheering either of you on. The most telling events on 9/11 are that Gravy and friends are willing (nay anxious) to actually engage some of these folks head on. Read Gravy's comments on Rodriguez, for instance. He's not setting you up. He'd like to spend a number of hours, uninterrupted, going through the factual points. That's a generous offer of his time.

(I also believe R. Mackey's in L.A. Maybe we're assuming you're in L.A. for that reason, since you may have suggested that location figuring you could get R. Mackey to agree if you made it nearby. If you're really both in L.A., and really want to DISCUSS the evidence, I'm going to hazard a guess that Mackey might be willing to show up if Gravy comes to the coast. I'm basing this on the fact that Mackey has said all along that the challenge to you was to not just link to but to support the scientific evidence - Ross et al - and that he would be happy to refute, debunk, discuss.)

What's wrong with this approach other than the missing bright lights and attention? Is it just that you want a JREF scalp to hang on the CT tepeee? That we're not going to hand you unless you earn it. But if you want the truth, why are you so adamant that it has to be a public flogging?
 
PS to Gravy - Lax is real close to Vegas. Time it to coincide with the TAM gathering. I believe there's been a request that perhaps you do a paper for TAM. You could rent a car and be in Vegas in no time! How ironic to have TS sponsor a trip of this sort? ;)
 
@Foolmewunz: I guess you are talking to a wall - but i appreciate that you try to challenge him. Don´t let him take the "wind out of your sails". :o (a german phrase)
 
Oliver said:
What´s your point, Chris - even if you are right - what hard evidenve do we have to stop the gov? ;)
Click to expand...


Yeah, Chris. Oliver is correct.

OK. All three towers were collapsed by demolition. Now what? Who did it? Don't say the Government; you can't indict the whole Government. What's your proof on who, precisely, is culpable?
 
Christophera said:
You would have had a head start on that by reading my thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57426&page=104

but recent (non) attempts to defend the official story are much more obivous
Click to expand...

Aw, Chris, you know that's just not true. You've had four months and four thousand posts of refuting your various UCT (Unofficial Conspiracy Theories). We cannot reason with someone who cannot be reasoned with. Your version of reality is, shall we say, somewhat different from the rest of us. Rather than trolling these boards, you should be seeking a community of kindred souls and try to gradually relate to the real world. We've asked if you'd consider seeking professional help, but I take it that with your world-view you would never trust the mental health community.

It's 6 PM in California. Go down to the local Starbuck's and meet some people, fellow! Read up on baseball - it's the end of the season and the playoffs are starting... engage people in simple mundane topics before you explain to them that we're all in an unconscious hypnotic state.

ETA: Oliver/Mince - please don't play with Chris. He's not well. (No smiley... this is serious.)
 
Gravy said:
By the way, it's Gravy, no "E." Jennabell/SBrown kept making the same mistake.
Click to expand...

Nice catch!

Foolmewunz said:
I also believe R. Mackey's in L.A. Maybe we're assuming you're in L.A. for that reason, since you may have suggested that location figuring you could get R. Mackey to agree if you made it nearby. If you're really both in L.A., and really want to DISCUSS the evidence, I'm going to hazard a guess that Mackey might be willing to show up if Gravy comes to the coast.)
Click to expand...
TruthSeeker1234 strikes me as potentially dangerous in person. I'll have to leave that open. However, Gravy, if you make the trek to SoCal, look me up!
 
TruthSeeker1234 and Christophera are under the bizarre delusion that the results of the 9/11 investigations need to be defended by us – people who were not involved with the investigations. They don't understand that those results are supported – massively and comprehensively – by the documentation in the reports. I wonder what it would take to get these delusiophiles to read the reports that they blindly disagree with.
 
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