ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 15th January 2013, 12:44 PM   #121
Josarhus
Thinker
 
Josarhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 208
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Hell, just the company he keeps should be enough to have the case thrown out. Looking up Harrit on Ekstra Bladet (Daily Mail'esque tabloid for you non-Danes) reveals an 'article' on this case, as well as an article on how he'll be appearing at a conference along with a man who claims to have fathered an extra-terrestial child

And then there was the cancelled (I think?) conference not too long ago.
From that conference:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php...type=1&theater

Harrit sitting next to the starchilds "father"
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it."
Josarhus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 01:23 PM   #122
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,622
Originally Posted by Triterope View Post
I would never try to read too much into Google translations, but I have to ask: does it even matter if Niels Harrit is a "public figure?" I can't see how it would.
It may not under Danish law. None of us here has yet has any working knowledge of Danish law, but in the United States it does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.

The point of Danish law that does seem relevant, however, is the suggestion in their criminal code that if the plaintiff's conduct warranted the comment then less liability attaches.

Quote:
It seems to me the case is a simple matter of determining whether or not calling someone a "tosse" meets the requirements called forth in the law.
You make it sound so simple.

The reason non-lawyers are rightly admonished not to speculate on the law is that legal decisions are predicated upon long lists of past case law precedent that help the courts decide fairly and uniformly on each case brought before them, based on how they've decided in the past. Lawyers learn the important ones and learn the research tools for finding the more obscure ones. They can apply to every important point in a case. Danish law works this way too. The point is that unless you have a good working knowledge of that overwhelming body of existing law, you can't really speculate productively about how a court will rule.

So for example when a word like tosse has a variety of meanings, there will be a series of past Danish court decisions that tell what to do when a word has more than one meaning. Past decisions will help decide whether Niels Harrit is a public figure (if that's even relevant). Past decisions will help guide the court in deciding what information to consider when determining whether his reputation was damaged. Past decisions help determine whether a journalist has special privileges or special obligations.

So yes I agree with you in the sense that the decision could be considered a straightforward application of law. But I wouldn't call it "simple" for the reason that it must painstakingly examine several steps in the line of reasoning leading up to the ultimate ruling.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 02:00 PM   #123
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It may not under Danish law. None of us here has yet has any working knowledge of Danish law, but in the United States it does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.


.....
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 15th January 2013 at 02:13 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 04:57 PM   #124
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Does it matter that he first claimed fame as a tosse?

None of his peers ever knew him as anything else.

I know of nobody who supports his claims who is not, himself a screaming tosse.

Where is the tort?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2013, 05:58 PM   #125
Triterope
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In the United States (being a public figure) does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.
Public figures are held to a higher burden of proof, to ensure that libel laws are not used to suppress free speech. The defining case is New York Times v Sullivan. Public figures have to meet an "actual malice" standard, whereas ordinary shmoes like you and I do not. This makes libel cases difficult to win in the U.S.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The point is that unless you have a good working knowledge of that overwhelming body of existing law, you can't really speculate productively about how a court will rule.
Agreed, but who said we had to be productive?

I understand there are a lot of factors to consider, but I'm curious to see how much weight is given to the journalists' freedom of speech, relative to the other issues. Denmark claims to have freedom of the press, but freedom of the press cannot exist if something as minor as calling someone a "fool" can get you dragged into court to face jail time.

If this happened in the United States, the ruling would be along the lines of "You're suing a newspaper because they called you a fool? Well, then, you are a fool. Case dismissed."
Triterope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2013, 08:27 PM   #126
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
 
Akuma Tennou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
To be fair, though, your own "credentials" in "either science or law" do not appear to be particularly impressive, either. A BA (or BSCS, depending upon the year) in computer studies isn't really considered a "science" degree. It's a fairly run of the mill degree that anyone can attain. Calling oneself a "Software Engineer" does not = being an engineer. Calling onself a "Computer Scientist" does not = being a scientist. Taking a few courses that mention law somewhere along the line does not = having any "credentials" in law.

I think that you would be better off sticking to what you know best, rather than staking claim to areas of expertise where you actually have none.

