Ultimate 911 POLL

[Katman]

I provided the report and I also provided what Niels Harrit's had said the verdict was and you try and say there is no evidence of the courts ruling.

The High Court's verdict simply upheld an earlier ruling that, due to freedom of speech, reporters can call people anything they like - nothing more, nothing less.

[husaberg]

The High Court's verdict simply upheld an earlier ruling that, due to freedom of speech, reporters can call people anything they like - nothing more, nothing less.

Niels Harrits own words

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable! Niels Harrit https://www.facebook.com/Niels.Harri...53187683684154

They are allowed to call him a crackpot as the evidence he presented proved he was one.
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

[Katman]

Niels Harrits own words

Did you notice his use of the exclamation mark?

What do you think that signifies, shitforbrains?

[husaberg]

Did you notice his use of the exclamation mark?

What do you think that signifies, shitforbrains?

His own words on the ruling it does not change the ruling though, he said it himself.

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable! Niels Harrit

Danish law.
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
This is a fact. Unless you can provide this is not the case I would suggest you stop trying to make out this never occurred.
Also I love how you think continually insulting me makes your case look less piss weak.
Poor troll

[Katman]

I will admit that taking a libel case against a reporter for calling him a 'crackpot' is rather a boganesque move, but in Niels Harrit's own words "Yes, we lost a small battle - but we advanced the cause of 9/11 Truth in the process".

[yokel]

Did you notice his use of the exclamation mark?

What do you think that signifies, shitforbrains?

It's funny how these stupid cunts can't produce any verifiable facts that back up the OCT,
Instead resort to calling a professor a "crackpot" and just talking nonsense.

Trying desperately to hold on to their delusional beliefs.

The laws of physics trumps any courts ruling.

Only fools will refuse to believe that they have indeed been fooled.

[yokel]

His own words on the ruling it does not change the ruling though, he said it himself.


Danish law.
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
This is a fact. Unless you can provide this is not the case I would suggest you stop trying to make out this never occurred.
Also I love how you think continually insulting me makes your case look less piss weak.
Poor troll

Is "crackpot" a factual term??

Like I said you'll believe any nonsense that backs up the OCT

[husaberg]

It's funny how these stupid cunts can't produce any verifiable facts that back up the 911 conspiracy theory
Instead resort to getting a "crackpot" professor and just talking nonsense.

Trying desperately to hold on to their delusional beliefs.
Evidence and The laws of physics trumps any conspiracy theory.

Only fools will refuse to believe that they have indeed been fooled.

Likely the most incisive comment you have ever made.

Is "crackpot" a factual term??

Like I said you'll believe any nonsense that backs up the OCT

The professor case proves you are one as well.
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable! Niels Harrit

[yokel]

Likely the most incisive comment you have ever made.

The professor also calls you one.
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable! Niels Harrit

Do you really think all that shit you keep talking trumps the laws of physics??

You just keep going around in circles sound like...... well a crackpot.

[husaberg]

Do you really think all that shit you keep talking trumps the laws of physics??

You just keep going around in circles sound like...... well a crackpot.

Did you miss the bit at the trial when Niels Harrits called a eminent physicst (an actual professor unlike him)whose testimony was totally contrary to his own theories.
Why is it you think he could not find anyone that would go along with his theory, if it had any foundation at all?

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

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

[yokel]

Did you miss the bit at the trial when Niels Harrits called a eminent physicst whose testimony was contrary to his own theories.

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

That link goes nowhere you stupid cunt,

The laws of physics trumps any libel law.


Just for fun

[husaberg]

That link goes nowhere you stupid cunt,

The laws of physics trumps any libel law.

>

Exactly what the court thought too that why they repeadily ruled against the crackpot
#note Niels Harrit is not a professor as is often claimed, he is an associate professor in chemistry.
Niels Harrit had called an actual professor of theoretical physics Per Hedegård from the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute to act as a witness on his own behalf.
Hedegård's testimony did not 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's assertions http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case

http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case

[yokel]

Exactly what the court thought note Niels Harrit is not a professor as is often claimed he is an associate professor in chemistry
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

http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case

Can't you fucking read? "All in all, his testimony did not appear to support Niels Harrit" hahaha yeah thats definitive, fuck you're muppet.

I like this reply to that article.
Of course it doesn't matter to you because you can't fucking comprehend shit.

" Dear Mike Young
Thanks for reporting on the case. This is a very important case in world history, and Dr. Harrit is a very courageous man. As a journalist you of course must be impartial, and you do not, as Mr. Willemoes, villify Dr. Harrit in your article.
Sadly however you misrepresent Dr. Harrit's entire arguement. You apparently do not understand the elementary concepts which are at issue.
You write
"....Niels Harrit's claim that WTC7 could not have been a free fall but a controlled explosion".
There are several things wrong with this wording.
1. You set up an dichotomy between a free fall or a controlled explosion. That misses the entire point.
2. Your wording "a free fall". Apparently you understand this to mean, a building on fire which falls down by itself. That is incorrect.
Free Fall Speed is the relevant term in this case. This is the speed at which an object falls when there is no resistance.
Dr. Harrits DOES say that the buildings fell, at free fall speed. The fact that they fell at free fall speed is exactly what implies that something has instantaneously removed all the support which held up the building.
3. "a controlled explosion". Although not incorrect, this term is not entirely what is at issue in the case.
Controlled Demolition is the relevant concept. With controlled demolition the building's support collumns are destroyed by strategically placed and strategically timed explosions.
Here's the argument. Very simple.
Only controlled demolition (controlled explosion) can bring down a building at free fall speed.
It is impossible for a building to collapse in that manner by simply burning."


More on the 6,000,000 lies.

[husaberg]

Can't you fucking read? "All in all, his testimony did not appear to support Niels Harrit" hahaha yeah thats definitive, fuck you're muppet.

I like this reply to that article.
Of course it doesn't matter to you because you can't fucking comprehend shit.

>

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

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

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.

ps keep adding the Nazi links it really demonstrates what a bunch of retarded idiots you 911 conspiracy theorists are........

[Katman]

the scientist he called was definitive.

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