The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Blah blah blah $1,000,000.00 blah blah blahblahblah blah blah WTC7 blahblah blah blah blahblah JREF blah blah blah blah TOWERS blahblahblah blah IMPACT blahblah blah blah blahblah blah FIRE blahblah blah blahblah blah

What did he say?

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I offer $1000.00 to anyone who will debate me, one on one, on a closed thread, and start the thread with the positive case for the impact/fire hypothesis. Resolved: WTC1,2, and 7 came down due to impact damage and fire.

Debate according to Arkan's rules. $100 up front (i.e. upon your having opened the thread made the first post being made), $900.00 balance paid upon completion of the debate.

OK, it's not the $1,000,000.00 challenge, but at least it's physically possible for someone to have an online debate, unlike the JREF $1,000,000.00 challenge.

How about it, anyone want my money?

I accept your challenge. Furthermore, I'll illustrate how the whole thing can be fairly and feasably handled.

Here are the terms of my acceptance:

1. You will set up a free account at NetTeller.com.

2. You will deposit US$1,000 into your NetTeller account via any of the methods they offer. The best way is to associate your NetTeller account with an account at your local bank. Once you have done this, you can do an electronic funds transfer via simply clicking a link. There is no fee for this service if you are willing to wait 2-5 business days.

3. Via the JREF forum, you will send me a private message containing your NetTeller account number. If you would prefer another method of conveyance, you may send me a private message indicating the details of how you would like to send me this information.

4. I will respond via the JREF forum, or another mutually acceptable means of conveyance, with a private message containing my NetTeller account number. (I already have a NetTeller account, because I play online poker and NetTeller is a commonly-used means of transferring funds to/from poker sites and to/from local bank accounts.)

5. You will transfer US$100 from your NetTeller account to mine. This will constitute the "$100 up front" clause of your original offer.

6. When my NetTeller account has received the up-front US$100, I will make arrangements with the forum mods to begin the "private thread." I will post the "positive case" as dictated by your terms of the original post on this thread, and by the debate rules set forth in the thread entitled "Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum." I will also send you a private message indicating that the debate has begun and that it is your turn to respond.

7. I am not an official of JREF, or any other official organization, and you may not represent me as such. I am a private individual. You may, however, represent me as a "believer in the official story of 9/11," or similar verbiage.

7b. You are not an official of any official organization, unless you wish to be identified as one, and can provide proof of membership. I may represent you as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist", or similar verbiage.

7c. I am free to use terms like "kook," "wackjob," "wingnut," "conspiratard," "tin foil hatter," and other perjoratives to express my disdain with your conspiracy-theory beliefs. You are free to use terms like "shill", "sheeple", "blue pill", "drone", and other perjoratives to describe me.

8. You may freely republish the text of our debate, to the extent that your user agreement with the JREF forum allows. I have the same right.

9. Your use of "JREF" and other terms referring to this website is dictated by the terms of the agreement you accepted when you registered a username/password with the JREF forums. You may refer to me as "Triterope of the JREF forums", or some similar verbiage. I may refer to you as "TruthSeeker1234 of the JREF forums" or some similar verbiage.

10. The debate rules set forth in the thread entitled "Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum," hereinafter "Arkan's rules", will be used in this debate, per your request. These rules read as follows:

Quote:

1) a) The side arguing for the proposition (Side A) shall post first.
Side A shall post an introduction that shall state the proposition they will be defending and five points that they will argue in defense of the proposition. One post in length.

1) b) The side arguing against the proposition (Side D) shall post next.
Side B shall post an introduction that shall state how they shall be arguing against the proposition and five counter-arguments they will argue against the proposition. One post in length.

2) a) Side A will present point 1. One post in length.
2) b) Side D will present counter-point 1. One post in length.

3) a) Side A will present point 2. One post in length.
3) b) Side D will present counter-point 2. One post in length.

4) a) Side A will present point 3. One post in length.
4) b) Side D will present counter-point 3. One post in length.

5) a) Side A will present point 4. One post in length.
5) b) Side D will present counter-point 4. One post in length.

6) a) Side A will present point 5. One post in length.
6) b) Side D will present counter-point 5. One post in length.

7) a) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) b) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) c) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) d) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) e) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) f) Side D will defend. One post in length.

8) a) Side A will present their summary. One post in length.
8) b) Side D will present their summary. One post in length.

