The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[stateofgrace]

Congratulations Stellafane! I have chosen you, the writer. Who better to write it than the writer? You are hired. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think I remember someone calling you Kate, or maybe it was you. In any case, I wrote this to Kate, but if that's not correct then please understand that "Kate" means "Stellafane".

Congratulations Kate! I have chosen you, above all others to earn the $1000.00! You come highly recommended by R.Mackey.

I have a great idea, an it could be a career breakthrough for you. Why don't you pitch publishers on the idea of your doing a story about this debate? Instead of posting right away on JREF, we agree to do the whole debate by private email. We each agree not to publish any part of our dialog until after our publishing deals have been signed.

While our debate dialog is proceeding, you can also communicate with me and ask me anything you want about my personal life and what I do for a living. A lot of people think what I do for a living would be very interesting and rewarding, and they're right! I manipulate many unusual objects in fun way, and somehow that translates into paychecks in my mailbox.

Kate, I will reveal to you anything you want to know, as long as you agree to keep it all to yourself until our publisher decides to break the story. I'll send you $100 per week through paypal for 10 weeks, totaling $1000. That should give you plenty of time to pitch your story idea and get a deal for yourself.

There seems to be great curiosity out there about just who I might happen to turn out to be in real life. I will tell all to Kate, and Kate will have herself a great story. "Conspiracy Theorist Lunatic Debunked Back in to Reality" or whatever by Kate. "Kate Wins Debate! Handsdown!" There Kate. Pitch that headline. I'm sure you can think of something even better than my lame titles. You can give them the actual debate, and also do a human interest piece on me. "How the other side thinks" or whatever. "Journey into a diseased mind". There, give them that one. A real hit piece. They sell Kate. Now go sell your idea about doing a hit piece on TruthSeeker1234.

I can tell you this much now. My real name currently appears on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth home page.

Congratulations TS !!, there is very few times I openly laugh out loud when I look at my computer screen, especially when at work.

You really are a self important ego maniac aren’t you?

“this could be your big break"... as if. Do you really imagine that anybody is in the slightest bit interested in reading a book about you? Man I am laughing as I write this, you really are the most self centered so and so who spews verbal diarrhea onto the net, expecting everybody to take you all seriously.

TS, you laid down a challenge it as been accepted. Deal with it.

Also deal with the fact , nobody is ever going to write a book about you, nobody is ever going to read about you and generally speaking nobody but other loonies are ever going to listen to you. There is no curiosity about you, nobody cares who you are. You are just a nobody who reads too much drivel on conspiracy web sites.

Except the fact you are a nobody, a trivial little individual who thinks by your powers of deduction you are going to bring down the biggest democratically elected government on the face of the planet. You are not.

Now start your thread, (another one), restate your nonsense, ignore everything that contradicts it, ignore educated opinions, expert views and science. Finally declare yourself the winner by virtue of the fact that people have simply got sick and tired of seeing the same garbage over and over again.

 

[chran]

Instead of posting right away on JREF, we agree to do the whole debate by private email.

Go **** yourself. And your mom.

 

[uruk]

Exactly why those that believe there were 47 1300 foot steel columns in the core area of the towers should try and convince me with proof equal to what the demoliton images provide me.

Here's your steel columns right here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wtc_nist1.gif

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...llery?index=36
http://www.ajy.net/jmb/graphics/wtc-undercon.jpg

The newsday photos show the steel columns going all the way down to sub-basment level

PS Well it would seem the news day links are dead let me see if I can find them again.
here's the newsday main page link showing the steel columns:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtcphotos0519,0,4762530.photogallery?index=41
Take particular note of the caption

untill then, try this:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-05/3121225.jpg

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've never done anything like this debate challenge before, so forgive me for not having considered important aspects.

The additions and changes I have been adding into the challenge are in response to legitimate questions raised by members. For example, Loss Leader pointed out that this may be unenforceable unless I receive something for my money. I think he is correct. That led to the idea that, for my money, I will receive non-exclusive publishing rights to the document. This is fair to me, but it is not something I can offer if the debate takes place on JREF.