ETA: It seems to me that it is always better to stick to the facts instead of trying to start a contest of credentials, particularly when your own appear to be potentially sketchy and not particularly strong in any event. Why even start that kind of contest when it has nothing to do with the actual argument at issue? You've made yourself the topic of discussion here when that was neither necessary nor desirable.
Waw. The hilited part of that post is so prejudiced, is it a poe or something?
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson
Akuma Tennou is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2013, 11:56 PM   #127
Carsten from Denmark
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Smile

From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.
Carsten from Denmark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2013, 05:26 AM   #128
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,561
Hardly surprising given Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living persons
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2013, 09:05 AM   #129
Starving for Truth
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark View Post
From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.
Shill.
Starving for Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2013, 06:23 PM   #130
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by Carsten from Denmark View Post
From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.
This is 911 truth, loons fooling the gullible.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 05:37 AM   #131
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,561
So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.

Google translate will do a decent enough job, although the headline should read "Do you want to see some dust from the World Trade Center?"
http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/20852
Link to Google translate: http://bit.ly/1cUEIf9
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 05:50 AM   #132
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
The poor Google translator really struggles with Danish.

Though I did like the word "gakgak" per:

Quote:
Per Hedegaard call in an article from 2010 Harrits theories of 'gakgak'.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 09:36 AM   #133
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.

Google translate will do a decent enough job, although the headline should read "Do you want to see some dust from the World Trade Center?"
http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/20852
Link to Google translate: http://bit.ly/1cUEIf9
A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.


I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 09:43 AM   #134
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.


I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???
Could he be delusional enough to pass a magnet by the bag and expect it to mean something?

Especially after claiming there are different kinds of chips separated by the methods in the paper (despite claims all were the same).

"Truther" inconsistency gives me a headache.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 10:10 AM   #135
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.


I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???
Wait? What?

Am I getting this straight? Harrit stated he would like to perform a demonstration, was granted the request, then refused to do so?

I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but seems to me that if you putz around like that in court here you risk being charged with contempt of court for such court time wasting antics.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 12:52 PM   #136
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
..."Truther" inconsistency gives me a headache.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but seems to me that if you putz around like that in court here you risk being charged with contempt of court for such court time wasting antics.
Remember that the court and the lawyers involved are focused on defamation. Injury to Harrit's reputation in the real world context where his reputation has value. Not in the artificial context of 9/11 conspiracy discussion where his reputation has little value which could be lost to support damages in the tort of defamation.

Unlike many of us the court and the lawyers have not spent months discussing the irrelevant minutiae of whether or not there was thermXte in dust. If they even thought about the issue they would go straight to the question that matters "So what?"

"Dr Harrit if you are correct that some of this material was in the dust - so what? What consequences flow from the presence of that material?"

Then he is faced with two broad choices. He either says "It proves CD" OR "it is of no consequence." He won't take the latter and if he takes the former he has aligned himself with what is easily shown to the court to be a recognised conspiracy position held by a very small minority. Whilst the overwhelming body of relevant professional opinion says "No CD". And where chemistry is not even the relevant profession.

Keep in focus that the question which may relate to alleged damage to his reputation is "Was there CD?" It is not "Was there thermXte in the dust?" The court will not be derailed into irrelevancies as easily as we allow ourselves to be deflected in these internet discussions. Even here the true question all along has been "So what?"

If he is supporting CD he proves the truth of the claim which he says has damaged his reputation. The defendant has "no case to answer".

So we need to see the issue in the true context which the Court will see and not the false context we have been allowing here by pursuing the irrelevant minutiae of the chemical evidence.

'coz the court, if it lets him pursue his minutiae will actually be letting him prove the case for the defendant. He will be demonstrating that he is a [whatever the actual word was]. And in most legal jurisdictions truth of the alleged damaging assertions is a full defence against defamation.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:00 PM   #137
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Remember that the court and the lawyers involved are focused on defamation. Injury to Harrit's reputation in the real world context where his reputation has value. Not in the artificial context of 9/11 conspiracy discussion where his reputation has little value which could be lost to support damages in the tort of defamation.

Unlike many of us the court and the lawyers have not spent months discussing the irrelevant minutiae of whether or not there was thermXte in dust. If they even thought about the issue they would go straight to the question that matters "So what?"