I will be the (a) side of each debate, in accordance with the terms you set forth in the original post on this thread.

11. Before each stage of the debate, you will transfer US$100 from your NetTeller account to mine, as explained previously.

The "$100 up front" as discussed in item #5 of this message will cover item 1) a) of Arkan's rules. Upon receipt of this first $100, I will post an introduction that will state the proposition I will be defending and five points that I will argue in defense of the proposition. You may then respond as outlined in item 1) b) of Arkan's rules.

After items 1) a) and 1) b) of Arkan's rules have played out, I will await the transfer of the second $100 from your NetTeller account to mine. Once this second $100 is received, I will post item 2) a) per Arkan's rules. You may then respond with item 2) b).

This process will continue through items 3) a), 4) a), 5) a), 6) a), 7) a), 7) c), 7) e), and 8) a). Conveniently enough, Arkan's rules allow for ten stages of the debate, and ten times $100 is the $1000 you offer. If you are really willing to pay $1000 for a ten-stage debate, you need only transfer me $100 before each stage, and you shall have it.

12. There shall be no written contract dictating the terms of this arrangement. The arrangement is structured such that you will pre-pay no more than $100 at any time, and I that I will not debate without receiving payment. There is no need for an unnecessary and unenforceable contract. This will be a gentleman's agreement at all times.

13. After receipt of payment, I am entitled to 72 hours to post my response. If I fail to respond within 72 hours of receipt, I am in violation of the agreement.

13b. After you post each of your (b) posts as outlined in Arkan's rules, you shall have a reasonable number of days to transfer your next $100 payment. Abandoning the debate, or otherwise not paying, will be considered a violation of our agreement.

14. At all stages, both parties shall allow reasonable time for money transfers to occur. Please note that this will cause the entire debate to take several weeks.

14b. You may pay in advance at any time, with no penalty. In the event of any pre-paid debate, I will have 72 hours after you make your (b) post to post the next item in the debate.

15. I reserve the right to consume copious amounts of alcohol during the debate, as I do not feel this will hinder my ability to address any points you may raise.

16. Both parties may consult with whatever experts they deem appropriate. However, only the posts made on the official thread, as set for by Arkan's rules, shall be definitive.

17. Both parties may at all times comment publicly on the agreement, including violations of same.

18. Both parties agree to allow reasonable time for any real-world emergencies that my arise. However, if either party is unable to post on the debate thread, they may not post elsewhere on JREF forum or anywhere else on the Internet.

19. There shall be no subjective determination of winners and losers. The text of the debate will tell its own story. Both participants are free to declare themselves the winner... since we know both of us will, anyway.

20. I agree to donate half of any money I earn in this endeavor to the James Randi Educational Foundation.

TruthSeeker1234, you have three weeks from Monday to make my NetTeller balance increase by $100. That is October 16, 2006. That is plenty of time to take the necessary steps, and for the funds to show up in my account. If you do not do so, I can only conclude that you are not willing to honor your own offer.

If you do not agree to all 20 of my conditions, I am willing to discuss minor changes. However, the following items are not negotiable:

A. NetTeller as a method of fund conveyance.
B. My payment schedule, as outlined in #5, #11, #12, and #13b. Especially #11.
C. Arkan's Rules, as reproduced above, which you said you wanted to use. Also, that I will be "Side A" and you will be "Side D" within them.
D. That the subject matter will not deviate from your original assertion on this thread, beyond the five points that each side is allowed to raise within Arkan's rules. As a reminder, your original assertion was: "Resolved: WTC1,2, and 7 came down due to impact damage and fire."

I await your reply.

[qarnos]

Can we add a clause which states if TS fails to meet this response to his challenge he will cease posting any 9/11 related material to this forum?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by qarnos

Can we add a clause which states if TS fails to meet this response to his challenge he will cease posting any 9/11 related material to this forum?

Let´s say he must accept the official story and spread it if he is losing

[Foolmewunz]

Triterope - good post.

TS - there it is. All the details nice and neat and worked out for you.

Your next objection would be ??????

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Triterope

12. There shall be no written contract dictating the terms of this arrangement.

You can say there's no written contract, but there is and it seems to be a very good one. Each of you should print out Triterope's post and sign it. I would encourage you to exchange information on your real names and addresses. Troofseeker1234 is believed to be a sound engineer working for a cable company's public access studios in Los Angeles.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Well, I don't think he wants non-exclusive rights to the content. He just wants rights to republish the content. Having quickly looked, I can't find anywhere on this site where the JREF assets any exclusive ownership of the material posted here.

It's at the bottom of each page of the site and forum:

© 2001-2006, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Stellafane was tempted.

Not quite. I will give you $100 after you start a closed thread in which you post a detailed proof in support of the following propostion: "WTC1,2, 7 were brought down by impact damage fires". You agree to fufill the terms of debate set up by Arkan Wolfshade. I guess Arkan has agreed to moderate, is that correct?

Triterope has already beaten me to this. But your original post said nothing about only one person being eligible for a $1000 payoff, so...

Before we begin, we need to remove the subjectivity out of the agreement. Thus terms such as "detailed proof" are meaningless. In the opening post, I will post your proposition verbatim, and offer what I consider satisfactory evidence to convincingly support it. If that evidence consists of a single sentence, so be it -- I have fulfilled the requirements for the $100. At that point you will mail me a check for that amount. I will post nothing in the debate thread until the check arrives. That may not sound very trusting of me, but you're the admitted hoaxer, not I. You also may not like giving me personal info such as your name, but you'll know mine, my address, etc, so we'll each have info about the other that will guarantee we don't misuse it.

After the $100 check clears, I will make another post in the debate thread. You will then me a check for the remaining $900, because from that point on the debate can end at any time -- indeed, if my second post is simply "I give up," then technically I have kept my part of the bargain. I will not allow you to dangle the mythical $900 in front of me, just to entice me to follow along as you play games, derail, go around in circles, ignore questions, repeat yourself, and carry on ad infinitum. I base this concern on your posting record here in the JREF forum -- frankly, your performance here thus far indicates that these are the kind of tactics you routinely employ. And again, admitted hoaxers really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. (I may as well also tell you that we're working under an additional burden: I think most CTists are nuts. That may not sound very charitable of me, and you may take offense that I'm prejudging you accordingly. I'm not, but I do want to have all the cards carefully laid out on the table. After all, we're talking a cool grand here.)

After the $900 check clears, I will debate you in accordance with Arkan's rules. You will be motivated to behave by the fact that you want to get your $1000 worth, and I will be motivated by my ethical commitment to fulfilling a contract -- plus the desire not to look like a fool in front of my fellow JREFers.

As for my debate qualifications, obviously I'm hardly one of the brighter stars in the JREF firmament. But I am a professional writer with a lot of experience explaining things clearly and concisely. I don't have anywhere near the in-depth technical firepower at my disposal that many others here do. On the other hand, I have an enormous advantage that you don't: I'm right. Being right doesn't necessarily guarantee success in a debate, of course. But assuming that the debaters are relatively evenly matched (and based on your postings in this forum, I see no evidence whatsoever that you have any advantage over me in that department) and an open-minded audience (thank you, JREF), the truth will generally prevail in the end.

Well, what do you say, dude? Aye or nay?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper

It's at the bottom of each page of the site and forum:

© 2001-2006, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

That may not apply to the user-created content. After all, it's impossible to assert a copyright in something that does not exist yet.

[Alareth]

I'm starting to wonder who is more mentally unstable, TS1234 or Christophera...

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

That may not apply to the user-created content. After all, it's impossible to assert a copyright in something that does not exist yet.

Not to derail the thread, but I know based on my experience with the Internet Infidels Discussion Board that the owners of a message board can be held liable for the content of the posts its users make, for example, violating someone else's copyright, issuing death threats, and the like.

I also know that while there's nothing stopping a person from copying and pasting information from a message board such as IIDB or JREF, the owners of the message board do own the content and can legally challenge its use (example: if TruthSeeker1234 copied this entire thread to his personal website, JREF could ask him to cease and desist, and threaten to sue).

So if TS1234 wants to enter into a formal debate, he has to come to some sort of legal terms with the JREF. I'm not very familiar with JREF's policies, but I can see that ©, and I know what it means elsewhere.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Alareth

I'm starting to wonder who is more mentally unstable, TS1234 or Christophera...

Oh damn.

You bring up a good point. I'm a greedy SOB (freelance writers have to be), but I'm not going to stoop to taking money from someone with serious mental issues. I certainly wouldn't even consider taking a dime from Chris, and if I start seeing TS in the same light, my conscious is gonna bug me bigtime. Guess I gotta go think about this a little...

