|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th March 2015, 12:58 PM | #361 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
6th March 2015, 03:36 PM | #362 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
|
6th March 2015, 03:41 PM | #363 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
6th March 2015, 03:52 PM | #364 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
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. |
6th March 2015, 04:01 PM | #365 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
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................... |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
6th March 2015, 04:13 PM | #366 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
6th March 2015, 05:14 PM | #367 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
|
|
6th March 2015, 06:00 PM | #368 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
6th March 2015, 07:54 PM | #369 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
|
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 HarritŽs 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 HarritŽs 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!
|
6th March 2015, 08:02 PM | #370 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
6th March 2015, 08:04 PM | #371 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
6th March 2015, 08:08 PM | #372 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
|
6th March 2015, 08:14 PM | #373 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
7th March 2015, 12:07 AM | #374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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. 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. |
7th March 2015, 01:00 AM | #375 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
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..." |
7th March 2015, 02:10 AM | #376 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
7th March 2015, 02:33 AM | #377 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
7th March 2015, 02:49 AM | #378 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
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. |
7th March 2015, 03:08 PM | #379 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
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.
|
8th March 2015, 12:58 AM | #380 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
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.
|
8th March 2015, 06:05 PM | #381 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
|
|
8th March 2015, 09:18 PM | #382 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
|
|
8th March 2015, 09:23 PM | #383 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
|
|
8th March 2015, 09:35 PM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The lame attempts are those trying to bash NIST, failing to present their theory. You claim the reporter went full blown crackpot. Work on logic skills, get some help with cause and effect, and consult an engineer independent of 911 truth to help you with fire science and structural engineering. Good luck; that advice is from me an engineer since 1974; but don't trust anyone...
The logical response, the humor might be hard to understand. Building 7 thread?, where you don't post your claims, only bash NIST. Call posters NISTians because you are hung-up with NIST, obsessed with spreading BS about NIST. You are the NISTian, a person who can't stop bringing up NIST, and incapable of presenting evidence for CD. It was humor;- he beat us to the punchline, you were the straight-man. ... , you have run out of stuff for the BS analysis on WTC 7, and then more failed BS flows; as with this thread, where it appears you think Harrit used science to form his 911 claims; that is funny. |
9th March 2015, 04:15 AM | #385 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
9th March 2015, 04:19 AM | #386 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
|
10th March 2015, 07:34 AM | #387 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
crackpot sez wut?
|
10th March 2015, 08:03 AM | #388 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
10th March 2015, 08:09 AM | #389 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Let's hope Harrit remembers he is taking an explosive bag of dust into a court
|
10th March 2015, 09:27 AM | #390 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
"Hundreds of tons" is at least 200,000 kg.
NIST has estimated that 9 kg of some CD-industry standard high explosive would be required to cut col 79 of building 7 - and that column is about the fattest piece of steel there was in the three towers. So let's say that charges of up to 10 kg were used. That's at least 20,000 individual blasts of 10 kg each. Split those among the three towers, and Harrit is talking about >6,666 large blasts per collapse. Let's be very generous and say: Half of those went off before collapse initiation, half at initiation and during collapse. Then in the case of WTC2, that stood for 56 minutes, there must have been at least 3,333 10 kg blasts in 56 minutes - 60 per minute, 1 each second. Each one would have shattered numerous windows. None could have been missed by the many sound recordings. Then, during the 16 seconds or so of collapse itself, there would have been 3,333 more blasts - over 200 per second! 2 tons of explosives going of every second for 16 seconds! Adjust numbers for the other collapses. If you propose smaller charges, you multiply the number of charges. If you propose fewer blasts, you increase average size beyond 10 kg. To get an idea of what 10 kg of explosives sound like: 1.35 kg C4 5 kg TNT from maybe 200 m away 7 kg ANFO 4.5 kg ammonium nitrate + 4.5 kg of a flammable liquid, from over 500 m away 10 kg ANFO 10.5 kg blasting gel 15 kg TNT 22.5 kg C4 Roughly 40 kg ANFO (was heard 30 km away, they claim) That's 9 blasts there. Harrit claims >20,000. If that isn't a crackpot idea, I don't know what is. |
10th March 2015, 10:14 AM | #391 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
So harrit sues for defamation, but he essentially qualifies as a public speaker with the way he does his work. Seems like a free speech issue, harrit being a nut job aside. People may not like being called names... but hey, we have people all the time accusing for example, a property owner of demolishing his own building for fraud. In spite of the fact that the accusations are nothing more than libel
Who indeed is on the moral low ground? |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
10th March 2015, 03:43 PM | #392 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
10th March 2015, 03:56 PM | #393 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
column 79 was not the most robust column in the WTC complex... try col 501, or 508 or 1001 or 1008 in the twins
|
10th March 2015, 03:57 PM | #394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
10th March 2015, 05:19 PM | #395 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Sorry Jaydee...it was a correction to an Oystein post...
|
11th March 2015, 12:03 AM | #396 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
|
|
11th March 2015, 06:09 AM | #397 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
11th March 2015, 06:14 AM | #398 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
11th March 2015, 06:28 AM | #399 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
11th March 2015, 06:50 AM | #400 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|