"Dr Harrit if you are correct that some of this material was in the dust - so what? What consequences flow from the presence of that material?"

Then he is faced with two broad choices. He either says "It proves CD" OR "it is of no consequence." He won't take the latter and if he takes the former he has aligned himself with what is easily shown to the court to be a recognised conspiracy position held by a very small minority. Whilst the overwhelming body of relevant professional opinion says "No CD". And where chemistry is not even the relevant profession.

Keep in focus that the question which may relate to alleged damage to his reputation is "Was there CD?" It is not "Was there thermXte in the dust?" The court will not be derailed into irrelevancies as easily as we allow ourselves to be deflected in these internet discussions. Even here the true question all along has been "So what?"

If he is supporting CD he proves the truth of the claim which he says has damaged his reputation. The defendant has "no case to answer".

So we need to see the issue in the true context which the Court will see and not the false context we have been allowing here by pursuing the irrelevant minutiae of the chemical evidence.

'coz the court, if it lets him pursue his minutiae will actually be letting him prove the case for the defendant. He will be demonstrating that he is a [whatever the actual word was]. And in most legal jurisdictions truth of the alleged damaging assertions is a full defence against defamation.
What is the chance Harrit sees it this way?

I agree with you as to the separation of the issue at hand (in the courts eye) but, I doubt Harrit sees it this way.

In my opinion. He sees a venue and hopes he can use it to forward his belief.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:04 PM   #138
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
...In my opinion. He sees a venue and hopes he can use it to forward his belief.
I tend to agree.

And, by doing so he destroys his own case.

Cannot be sure when dealing with deluded people with whom the concept of "thinking clearly" has no meaning.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:10 PM   #139
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I tend to agree.

And, by doing so he destroys his own case.

Cannot be sure when dealing with deluded people with whom the concept of "thinking clearly" has no meaning.
You have to wonder this when the question is harm to credibility in a subject that has never shown credibility.

Harrit is essentially complaining about being lumped into the company he keeps.

This defense never goes well in court.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:22 PM   #140
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Wait? What?

Am I getting this straight? Harrit stated he would like to perform a demonstration, was granted the request, then refused to do so?
If I understood the article correctly, his demonstration was denied by the judge.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:27 PM   #141
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
If I understood the article correctly, his demonstration was denied by the judge.
True. The part Harrit doesn't get is it would have nothing to do with the case.

The case is the harm to his reputation, not CD or any other "truther" belief.

Harrit has to show that his reputation was hurt by the article that was published. The accuracy of Harrits work is a moot point.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 17th August 2013 at 01:31 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 01:29 PM   #142
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,561
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
If I understood the article correctly, his demonstration was denied by the judge.
Yeah, that's one of the points where the automatic translation went out the window.

He told the court that he wished to perform an experiment with the dust, but was told by the judge, that the court should have been informed of this intention 4 weeks before the trial, and thus his request was turned down.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 17th August 2013 at 01:35 PM.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 02:28 PM   #143
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
True. The part Harrit doesn't get is it would have nothing to do with the case.

The case is the harm to his reputation, not CD or any other "truther" belief.

Harrit has to show that his reputation was hurt by the article that was published. The accuracy of Harrits work is a moot point.
It is not surprising to me that Harrit uses the trial for spreading his believe. To be honest, I think that this was the main reason for sueing the journalist.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 02:31 PM   #144
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You have to wonder this when the question is harm to credibility in a subject that has never shown credibility.

Harrit is essentially complaining about being lumped into the company he keeps. ....
That's probably the central point. i.e. he chose his friends then claims he is defamed because he is identified with the friends he chose.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This defence never goes well in court.
Agreed - with the pedantic legal point that he is plaintiff not defendant.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 02:35 PM   #145
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
It is not surprising to me that Harrit uses the trial for spreading his believe. To be honest, I think that this was the main reason for sueing the journalist.
Strange he doesn't know courts don't play that game.

Naturally his intended audience is not all that bright and will not notice the courts lack of cooperation. Given the audience, they will see this as yet another "proof" that they are right.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 02:46 PM   #146
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Yeah, that's one of the points where the automatic translation went out the window.

