Ultimate 911 POLL

[husaberg]

Are you suggesting that 'implying' something is 'theoretically' possible is being definitive?

It is definitive when the person he was asked to provide evidence for was adamant it was actually impossible.

Niels Harrit had called professor of theoretical physics Per Hedegård from the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute as a witness on his own behalf.
Hedegård's testimony appeared not to support Niels Harrit's claim that WTC7 could not have been a free fall but a controlled explosion.

He even implied that the speed of the building's collapse could theoretically be above free fall due to the complex nature of the energy waves, undermining the clear-cut nature of Niels Harrit's argument. All in all, his testimony did not appear to support Niels Harrit http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case

But as I have said Niels Harrit is not a professor of physics..........
Nor has anyone credible supported his assertions.........

[Katman]

It is definitive when the person he was asked to provide evidence for was adamant it was actually impossible.

Ok, so we'll go with the fact that you believe 'implying' something is 'theoretically' possible is being 'definitive'.

I'm glad we've gotten a step closer to establishing just how fucked in the head you are.

[husaberg]

Ok, so we'll go with the fact that you believe 'implying' something is 'theoretically' possible is being 'definitive'.

I'm glad we've gotten a step closer to establishing just how fucked in the head you are.

Yeah When someone calls someone much more qualified than himself as an expert witness (in a vain attempt to back up his own testimony) as being a totally impossible scenario, he would never look stupid in your world when his expert says no it is possible
That must be why the Court found your star conspiracy expert to be a crackpot.

Under Danish libel law, Villemoes (the reporter who called him a crackpot) had the burden of demonstrating a factual basis for his claim that Niels Harrit is a crackpot. He did

Then again you have previously offered up that paedophiles are actually people of good character.
Also that just because a person has a serious mental illness and has be convicted of fraud it doesn't mean that anyone should be suspicious of his latest invention that he is trying to raise money for

[Katman]

Yeah When someone calls someone much more qualified than himself as an expert witness (in a vain attempt to back up his own testimony) as being totally impossible scenario, he would never look stupid in your world when his expert says no it is possible
That must be why the Court found your star conspiracy expert to be a crackpot.

Under Danish libel law, Villemoes (the reporter who called him a crackpot) had the burden of demonstrating a factual basis for his claim that Niels Harrit is a crackpot. He did

Then again you have previously offered up that paedophiles are actually people of good character.
Also that just because a person has a serious mental illness and has be convicted of fraud it doesn't mean that anyone should be suspicious of his latest invention that he is trying to raise money for

Seriously man, you're taking this fixation on being repeatedly proven to be a total utter moron in public a little too far.

[husaberg]

Seriously man, you're taking this fixation of being repeatedly proven to be a total utter moron in public a little too far.

Nice attempt at narcissistic projection, but you are sadly mistaken if you believe anyone of average intellegence places any credence in any of your theories or observations.
As always the offer is always open to take a IQ test against me.

[Katman]

As always the offer is always open to take a IQ test against me.

I bet the IQ test would win.

[husaberg]

I bet the IQ test would win.

Might have been even funnier if you hadn't spelt cock wrong in your last rep comment to me

[Akzle]

I'm glad we've gotten a step closer to establishing just how fucked in the head you are.

on a scale of one to ten.... He's 11.

One being "fuck that cunt's retarded" and ten being "his mum drank during pregnancy and he's had repeated head injuries since"

[Katman]

Might have been even funnier if you hadn't spelt cock wrong in your last rep comment to me

No, I'm sure I spelt cock correctly.

[husaberg]

No, I'm sure I spelt cock correctly.

That's epic................
His own expert witness (he called in a attempt to corroborate his testimony) does not support him and you can't even figure it out.
The Physics professor's testimony did not support Harrit's theories. (that's right his own witness did not support his theories)
As I have said the court ruling was definitive. the scientist he called was definitive.
http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case

:

Are you suggesting that 'implying' something is 'theoretically' possible is being definitive?

Did you notice his use of the exclamation mark?

What do you think that signifies, shitforbrains?

Ok, so we'll go with the fact that you believe 'implying' something is 'theoretically' possible is being 'definitive'.

I'm glad we've gotten a step closer to establishing just how fucked in the head you are.

epic your experts star expert witness a real physic professor rather than a crackpot assistant chemistry professor what does he think of the person that asked him to give expert testimony....
He thinks and states that his theories are nuts

Villemoes' lawyer asked Hedegaard if he could support statements he had made about Harrit quoted in an article used in City Court — statements substantiating that Dr. Harrit was a "crackpot". Hedegaard replied that he still agreed with his statements in the article, in which he had called Harrit's theories "nuts." That became the final answer from the last witness of the day.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-n...rt-harrit.html

[yokel]

epic your experts star expert witness a real physic professor rather than a crackpot assistant chemistry professor what does he think of the person that asked him to give expert testimony....
He thinks and states that his theories are nuts

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-n...rt-harrit.html

From your link.

"Dr. Harrit pointed out that between the lines in this footnote NIST was actually admitting that there is no public theory on how the North Tower and South Tower were destroyed, nor is there an explanation of the collapse sequence, as the report stops at the moment the towers were about to go down. Upon hearing this explanation, the accused Søren Villemoes raised his eyebrows in seeming surprise and leaned back in his chair."

And

"Finally, it was time for Dr. Harrit to present the first piece of new evidence. He projected a video of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse onto the wall of the High Court. As the video played the 6.5-second collapse of the 600-foot, 47-story building over and over, the professor described what was happening, and in so doing showed himself to be a logical scientist who naturally had questions about a phenomenon that was identical in appearance to a controlled demolition. From the expression on one judge's face — a look of disbelief that 9/11 skeptics know quite well — it was obvious he had never before seen the video. Whether the other two judges had watched the collapse of WTC 7 before is hard to say; their faces were inscrutable. Making the judges watch WTC 7 fall again and again was what Dr. Harrit later called his biggest achievement of the day."

[husaberg]

From your link.

"Dr. Harrit pointed out that between the lines in this footnote NIST was actually admitting that there is no public theory on how the North Tower and South Tower were destroyed, nor is there an explanation of the collapse sequence, as the report stops at the moment the towers were about to go down. Upon hearing this explanation, the accused Søren Villemoes raised his eyebrows in seeming surprise and leaned back in his chair."

And

"Finally, it was time for Dr. Harrit to present the first piece of new evidence. He projected a video of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse onto the wall of the High Court. As the video played the 6.5-second collapse of the 600-foot, 47-story building over and over, the professor described what was happening, and in so doing showed himself to be a logical scientist who naturally had questions about a phenomenon that was identical in appearance to a controlled demolition. From the expression on one judge's face — a look of disbelief that 9/11 skeptics know quite well — it was obvious he had never before seen the video. Whether the other two judges had watched the collapse of WTC 7 before is hard to say; their faces were inscrutable. Making the judges watch WTC 7 fall again and again was what Dr. Harrit later called his biggest achievement of the day."

Yet none of this relates to the fact the Harrit was proven in court to be a crack pot or that his theories were called nuts by the expert witness he called to act on his behalf.

Villemoes' lawyer asked Hedegaard if he could support statements he had made about Harrit quoted in an article used in City Court — statements substantiating that Dr. Harrit was a "crackpot". Hedegaard replied that he still agreed with his statements in the article, in which he had called Harrit's theories "nuts." That became the final answer from the last witness of the day.

I actually used that link as it was on a conspiracy site, for the simple reason that deluded types such as you and Katman would have to say it was obviously a pure unadulterated source of the total truth.
so thus will you now admit that the expert witness called by Harrit thinks that his theories are "NUTS" or are you still in denial...........

Ever wonder why you need to constantly change the subject... I will give you a hint you are losing...............