Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later)

[nationalize the fed]

GumshoeNews.com March 15, 2015 by Dalia Mae

In the interview below, after the court case, Neils Harrit says,

“We got the opportunity, for once, to present a video of World Trade Centre 7 collapsing, in court, … at that time I recognised a state of astonishment among the three judges…. I understand, as usual, that none of them had heard or seen the collapse of Building 7 before.”

“I’m just an ordinary, very ordinary retired scientist from the University of Copenhagen who just can’t stand (when) the fundamental laws of Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton are not respected in the public domain.”

The former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, was also unaware that a third building had collapsed on September 11, 2001 (when I interviewed him last year). Regardless of the outcome of this libel case, the collapse of this Building 7 has been deliberatedly “kept” from the public.

According to Mike Young’s report, Journalist Søren K. Villemoes seemed confident coming out of the courtroom after a four-hour long court drama in the Eastern High Court in Copenhagen. He writes that Harrit’s witness, a professor of theoretical physics Per Hedegård from the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute could have over complicated the issue...
MORE: http://gumshoenews.com/2015/03/15/three-judges-astonished-at-now-seeing-the-collapse-of-building-7-14-years-later/

Niels Holger Harrit, PhD
Vitae / Resume Summary:
Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry
Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977
Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
http://nielsharrit.org/

**************

From the comments:

Frank Legge March 16, 2015:

There is no need to debate trolls who continually promote the view that the NIST report is true. All that is necessary is to point out that the collapse of WTC7 was, for about 100 feet, at free fall, as now admitted by NIST. Only simultaneous severance of all support columns can achieve this, which requires the use of explosives. Any other explanation for the collapse will produce sagging, bending, tilting motions, leading to a slow collapse, which will be obviously progessive. This has been clearly set out here:

http://www.stj911.org/legge/debunkers.pdf

***************

911 Truth: Distinguished Scientist Dr. Niels Harrit Sues Danish Newspaper for Libel
Will Present Video of WTC 7 in Court
Richard Gage Global Research, March 03, 2015



Two days ago, we announced that Dr. Niels Harrit, the distinguished co-author of the landmark nano-thermite paper, will be appearing in Danish High Court two weeks from now to bring an appeal in his libel suit against the Danish newspaper Weekendavisen.

It all started back in December 2012 with an article titled “Madness in the Royal Library.” In it, Weekendavisen writer Søren K. Villemoes referred to Dr. Harrit and his fellow 9/11 activists as “crackpots,” while also comparing them to creationists and Holocaust deniers.

“. . . Is the library soon going to open its doors to an exhibition showing us ‘alternative’ theories about evolution? . . . Why not just invite in Niels Harrit and the other crackpots from the 9/11 skeptics movement while we are at it? What about the holocaust denial movement?”

Søren K. Villemoes, Weekendavisen, December 7, 2012

For Dr. Harrit, a scientist who taught chemistry for 40 years at the University of Copenhagan, this amounted to an allegation of scientific misconduct and a baseless attempt to damage his hard-earned reputation. So he decided to seek recourse under Denmark’s strong libel law — and give himself the opportunity to prove in a court of law the scientific legitimacy of his 9/11 research.

Now Dr. Harrit Needs Our Help...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-truth-distinguished-scientist-dr-niels-harrit-sues-danish-newspaper-for-libel/5434431

[superbeachnut]

1. Crackpot on 911

Harrit lies about finding thermite, tries to spread crackpot ideas in court. Harrit needs help finding finding reality.

[nationalize the fed]

2. Please post your credentials. TIA

Niels Holger Harrit, PhD
Vitae / Resume Summary:
Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry
Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977
Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
http://nielsharrit.org/

Too bad he can't sue you too.

[William Seger]

3. A second opinion

Danes Claus Larsen and Steen Svanholm were present at the courtroom hearings and wrote this report:
http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023

Concerning this interview video, Steen Svanholm wrote:

NH says he saw "astonishment" amongst the three judges. Interesting. His focus was on the video. Mine was directly on the judges. I could not see the movie since it was presented on the wall right behind me, but I was faced towards the judges, so really, all I could do during the video presentation was to look directly at the judges. There was absolutely no astonishment in their eyes, attitudes or body language. They were, as judges should be, impressively faceless and simply just watching the "show". A bit boredom at one of the judges was all I detected.

About the footnote from the NIST report, he read it all right, both in English and in Danish. However, the judges had a very hard time understanding the words, and they did not really seem to understand the point of Harrit reading the passage. In light of the case, being a libel case, a footnote from an American report on building structure seemed far fetched and inappropriate. I do not remember them reacting very much to it, just asking Harrit to read it several times so they could quote his quote correctly. They definitely did not understand, as Harrit claims, that the official accounts of the collapses were false.

Harrit talks about that it all boils down to what is "reasonable". I must agree on that. The difference is that Harrit talks about whether his science is reasonable and the case is about whether Villemoes' crackpot-statement is reasonable.

Thus, the High Court will most likely, just as the City Court, disregard anything not related to the the crackpot-statement.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10527630#post10527630

[William Seger]

4. Crackpot or liar? Footnote 13

Harrit @2:21: "We got the opportunity to read, actually, the footnote in the NIST report on the twin towers -- this is a footnote which I hold in very high esteem -- I love it (Interviewer: 'Maybe you should mention it.') Yeah, I'll tell you what it is -- it is -- whoever interested, if you go into the NIST report on the twin towers to page number 82, and at the bottom you will find the footnote number 13 in which the NIST investigators, in kind of cryptic language, they admit that the 9/11 report on the twin towers does not cover the collapse. This is, in my opinion, the most important footnote since second world war, because it means that there is no technical account of the collapse of the twin towers."

^{[font size="1"]13[/font]} The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

So, Harrit claims that "there is no technical account of the collapse of the twin towers" but that's not what footnote 13 actually says. It may be "cryptic" to Harrit, but footnote 13 says that NIST studied the sequence of events that caused the buildings to begin to collapse, and after that point global collapse was inevitable. Harrit simply demonstrates that his conspiracy belief system is based on personal incredulity, which itself is ultimately based on stubborn ignorance. You are impressed that Harrit has a PhD (and ignore that crackpot PhDs certainly exist), but his degree is in chemistry, not structural mechanics. If he had even a bachelors degree in structural mechanics, he could calculate for himself, as many have, the magnitude of the dynamic forces that were unleashed when the collapse began and compare them to the magnitude of the stresses that the structure could possibly absorb and see that there was at least an order of magnitude of difference. The "technical account" of what happened is that some columns were buckled but in most cases, floor structures were simply ripped from columns because that required less energy than column buckling. After 13 years, it should be clear to any intellectually honest person that this is perfectly obvious to the vast majority of people who actually have training in structural mechanic, many of whom have provided detailed technical analyses, while the few dozen such supposedly-trained engineers who have signed Gage's petition have manifestly failed to come up with anything other than their own personal incredulity as a rebuttal, which is laughably inadequate.

QED, Harrit is a crackpot, without even going into his pseudo-scientific nanothermite paint claptrap, and his suit has no merit. If you want to bet that Harrit wins this suit, I do hope you get very, very long odds.

[nationalize the fed]

5. Please post your credentials. TIA

Until you do, you're just another anonymous opinion on the net. Lots of those, right? Ooodles and Ooodles of them.

Harrit is a crackpot

Niels Holger Harrit, PhD
Vitae / Resume Summary:
Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, 1975, Thesis: mechanistic photochemistry
Post Doctorate, Columbia University, New York, 1977
Master of Science, Chemistry, Max-Planck-Institute for Strahlenchemi, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany
http://nielsharrit.org/

Too bad he can't sue you too.

Remember, every day more people question the official conspiracy theory. And you can't stop it.

By the way, who taught you that being arrogant, snarky, insulting and condescending was a good way to get people on your "side" (whatever that is)? I can't recall a single instance of civil "debate" from you. Time to ignore again.