Two solutions occured to me. One is to get a deal from JREF, which I proposed, and have not heard back on. The other is to take the debate off JREF, where the other participant and I can do what we agree about publishing.

This led to the idea of an article being written about the debate. Why not? Elevated visability is needed, on both sides of the debate. Why do you think Popular Mechanics has come out with their book?

Since I offered the deal to Stellafane, I'll wait to hear back from him. I'm open to other ideas in response to my concerns. The idea is to get maximum interest generated in this very important undertaking.

If Stellafane declines, I will offer the deal to Tightrope, who seems very motivated. Tightrope, most of what you have written seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Stellafane]

Already responded earlier today -- see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1948312#post1948312

 

[Abbyas]

If Stellafane declines, I will offer the deal to Tightrope, who seems very motivated. Tightrope, most of what you have written seems perfectly fine to me.

Do you really think that people are fighting over this priviledge? Do you think that anyone is disapointed to not have been "chosen"? Do you think that Tightrope is on the edge of his/her seat, crossing his/her fingers that Stellafane will decline?

 

[Gravy]

For example, Loss Leader pointed out that this may be unenforceable unless I receive something for my money. I think he is correct.

Um, TruthSeeker1234, the concern about this being an unenforceable contract was that YOU would refuse to pay when your opponent followed the agreed-on debate rules. It appears that you are already refusing to do so. Stellafane agreed to your original terms, not to amendments you tried to make AFTER his agreement. Why do you refuse to abide by the rules of your own challenge?

Get this straight: this will be a debate between you and an individual. The JREF has nothing to do with it, beyond providing a space for it to happen and a moderator to advise that things be set straight if they go astray. There is no JREF sanction.

Third time: do you or do you not agree to honor your original terms and debate according to the very sensible rules that Arkan laid out?

No waffling, no excuses, no backpedaling. You have a chance to show everyone reading this that you are an honorable person.

Yes or no?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Get this straight: this will be a debate between you and an individual. The JREF has nothing to do with it, beyond providing a space for it to happen and a moderator to advise that things be set straight if they go astray. There is no JREF sanction.

Third time: do you or do you not agree to honor your original terms and debate according to the very sensible rules that Arkan laid out?

No waffling, no excuses, no backpedaling. You have a chance to show everyone reading this that you are an honorable person.

Yes or no?

I am going to honor my challenge. There will be a debate, and I will transfer money. I have to be very careful. It would be easy for someone to agree to the debate, then post a few trolling lines of flame bait, and demand the money. This would utterly defeat my purpose, and be completely unfair to me. My purpose is to create a credible debate with an articlulate person who genuinely attempts to put forward a thorough case. I know this is not definable.

I fail to see how attempting to publicize and make the event bigger is "backpedaling". It is "pedaling forward". I do not want to hide the debate, I want it witnessed by as many people as possible, thus my original offer to debate Mackey on TV.

Stellafane declined my offer, but his declination seemed to rest upon the notion that I was talking about a "book", when I was talking about an "article". I was looking for clarification that Stellafane has indeed declined so that I may focus on someone else.

Gravy, how about you? You are famous here. Are you willing and able to defend the official collapse theory?

 

[R.Mackey]

Damn, dude!

 

[Stellafane]

I am going to honor my challenge. There will be a debate, and I will transfer money. I have to be very careful. It would be easy for someone to agree to the debate, then post a few trolling lines of flame bait, and demand the money. This would utterly defeat my purpose, and be completely unfair to me. My purpose is to create a credible debate with an articlulate person who genuinely attempts to put forward a thorough case. I know this is not definable.

I fail to see how attempting to publicize and make the event bigger is "backpedaling". It is "pedaling forward". I do not want to hide the debate, I want it witnessed by as many people as possible, thus my original offer to debate Mackey on TV.

Stellafane declined my offer, but his declination seemed to rest upon the notion that I was talking about a "book", when I was talking about an "article". I was looking for clarification that Stellafane has indeed declined so that I may focus on someone else.

Gravy, how about you? You are famous here. Are you willing and able to defend the official collapse theory?

I have indeed declined the offer you made in post #141, irrespective of whether it was a book or an article involved.

 

[chran]

I have to be very careful. It would be easy for someone to agree to the debate, then post a few trolling lines of flame bait, and demand the money.

Dammit. See, that was MY plan.

Oh well.

 

[Oliver]

Could it be that TruthSeeker1234 is using you to promote his researches and that this intention of him is the reason to delay time?

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, how about you? You are famous here. Are you willing and able to defend the official collapse theory?

As I've mentioned here, the "defense" of the official investigations is in the reports. You would benefit by reading them.

I have asked you questions in threads in which you challenged aspects of the official story. You did not reply to my simple questions, such as:

Can you name a high explosive which has a blast duration of 1.75 seconds?

Why would demolitions explosives be planted on the 107th floor?

Do you know what a pyroclastic flow is, and were there any people on the ground in NYC on 9/11 who were killed by superheated poisonous gas from the towers?

What explosive is capable of producing the cutting effects on the steel you claim, the "complete powderization" of concrete you claim, and a volume of hot gas that expands to three times the size of the towers?

If I empty a bag of flour on the ground, should the dust cloud it creates not expand to a size larger than the volume of the bag?

Those questions directly addressed claims you made. As you know, if you want to present an alternate version of 9/11, the burden of proof is on you. But you won't provide evidence that backs your claims or answer questions about them. Which leads me to another question:

What sort of person would do that?

Since you said you would honor your challenge, proceed.

 

[Horatius]

I am going to honor my challenge. There will be a debate, and I will transfer money.

Well, I certainly hope so, my faith in long shots is riding on this.

I fail to see how attempting to publicize and make the event bigger is "backpedaling". It is "pedaling forward". I do not want to hide the debate, I want it witnessed by as many people as possible, thus my original offer to debate Mackey on TV.

It's backpedaling because any reasonable person would know that this isn't going to be published anywhere except on the net. You're just looking for an out, so you don"t have to put up or shut up.




And that's coming from the guy who bet on you, not against you!

 

[Gravy]

Let me be more succinct:

Stellafane, do you agree to a serious debate with TruthSeeker1234 in which you will start with the thesis that the WTC buildings collapsed as a result of structural damage, loss of fire protection, and fire (the "NIST" version), according to TS1234's payment schedule and Arkan's rules?

TruthSeeker1234, do you agree to honor your original payment schedule and amounts, as long as Stellafane complies with the rules of your original challenge and Arkan's format?

 

[Pardalis]

Why are you guys giving Truthseeker any importance? He wants the attention and you're giving it to him. Now he wants 9/11 to be a betting ring?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I think Stellafane backed out, the ball is in Tightrope's court. Gravy, if you want the job, I'll give it to you. You seem eager to actually get to the facts of the matter.

 

[Gravy]

Why are you guys giving Truthseeker any importance? He wants the attention and you're giving it to him. Now he wants 9/11 to be a betting ring?

Most of the 9/11 CTs I've encountered, online or in person, are not honorable people. Whether we like the idea or not, several people accepted T1234's original terms. I want to see if he has any sense of honor, or if he's just another lying creep.

 

[Pardalis]

Don't you feel any shame discussing money in this context Truthseeker?

Who are you to offer money for a debate? What gives you the right? This is a public forum, you have been able to have a debate since you logged in, you just simply won't acknowledge when you are wrong.

 

[Gravy]

I think Stellafane backed out, the ball is in Tightrope's court. Gravy, if you want the job, I'll give it to you. You seem eager to actually get to the facts of the matter.

Wrong. Stellafane agreed to your original terms. Will you honor them? Yes or no?