He told the court that he wished to perform an experiment with the dust, but was told by the judge, that the court should have been informed of this intention 4 weeks before the trial, and thus his request was turned down.
That clears that up. So the judge refused Harriet's request, not Harriet refused to follow through.

The legal point of the court requiring 4 weeks notice will be seen as obstruction of the 'truth' by using a technicality.
So it seems Harriet has fallen for the self delusion that 'if I am an expert in one field then I am an expert in all fields', in this case, law. Not showing up with a lawyer,,,, the old adage that a person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 02:58 PM   #147
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
As one member () said back at post #6:
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...So, if the objective is to win the defamation action he would be advised to avoid bringing his 9/11 activities into the legal action.

HOWEVER
The obvious alternative objective is to give him a platform to gain publicity for his 9/11 activities. Then none of the forgoing legal advice applies.

No matter how the case runs he would be free to represent it with whatever mix of honesty and deception he chooses. And his audience ceases to be the hard thinking objectivity of Judge and Courtroom - replaced by the gullible target for 9/11 woo.

All legal aspects then become means to his end.

I expect that Harrit is quite capable of selecting his objective. We can sit back and see which one it is.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2013, 05:02 PM   #148
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
This is a bit like the advice that one "Birther" had for Donald Trump:

He should accuse Dr. Alvin Onaka (the custodian of Hawaii's vital records) of being part of a criminal conspiracy to falsify Pres. Obama's records, and invite Onaka to sue him.

Since truth is a defense, Trump would automatically have to be given access to all of HI's vital records in order that he could mount a defense. Brilliant strategy!

Trump didn't take him up on that.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2013, 12:55 PM   #149
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.
Thanks for the link! I had no idea there had been a hearing (I'm amazed it got that far). Highly amusing to read
AsbjornAndersen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 05:11 AM   #150
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-08-1...rrit-was-crazy
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 11:29 AM   #151
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Hmmm, the not-so-great English detracts somewhat from the article.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 05:06 PM   #152
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,100
Does anyone have a link to the original article Harrit is disputing, or a copy?
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2013, 07:43 PM   #153
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Does anyone have a link to the original article Harrit is disputing, or a copy?
Try this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...44#post8965644

It is post #140 of this thread. It is not the original but a translation into English by a forum member. It may be a parody.

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd August 2013 at 09:12 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 12:14 AM   #154
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,100
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Try this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...44#post8965644

It is post #140 of this thread. It is not the original but a translation into English by a forum member. It may be a parody.
Thanks. Although that appears to be a Wikipedia entry, not a quote from the newspaper. Not sure.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 05:16 AM   #155
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,561
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Does anyone have a link to the original article Harrit is disputing, or a copy?
The original article is behind a paywall, so I can't link to it.

The article in question was written as a response to the Danish Royal Library, who had been pressured by the Turkish embassy in Copenhagen, into adding a "Turkish view"-section to an exhibit about the Armenian Genocide.

The section that got Harrit all riled up went like this:
Quote:
"Skal vi have en planche med kreationistisk plattenslageri op at hænge på en af Danmarks fineste oplysningsinstitutioner? Hvorfor ikke bare invitere Niels Harrit og de andre tosser fra 9/11 skeptikermiljøet nu vi er i gang? Hvad med Holocaust-benægter miljøet?"
.. which translates (roughly) into...
Quote:
"How about putting a display of creationist fraud in one of Denmark's finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other fools from the 9/11 sceptics' environment while we're at it? How about the Holocaust denial movement?"
In other news, Harrit's closing procedure has been put online, I'll see about getting it translated as well, if people are interested in it.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 06:56 AM   #156
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
KD yes I for one am interested.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 07:10 AM   #157
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,515
As an American dane, I'm also a bit interested. You could just post a link to a google translate to save time.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 07:28 AM   #158
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,561
I'm on my way out, so here's the google translated version for now. I've spoilered it, as it's a bit of a wall of text.
Quote:
In 1593 Galileo Galilei lived in the Italian city of Pisa. Among other things, he amused himself by throwing various objects from the Leaning Tower - throughout the city's attention.

These tests are considered as the starting point for science. It was the first quantitative, systematic experiments in science history and led to the establishment of Galileo's two falls laws describing bodies' free fall towards the ground.

Galileo's experiments were of great importance, and the results were the basis for such Newton's famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in the 1687th

It contains Newton's three laws, the other of which is a mathematical, the direct derivation of Galileo 2 law of gravitation.

My lecture is about the collapse of the three skyscrapers in Manhattan, 11th September 2001.

I demonstrate here, based on figures, data and observations using the scientific method that the three skyscrapers in the World Trade Center did not collapse as a result of a collision with the two jets.

This conclusion is a direct consequence of Galileo's case laws of Newton's three laws of motion - and the law of conservation of energy.

In other words: The official explanation is inconsistent with the most basic laws of science.

Soren Villemoes' article in the Weekend newspaper is headed

MADNESS IN THE BLACK DIAMOND! (The Black Diamond is the nickname of the Royal Library building. KDL)

The article is certainly not humorous, but offers terms such as "offensive nonsense '," the mad frenzy "," diplomatic and scientific mess ", etc..

We got a picture of a veritable madhouse.

When Soren Villemoes should illustrate the madness which he believes has at the Royal. Library, he wrote the following:

"Should we have a poster with creationist plattenslageri to town on one of the finest information institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other idiots from 9/11 skeptic environment now we're at it? What about Holocaust denier environment?"

As explained, my scientific work rooted in science deepest reason. Juxtaposing it with "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" implies an unequivocal accusation of scientific misconduct and thus a charge.

Academic dishonesty is something University of Copenhagen does not like, which include seen in the case against Elena Penkova.

A charge must be documented.

But defendant has not at all been able to document its accusations - yes, have even demonstrated complete ignorance of my scientific activities.

During the hearing of evidence, Soren Villemoes acknowledged

1) That he is completely without means to understand and criticize scientific problems,

2) That he has attended one of my lectures. This claim, however, appear as untrustworthy as Soren Villemoes could not remember where and when he was at this lecture. It is called selective memory. When questioned, he acknowledged that he had nothing to criticize the lecture. As can therefore be assumed that he could remember? It's hard to believe this explanation.

3) That he has read the scientific article that describes the content of dust from the World Trade Center and is authored by yours truly, along with eight other authors. Then he made accusations against our samples authenticity despite the "chain of custody" is thoroughly described in the article. Soren Villemoes accusing us undisguised of falsifying samples! It is a crystal clear allegations of scientific misconduct and thus a charge in the criminal sense.

4) The defendant's witnesses characterized him my activities as "pseudo science, revisionist theories" and that I was in violation of "consensus", which was based "in science." Again, this undisguised accusations of scientific misconduct and therefore charges in the criminal sense.

The defamatory statements is set forth in the obvious intention to belittle and ridicule me, which is clearly revealed when Soren Villemoes user predicate "idiot". And it happens - as explained - in a context that is anything but playful.

LEGAL ISSUES

I am not a lawyer. So I looked up lovbasen (legal database. KDL), Posted 03/06/2002, last modified 18/08/2011.

Under "libel" can also include read:

The Criminal Code defines two forms of defamation (§ 267): First, "offensive words or actions" also called contempt utterances. First, "charges", that is insulting accusations.

The old formulations of the Criminal Code must be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Court. The distinction between value judgments and accusations (same as charges). '

The value judgments that includes opinions and ratings shall not special requirements for documentation. Value judgments can not be proved or disproved, and there may be a requirement that assessments have some factual basis.

But accusations (equivalent to "charges" in the Danish Criminal Code), appears as facts, and here required documentation.

The specific context determines whether an utterance most emerging as a fact or most similar to an opinion or judgment.

Human Rights Court has in recent decades been important in the Danish courts. It is emphasized that the subject has "public interest" or "public interest" and is dismissed if information is based on research that meets the standards of good journalism. "

MATERIAL COLLECTION FROM SØREN JUUL

Lawyer Søren Juul sent the day before yesterday (d.14/8-2013) a collection of material to highlight the importance of Danish case law on Article 10 of the European Menneskeretttighedskonvention (Human Rights convention. KDL).

The distinction

One consequence, as we read in Schaumburg-Müller's article,

P. 8: "The problem with this simple theoretical distinction (ie between accusation and defamatory utterances / NH) is that it is not particularly useful in practice."

P.9: "Often it will not be necessary to use the distinction."

P.9: "The distinction can not form the basis of (criminal) court judgment."

In truth proof (Schaumburg-Müller continued)


P.9: ".... it was in breach of Article 10 to require proof of the truth" value judgments "when they also were based on correct facts."

P.9: "There is no truth required evidence of value judgments when they are based on anything factual."

P.9: "In my judgment can not therefore deprive truth of proof in libel cases, at least not if the case is just some public interest."

P.11: "Danish practice, however, examples of the limits of press freedom, the more stringent requirements for the information content in the case of individuals."

P.15: "... the practice of EMD does not accept punishment for assessments made on the basis of facts."


NH: Which all means that assessments are not made on the basis of facts, shall be liable to punishment.

Oluf Jørgensen Article


Page 19: "An accusation is permissible only if the journalist or other writer in the publication has a reasonably sound basis for believing in the accuracy."

Page 20: "There can be no requirement of proof of an opinion or judgment. But it may not be completely without factual basis."


NH CONCLUSION: Although value judgments must have a minimum of factual basis.

Supreme Court Decision in Case of Kjaersgaard

Karen Sund was convicted of libel in the High Court.

But she will be acquitted by the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court premises writes, p 39:

"The European Convention on Human distinguish whether there is a value judgment (" value judgment ") or an opinion on a fact (" statement of fact "). May be required indeed evidence of a statement of fact, but not a value judgment, which should not be excessive ("excessive") and below must not entirely lack a factual basis. "

Supreme Court acquits her because:

Page 41: "The use of the word (racist) ..... have had sufficient basis in Pia Kjærsgaards opinions on the Danish People's Party's annual meeting."

CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court's decision implies therefore that the acquittal of making defamatory statements requires - even for value judgments - that there must be a factual basis.

END OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Primary: Alleged criminal charges

As a summary and conclusions of the review of these legal references must begin by finding that the Danish Criminal Code is not written on. Criminal Code defamation clause no 267 - and particularly the aggravating circumstances in paragraph 3 if the insults disseminated to a wider circle - is still Danish law.

In Lovbasen operates with the notion of "the specific context" that determines whether a defamatory utterance is a charge or a value judgment.

This "specific context" includes today's hearing and Soren Villemoes's testimony, where he has characterized my activities as pseudoscience.

In his article in the Weekend newspaper has Søren Villemoes demonstrated that his placement of my scientific work in the category of "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" - the specific context - clearly implies an allegation of scientific misconduct.

And it is a charge that requires a truly evidence to prevail.

We have not seen truth evidence today. Yes we have not even lifted us from the bottom line.

Thus, the defendant has not made a single witness who could substantiate their charges.

The banks can not. (Mistranslation. KDL)

That's because I'm right.

Alternative opinions are "value judgments"

Should it - contrary to expectations - be that the court finds that Sean Villemoes' statements are value judgments made there - even in the Human Rights Court - the requirement that assessments have some factual basis.

From Soren Juul Material Collection I have enumerated many examples from case law and literature that a factual basis is an absolute condition to impunity can be obtained for a defamatory utterance.

For press this minimum requirement is fulfilled only if the defamatory statements are based on "research that meets the standards of good journalism ...".

I need not emphasize that SV's article does not meet this requirement and hence the requirement of impunity.

So - in this case it really matter whether one adopts the Danish Criminal Code distinction between criminal charges and contemptuous expression, or accept the concept of the convergence of Clause 10 of the ECHR and the subsequent case.

The defendant has demonstrated that he can under no circumstances provide a factual basis, this minimum, there must be, that he can achieve impunity for making defamatory statements - whether charges or value judgments.

Therefore I maintain the claim - that the defendants partly for libel, and the spread of such.

CLEARANCE

Until seven years ago, I thought that the World Trade Center consisted of two twin towers and they collapsed due to collision with the two jets.

Then I happen to be a video showing the collapse of World Trade Center 7

I immediately had two problems.

If what I saw really was the World Trade Center, there was an obvious discrepancy between the number of airplanes and skyscrapers. There were two jets, but three skyscrapers.

Which - still the first - meant that the people who control the media information in Denmark, had decided that the collapse of Building 7 was an event that I should not know about.

Secondly, I could not understand why this building would collapse for no apparent reason.

I have lived a long life in science after I received a thorough education at the University 50 years ago.

I have taught at all levels of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. I have published more than 60 scientific papers in the best journals. I have lost count of the number of masters - and Ph.D. is I've trained. I belong to a generation where we did not keep records of the kind.

Science Men have an instinctive, analytical relation to our physical surroundings. We I would like to understand how it works.

In all modesty, so it goes pretty well most of the time.

But at the sight of Building 7's collapse, I was confronted with an inexplicable riddle: How on earth could this skyscraper - three times Rigshospitalet - collapse on the way?

Symmetrical, I could see.

With free fall acceleration - I had to later admit.

Without any apparent reason?

It took me several weeks to understand that this event was the most important event in my time and that I had to look at it.

Which led me - and thousands of peers across the globe - to the conclusion that there was an obvious contradiction between the official story on the one hand and the elementary laws of nature on the other.

The official story is simply contrary to Galileo and Newton.

At that moment, it was "pay-back time" for me.

I got my (excellent) education of society in his time. And society has paid my salary in the over forty years that I have taught and researched at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

My inner voice - Kant's categorical imperative - said that now it was time to bring this scientific insight back - into the public debate.

I was naive enough to believe that if only we stood on a soap box and told the truth, then ran it all by itself.

Nix. (Nope. KDL)

My idea of ​​the Danish press and integrity of the persons who control it, was naive.

Therefore this lawsuit basically not about me.

The act effectively on the information I have tried to give the Danish public, and - most importantly - it is about an influential representative of the Danish press, a prominent newspaper, which is widely respected for its high journalistic standard.

But in this case Weekend newspaper tried to discredit the messenger rather than listen to what he says.

Yes, the truth hurts.

But the lie is killing us!

Lawyer Juul likely in a moment rely on the press right to use a certain freedom of speech on matters of public interest. But journalists who speak out about Bruno Kreitsky whether Haider - which are the examples Søren Juul has brought in his collection of materials - allocated a certain space, I can not see is relevant to this case.

It had dressed Søren Juul if he had instead pointed to libel law, where scientists had been wrongly accused of dishonesty and where the infringer had been acquitted.

You can apparently he did not find any.

It's not because scientists have not been subjected to sanctions from society because of their work.

I therefore conclude by telling you about the most famous of all these cases.

Galileo Galilei was commissioned by the Catholic Church to write a book about the world's decor. But based on his observations - and the earlier work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler - he wrote that the sun was the center of the world, and that the earth revolved around outside.

It broke the church is not about.

So in 1633 was Galilei before the Inquisition. We do not know how he was treated in the four months he spent in detention before trial. He filled moreover seventy along the way. But we know that during the trial itself was established instruments of torture in a corner of the room, presumably to ensure - as it did - that the old man in the bar shirt, got down on his knees for there to swear that the earth stood still in the center of the universe.

Galileo's book came on the church's list of banned books and was for 1838.

Our civilization has made great progress since Galileo's time. And although the torture has come into fashion again at other latitudes in the wake of 11 September has still liberalism Grundtvig Denmark, where scientists can provide information about natural law, their consequences without being accused of dishonesty and exposed to other insults.

I expect the court with its decision today confirms this state.

Thank you.
Taken from here: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece
Direct link to Google Translation: http://bit.ly/19BUGqQ
The comments section is infested with truthers, as per usual.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 23rd August 2013 at 07:30 AM.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 08:42 AM   #159
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,916
Is he...is he comparing himself to Galileo?
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2013, 09:22 AM   #160
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
I'm on my way out, so here's the google translated version for now. I've spoilered it, as it's a bit of a wall of text.
Taken from here: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article2071338.ece
Direct link to Google Translation: http://bit.ly/19BUGqQ
The comments section is infested with truthers, as per usual.
Harrit presents proof their was madness in The Black Diamond.

Cass closed.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.