[William Seger]

6. Every NIST contributor has more impressive credentials than Harrit

... as do the numerous other experts who have written technical paper about various aspects of 9/11. And furthermore, they say things that actually make sense! And yet you protect your conspiracy delusions by conjuring up the delusion that they're all in on a coverup, while promoting demonstrably crappy scientists like Harrit simply because they tell you what you want to hear. So who do you think you're kidding by asking for credentials, other than yourself?

> Remember, every day more people question the official conspiracy theory.

And yet the "truth movement" passes further into insignificance and irrelevance with every passing year. Why is that? The problem with your head count seems to be that you aren't accounting for attrition.

> And you can't stop it.

Nope, but I can certainly warn people that the "truth movement" is peddling bullshit, provide at least some of the details and point out some of the blatant dishonesty, and let people look into it further and make up their own minds. Obviously, that bugs the hell out of "truthers" who want their bullshit to go unchallenged, and that's exactly why it needs to be done. Bullshit that's ignored doesn't disappear; it procreates in dark corners. It doesn't matter how "civil" my "debating" style is; what matters is that you don't have cogent responses on the actual issues, so instead you make feeble attempts to put me on the defensive.

> By the way, who taught you that being arrogant, snarky, insulting and condescending was a good way to get people on your "side" (whatever that is)?

Most "truthers," like creationists, take pride in being incorrigible, so I don't waste time trying to cajole them into reasoned thought. Either they will eventually come to it on their own or they won't. You don't seem to understand that I couldn't care much less what they believe; I only care about the nonsense that they post on public forums with the expectation that it should go unchallenged. We're not talking about subjective political opinions; we're talking about a "movement" that is a blight on reasoned, evidence-based epistemology, hustling unsubstantiated paranoid speculations as "truth" while ignoring each and every reason for calling bullshit on it. I believe I give "truthers" all the respect they deserve.

[greyl]

9. I applaud you.

for your consistently well-reasoned, knowledgeable, adroit, unflappable, and oh so patiently educational posts.

[wildbilln864]

10. well what about that!

those who have fallen for nonsensical bullshit are applauding others who also fall for it. what a surprise.

[GGJohn]

16. The same could be said about you and your fellow CT'er's. eom.

[zappaman]

17. Hi!

[zappaman]

11. Well said.

[wildbilln864]

8. yes!

Danes Claus Larsen and Steen Svanholm=Crackpot or liars! Both I'd say.

[wildbilln864]

7. k & r & thank you!

Don't let the anti-911truthers get to you. They will fall by the wayside eventually.

[zappaman]

12. "Anti-911 truthers"

[Politicalboi]

13. 9/11? we're too concerned where the video is of

Secret Service bumping into a barrier. Where's the tape? But the Pentagon gives us one BLURRY tape on 9/11 and says STFU and some do as they are told all the while waiting for the Secret Service to cough up video of barriers getting bumped. But us "truthers" are the nuts. Where are the many video tapes of the Pentagon? Why can't we see them? The Pentagon must of have thousands of cameras on ground and cameras inside. Why can't we see those tapes?

None of these "critics" have an answer for that. They just accept that we'll never see those tapes. Nothing to hide there I'm sure. And fragile planes can NOT penetrate steel and concrete at sea level speeds. Where was ANY reconstruction done on any of the 4 planes? Flight 93 supposedly had a missile hit it, why don't they dig up the plane. It can't be too hard to do. They easily got ALL of the DNA collected. The governments story of 9/11 is in the realm of the bible. Fantasy.

[wildbilln864]

18. all excellent points! n/t

[William Seger]

14. Sorry, court rules that calling a crackpot a crackpot is not libel

... and Harrit has to pay the journalist's court costs (or rather, the suckers who contributed to his "defense fund" do).

http://universitypost.dk/article/copenhagen-911-court-case-crackpot-not-libel

How much did you contribute, nat?

[superbeachnut]

15. Harrit lost - 911 thermite/CD claims confirmed, crackpot

Confirmed by court - Harrit's claims are crackpot claims -