• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

Georgio said:
It's not down to me to prove anything as I have made no claim about her. I'm not sure if you have made a claim about her either, but if not then it isn't your responsibility to prove anything either. It is the responsibility of those claiming she is anti-Semitic to provide a proper case that it is so. This would be equally true for someone claiming she is not anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...
We're in a case similar to providing a citation from a book or article or paper. It's not the citer's responsibility to provide quotes; it's the sceptic person's responsibility to purchase the book/article/paper if interested in verifying it.

We had that for example with a citation of a paper on the conductivity paints in the Active Thermitic Material paper. No one cared enough to check, but no one did in principle reject the claims. My thoughts were that the burden of proof on the paper authors was met (the flaws were elsewhere, not in their method for providing the evidence). Then someone (Ivan?) came up with a table that we all could see, but the ATM authors were certainly not in an obligation to reproduce the table.
 
carlitos said:
What you are doing is transparent for all to see.
Click to expand...

I see. And what is that, in your view?

carlitos said:
Yeah, let's focus on whether you know what a word means, rather than a photoshop collage with a bunch of stars of David superimposed on Jews, who have been posed in ways to show their sinister laughter and big noses.
Click to expand...

Big noses? I think I missed that.

I hadn't noticed the stars, sorry. I was wrong - that image is heavily anti-Semitic and it doesn't matter about English comprehension. Re-posting that image as anything other than a condemnation of its creator is anti-Semitic.

If that's what she did then in that context the other ones are very likely to be motivated by the same 'thinking' rather than any other interpretation.

I retract my statement that the case is not made out properly - I think Grumme is an anti-Semite based on this evidence.
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
other interpretation.

I retract my statement that the case is not made out properly - I think Grumme is an anti-Semite based on this evidence.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Now, how does this knowledge change your worldview? How do truther arguments appeal or not appeal to you, given the context of truthers' paranoia and anti-Semitism?
 
I'd like to interject here.

The thread topic is Harrit's defamation suit. I brought up Grumme because a) she is Harrit's wife and b) the suit involves a comparison of Harrit's 9/11 quest with holocaust denialism - a severe form of antisemitism.

Now a more generalized discussion of antisemitism and 9/11 CTs will probably be off-topic - and it will require great care not to lump together things that are separate, and distinguish causes, effects and correlations.

I don't think many arguments made by truthers can be sensibly discussed in the context of an antisemitic worldview: Firstly, because not all who propose such arguments are antisemites (perhaps not even a majority), and secondly because the truth value of a technical claim does not change if the proponent changes his stance on Jewry.
All quite obvious.
 
Georgio said:
...
I retract my statement that the case is not made out properly - I think Grumme is an anti-Semite based on this evidence.
Click to expand...
Have you figured out 911 truth is nonsense, fraud, and failed claims pushed by crackpots like Harrit.

All claims by 911 truth are nonsense. With Harrit's thermite fake conclusion paper as evidence, as is all of Gage's failed "experts" you transcribed exposing their ignorance and BS.

Harrit meets the definition of crackpot on 911 issues, as he spews unfounded BS.
Niels Harrit: “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.”

Russia Today: “When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?”

Niels Harrit: “Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!”
Click to expand...
Is Niels a crackpot, or a liar.

Now the math...
Has Harrit maxed out the Crackpot Index?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
 
carlitos said:
Thanks. Now, how does this knowledge change your worldview? How do truther arguments appeal or not appeal to you, given the context of truthers' paranoia and anti-Semitism?
Click to expand...

It will make me question Niels Harrit's motivation a lot more than I did. It seems likely that he is influenced by Gromme. As far as the technical questions of the 911 controlled demolition claims go it does not affect my view of them at all. I'm still not sure about all the claims which is why I still read this forum every day.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was a 911 Truth supporter, unless being on the fence about the controlled demolition claims (which I still am and which is all I'm really interested in) makes me a 911 Truth supporter.

In hindsight I shouldn't have replied to this thread as I am not informed enough about politics - I could only name 7 people out of the 13 in that picture.
 
If being "on the fence" about an insane theory is the way you want to go through life, then good luck. Are you "on the fence" about a flat earth or faeries in your garden? Those theories are equally ridiculous as "controlled demolition claims" about 9/11.
 
Georgio said:
It will make me question Niels Harrit's motivation a lot more than I did. It seems likely that he is influenced by Gromme. As far as the technical questions of the 911 controlled demolition claims go it does not affect my view of them at all. I'm still not sure about all the claims which is why I still read this forum every day.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was a 911 Truth supporter, unless being on the fence about the controlled demolition claims (which I still am and which is all I'm really interested in) makes me a 911 Truth supporter.

In hindsight I shouldn't have replied to this thread as I am not informed enough about politics - I could only name 7 people out of the 13 in that picture.
Click to expand...

Being unable to see Harrit made up the lies about controlled demotion, calling it being on the fence, means you are a 911 truth supporter. There is no fence when it comes to lies from 911 truth.

Thinking controlled demolition has some chance of being real, is not being on the fence, it is knee deep in the 911 truth BS camp of woo. It is failure to see 911 truth made it up based on nothing but opinions.

You transcribed BS from 911 truth, not realizing it requires no debunking. You can't pick out details you think have merit. You treat Gage and his band of failed "nuts" (aka Gage's experts) as if they had something of value - they don't.

911 truth has no evidence for controlled demolition, or explain how it fits with the 19 terrorists who did 911. There is no fence when it comes to events, there is what happened, we can't vote on it, we can't use opinions from Gage's old failed humans who mock those murdered on 911 with BS flowing freely.
 
carlitos said:
Are you "on the fence" about a flat earth or faeries in your garden? Those theories are equally ridiculous as "controlled demolition claims" about 9/11.
Click to expand...

I very much hope you're right - the so-called 'official account' of 9/11 is more than horrible enough for me.
 
Georgio,
Did I already invite you to invest 3+ hours of your time to watch all my YouTube videos? I still think it's a very good introduction for nontechnical types like me and you, respectfully and patiently presented (see small print below for links).
 
Perhaps someone could clarify this for me.

The way I see it, Harrit wants to go to court in order to present what he calls evidence which shows 911 was an inside job. Once the judge has been shown the evidence he/she is bound by the law to have knowledge of a crime which should be reported.

Is this his intention ?
 
chrismohr said:
Georgio,
Did I already invite you to invest 3+ hours of your time to watch all my YouTube videos? I still think it's a very good introduction for nontechnical types like me and you, respectfully and patiently presented (see small print below for links).
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris. No, I don't think you did specifically invite me to watch the videos - I think maybe you are confusing me with 'Jango'.

I have watched your videos and have actually transcribed a fair few of them (the first 6 or 7 I think) but I got sidetracked and never went back to it.

I would love it if more people (on both sides) took your attitude that it is better to calmly and respectfully go through things point by point and to try not to get angry, although I'm aware that a great many people already do that.
 
Sadly the tone of these discussions is not very dignified. That's unfortunate.
 
JSanderO said:
Sadly the tone of these discussions is not very dignified. That's unfortunate.
Click to expand...

At this late date there is not much to say that has not been said, and said, and said. That breeds frustration which in turn results in people posting angry rather than in dignified reiteration of the same points again.

In what is it, another month or so, Harrit will get his day in court and then there may be something new(er) to discuss.

Perhaps in the next year AE911T will file suit, or produce an interim report on their progress towards a technical modeling. Most of us here will not risk holding our breath though for that to come about, though I daresay many wish to be proven wrong in their assessment that AE911T's promises are more for PR and money raising rather than serious endeavors.
 
Last edited:
It is sad 911 truth fools people into doubt and joining up. Maybe those who fell for the BS could help the fence sitters figure out why they were fooled by the dignified lies of Gage and 911 truth. What is unfortunate, is people mistaking unsupported opinions for facts and evidence, and being on the fence due to belief in BS.

It is clear Gage and Harrit are frauds; sad to see people fooled by liars like Harrit. ... if they are not liars, they are delusional fools.
 
Georgio said:
Thanks, Chris. No, I don't think you did specifically invite me to watch the videos - I think maybe you are confusing me with 'Jango'.

I have watched your videos and have actually transcribed a fair few of them (the first 6 or 7 I think) but I got sidetracked and never went back to it.

I would love it if more people (on both sides) took your attitude that it is better to calmly and respectfully go through things point by point and to try not to get angry, although I'm aware that a great many people already do that.
Click to expand...

beachnut said:
It is sad 911 truth fools people into doubt and joining up. Maybe those who fell for the BS could help the fence sitters figure out why they were fooled by the dignified lies of Gage and 911 truth. What is unfortunate, is people mistaking unsupported opinions for facts and evidence, and being on the fence due to belief in BS.

It is clear Gage and Harrit are frauds; sad to see people fooled by liars like Harrit. ... if they are not liars, they are delusional fools.
Click to expand...

I think people fall for this BS because they give the presumption to "professional" and academics that they are straight shooters and not selling snake oil. Their arguments may sound convincing to uninformed and so they buy the sell and really don't have the wherewithal to verify if what they bought is a crock of ◊◊◊◊ or not. I suspect there are very few technically adept people who fall for the pitch. But there are some and they are either willfully ignorant, not truly qualified or simply looking for attention... or in the case of Gage cash. People who are intellectually honest and examine the claims can see that the truth sell is not credible... and they move on. True believers just join the congregation and continue to tithe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom