• 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

KDLarsen said:
Given that Utzon was called as witness in the first case, I guess they'll allow the witnesses to utter their incredulity.
Click to expand...

Yes but it will be tough to convince the court that the Law's of physics were violated on 9/11/2001.
 
DGM said:
What are they going to decide? Will they even hear an of this? I know Danish law has some odd standards when it comes to defamation claims.
Click to expand...
Whether or not Søren K. Willemoes defamed Niels Harrit, by referring to him as a 'tosse' (crackpot) and by comparing his work to that of Holocaust deniers.

Like the grand 'BBC trial' a few months ago, where some nutter refused to pay a TV license, because he feared he would be supporting a terrorist organisation (eg. the BBC, because they were in on the conspiracy viz a viz 7WTC collapse being announced early), the truthers evidently see this as some grand opportunity to get their argument on the court records, regardless of whatever little relevancy it has to the case at hand.

The county court, in its ruling in the first installment, found that Søren K. Willemoes had offered up a general commentary, that Harrit himself was active as a truther in the public eye, and that Søren K Willemoes was well within the boundaries of freedom of speech.

None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
 
KDLarsen said:
None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. The court is not going to decide on whether his beliefs are valid, only if Søren K. Willemoes comment effected what the general public feels about them and Harrit.

They will not be interested in the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares with a description on the back................... :D
 
DGM said:
That's what I thought. The court is not going to decide on whether his beliefs are valid, only if Søren K. Willemoes comment effected what the general public feels about them and Harrit.

They will not be interested in the 27 8x10 color glossies with the circles and the squares with a description on the back................... :D
Click to expand...

Oh no I was so hopefull we would have a YouTube video of the Judges having to sit though the whole AE 9/11 presentation, that would probably be the most amusing these dimwitted conspiracy theorists have been since the fued between Jones and Judy Woods.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Oh no I was so hopefull we would have a YouTube video of the Judges having to sit though the whole AE 9/11 presentation, that would probably be the most amusing these dimwitted conspiracy theorists have been since the fued between Jones and Judy Woods.
Click to expand...

...and Judy Wood is the nuttiest of all of them.
 
Playing Games said:
...and Judy Wood is the nuttiest of all of them.
Click to expand...

Yes but it is quite comical to hear woodies describing vaporized steel, with out realizing it would have cause an exstreamly bright flash and heat effect and most likely scorched half of New York.
 
KDLarsen said:
Whether or not Søren K. Willemoes defamed Niels Harrit, by referring to him as a 'tosse' (crackpot) and by comparing his work to that of Holocaust deniers.

Like the grand 'BBC trial' a few months ago, where some nutter refused to pay a TV license, because he feared he would be supporting a terrorist organisation (eg. the BBC, because they were in on the conspiracy viz a viz 7WTC collapse being announced early), the truthers evidently see this as some grand opportunity to get their argument on the court records, regardless of whatever little relevancy it has to the case at hand.

The county court, in its ruling in the first installment, found that Søren K. Willemoes had offered up a general commentary, that Harrit himself was active as a truther in the public eye, and that Søren K Willemoes was well within the boundaries of freedom of speech.

None of what Harrit intends to offer up, will have a noteworthy impact on that finding.
Click to expand...

It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...

So being a crackpot is contagious?
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...

I know Harrit's and Jones's work and I can tell you with definitely he is a crack pot.
Where are the quantifications and relevant experiments?
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily.
Click to expand...

Yes, you must study the full extent of the Emperor's tailors' oeuvre before you can discuss his new "clothes".

:oldroll:
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily.
Click to expand...
Harrit is a crackpot when it comes to 911. He was part of a fraud with a thermite paper published in a vanity journal, and he things termite was used on 911. Is he a liar, or a crackpot when it comes to 911? Why is he spreading BS about 911?
But you are right, we should not call people with delusional lies about CD on 911, crackpots; their claims are crackpot claims. Got it.

Love the "people like you"; I am a pilot, are we all pilots here? I am an engineer, does "people lie you" mean we are all engineers with a master degree. I love scuba diving, does the "people like you" mean we all love scuba diving? I like people who protest war, as an pilot in the USAF, I appreciate anyone who makes others think about war, and why we go;, does "people like you" mean we all appreciate war protesters, even if we are in the military.
Who are "people like you"? Harrit failed to make a valid claim on 911, and supports the fantasy of CD on 911; mocking the murdered of 911 with lies like thermite and CD is pathetic, Harrit lies about 911. Don't get upset with "people like you", get upset with the liars who fool those who can't think for themselves.