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Oh damn.

You bring up a good point. I'm a greedy SOB (freelance writers have to be), but I'm not going to stoop to taking money from someone with serious mental issues. I certainly wouldn't even consider taking a dime from Chris, and if I start seeing TS in the same light, my conscious is gonna bug me bigtime. Guess I gotta go think about this a little...

I have given the issue a lot of thought with these guys, and since they toil in anonymity we can only take them at face value. I felt very bad about hitting on Chris because I hadn't followed one of my own cardinal rules and always researched a poster. I thought I new Christophera from 3.5 months of posts, but I hadn't read the Sept 11 to 16 "coming out" posts.

I think in this case, TS has not indicated anything other than, an unrelenting if haughty stubborness and mocking frat boy attitude. Unless he evidences something more serious, he's still a qualified (and extremely annoying) opponent. I frequently call him a liar, and will continue to do so. If I see proof (to my satisfaction, of course, but I'll take advice from any of the people here whom I respect) that he's something else, I'll reconsider.

I hope this isn't begging the underlying question, e.g. that all such driven crusading troofers may have something that's "just not there". If we consider Roxdog, Jones, Killtown, TS, Chris.... So far only Chris has shown serious delusions. The others are, and have to be, 'fair game'. Otherwise, out of sensitivity, we just leave the field open to them to go on spewing their venom and converting the ill-informed.

>>>> IMHO.

[Josh Redstone]

Heh. I'd do this for free.
How about it Truthseeker1234?

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

No, I didn't see Abby's acceptance of my challenge. Let me look for it.

Many of us have indulged in speculation about just who out of the usual circus of Loosers this "TruthSeeker1234" really is. I'm now going to surmise that he is, in fact, DJLegacy's mythical "cousin."

What is taking so freaking long?? You've got at least five acceptances to choose from now, so hop to it! My popcorn is getting cold!

[Oliver]

I see u´re online, TS - say something, Troll.

ETA: ...and reading the Thread...
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11702

[TruthSeeker1234]

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?


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.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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.

If they are so stupid to agree with you [rule1-end],
i start a poll asking: "The official end of Truthseeker: YES / NO".

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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.

Or, you know, in your mother's kitchen.

That way, at least, there'd be a built-in moderator. And maybe cookies.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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

Typical - when your bluff is called, you move the goalposts.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Mackey says I've Backed out?? What planet are you on, RMackey? I want a debate thread so bad I'm willing to pay for it.

If you want it that bad reach down, stroke, stroke.

[Oliver]

By the way:

General Question:

Did someone in here saw Christopera and Truthseeker1234 online at the same time?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

By the way:

General Question:

Did someone in here saw Christopera and Truthseeker1234 online at the same time?

3" rebar on 4' centers.

Well I am seeing a pattern of large round things.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by DHR

3" rebar on 4' centers.

Well I am seeing a pattern of large round things.

I´m sorry - could you translate it to english?

[Oliver]

Surprise, Surprise - TS and CHRIS are online at the same time. Using two different browser on the same machine? Hey, just asking questions...

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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?

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

Of course you do. That's the point.

Originally Posted by "[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.

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.

[Mince]

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.

[Architect]

Originally Posted by Alareth

I'm starting to wonder who is more mentally unstable, TS1234 or Christophera...

I think you'll find that mental dudes with cash are just "eccentric"

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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?

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.

[Foolmewunz]

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

[Foolmewunz]

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?

[Oliver]

@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". (a german phrase)

[Oliver]

ADDED: He´s very good in demoralizing.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

at 4:45, when I realized that no one is willing to actually defend the official story.

You would have had a head start on that by reading my thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=104

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

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Christophera

You would have had a head start on that by reading my thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=104

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

What´s your point, Chris - even if you are right - what hard evidenve do we have to stop the gov?

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Oliver

What´s your point, Chris - even if you are right - what hard evidenve do we have to stop the gov?

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?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Christophera

You would have had a head start on that by reading my thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=104

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

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.)

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

ETA: Oliver/Mince - please don't play with Chris. He's not well. (No smiley... this is serious.)

I know that for fact, Foolmewunz...
Shall we "Poll it"?

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Gravy

By the way, it's Gravy, no "E." Jennabell/SBrown kept making the same mistake.

Nice catch!

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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.)

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!

[Gravy]

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.