BTW, Harrit's work is not science, it is more like BS, propaganda, and lies. When it comes to judging Harrit's work, it earns a the crackpot seal of approval.


Ziggi said:
The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...
Are you saying now the guy who called Harrit a crackpot, is a fellow crackpot, fooled by lies? Wow, irony, a guy got it right the first time, but now has gone nuts like Harrit, and believe in BS born in ignorance. (nuts on 911 issues)

"people like you"

Ironically, you are saying the reporter is so stupid, he fell for the BS of CD after he realized Harrit did some fake work? This gets better and better.
13 years, a reporter (guess he is not an engineer, or lay person with any critical thinking skills) fell into the pit of ignorance, 911 truth.

Funny stuff. A reported declares Harrit's lies are correct. Does that mean he thinks Harrit's claims are correctly called lies? Is the reporter an engineer, or better yet, a chemical engineer? Any science at all?

Is this a scam, are you making a joke.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...


Speaking of name-calling, I'd remind you of the visitor message you left on gerrycan's profile page the other day (since removed, thankfully), in which you made some rather unsavoury accusations about another forum member.


Regarding Harrit and Utzon; two swallows don't make a summer. In fact, they'll barely make the news. AE911Truth flushes away another $15,000.

Regarding the trial; just another attempt by a truther to use a courtroom as a soapbox for his cranky beliefs (see also Tony Rooke).

And for us, a little iegaltainment:

"I can prove I'm not a crackpot your honour. I have with me a very important video and a bag of dust..."
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
...
And for us, a little iegaltainment:

"I can prove I'm not a crackpot your honour. I have with me a very important video and a bag of dust..."
Click to expand...
Jest as you like - sanity will shine over Denmark when Harrit also hauls into the court room an electron microscope, a calorimeter, an oxy-acetylene torch, an infrared spectrometer and the XRD equipment! :cool:
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...

Not only is Ziggi an expert in everything he is also a mind reader.

What a very special individual he is.

Love the way he is now quoting his own comments on DTD in this forum.
 
Ziggi said:
It is quite telling that people like you have not had the good sense to stop the name-calling and realize that when that reporter called Harrit a crackpot, he did not know anything about Harrit´s work and had no basis for judging it scientifically or objectivily. The subject just angered him and he went on a rant. The only basis he had for calling Harrit names was that he called Harrit´s colleague who was also angered by the subject at the time, and dismissed it. For some reason people like you have not noticed that this angry colleague has since debated this calmly with Harrit, and has now changed his mind. He is now testifying for Harrit and saying that Harrit is correct!
Click to expand...
Factually wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. The reporter told the county court that he had watched Harrit's presentation and read his articles.

He also readily admitted he had no basis for judging it scientifically, other than observing that Harrit and the 9/11 truthers are an ever decreasing fringe of the generally accepted theory about what happened on 9/11, but that wasn't the point of the article in any case.
 
Last edited:
Would scientific validity even be relevant? If Harrit makes presentations to the general public and specifically invites journalists, as I'm told he does, then to me that means he invites lay opinions from the general public, and lay opinions from journalists. Scientists have their own methods and venues for ascertaining scientific reputability, so I doubt he could argue that a journalist's opinion of his presentations intended for the general public affects his stature in the scientific community. If he's going to present his claims to a lay public, he shouldn't be able to use the courts to ensure that he gets only a favorable reception.
 
JayUtah said:
Would scientific validity even be relevant? If Harrit makes presentations to the general public and specifically invites journalists, as I'm told he does, then to me that means he invites lay opinions from the general public, and lay opinions from journalists. Scientists have their own methods and venues for ascertaining scientific reputability, so I doubt he could argue that a journalist's opinion of his presentations intended for the general public affects his stature in the scientific community. If he's going to present his claims to a lay public, he shouldn't be able to use the courts to ensure that he gets only a favorable reception.
Click to expand...
That was pretty much the line of reasoning the county court used, in determining that Harrit was 'fair game'. He's been very active in the press, going on morning chat shows, writing articles and letters to the editor, etc. and so he can't therefore expect not to be called on his fringe theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom