Harrit sues paper for defamation

JSanderO said:
Thanks Steen... It's hard to understand exactly the vibes of the court proceeding, but it seems as if Niels was trying to present his arguments for NT and CD as the being valid and so referring to him for making those arguments as a crackpot was libelous. He needed, to show the court, he believed that his work was "serious science"... It hardly seems possible in a brief court hearing. NH has earned the label of a bit of a loose canon because his work in not rigorous and he ventures into areas he has no expertise especially political motives such as the "inside job". I think he will not prevail in this case.
Click to expand...

JSander, the vibes in the High Court was, in my opinion, relaxed over all. Harrit was clearly a judicial amateur. He made some minor excusable mistakes and then he did some major blunders that you would not do if you had been a spectator at jus a few court hearings: You do not badger the defendant. You ask him questions. Harrit answered on behalf of the defendant, overruled his answers and tried to debate him like a politician. That part was in my opinion embarrassing and completely misunderstood. Actually, I was surprised about how long the three judges waited before they stopped him. But on the other hand, it just undermined his own case.

Bringing in Per Hedegård as a witness almost became a farce, because Harrit seemed to honestly expect that Hedegård would testify in support of Harrit. He did the opposite. Harrit seemed completely out of breath and defeated when Hedegård even said that it is physically possible for constructions to sometimes fall faster than free fall due to complex physics that would be very difficult to explain to the court.

Especially one of the judges seemed very annoyed with Harrit's performance. She and the main judge cut him off several times when he talked about scientific issues. They were not relevant and thus a mere confusing waste of time.

Perhaps the most crucial point was when Harrit pressed Søren Villemoes about whether the term "crackpot" was used as a noun (pointing to Harrit, in person) or as an adjective in the sense of "acting crackpot-like". Søren maintained that it was in the last sense. But then Harrit turned to investigate why Søren considered Harrit a crackpot. What was the reason?

It went almost like this:

-Do you think I am a crackpot?
-No... I think your ideas are crackpot.
-Well... so... do you simply feel pity for me?
-(Long pause)... yes!

In a way, I think most of us in the court room, including the judges, felt exactly the same for a brief moment. Harrit seemed like a pitiful man with a pitiful case.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:

So all of this is taking place on a planet other than Earth? That explains much. :relieved:
Click to expand...

I am not a physicist but the way I understood Hedegård was that the exact measure of Newton has small variations around the globe.

Furthermore, I understood that there may be circumstances where constructions collapse faster than free fall. I assume that we are talking very small decimals' of differences but that they are possible.

If somebody knows what he might refer to, I would be happy to hear that.

One thing is for sure: Harrit did not argue against it. He simply seemed to not understand what Hedegård was talking about - just as I did not - and chose not to dig into it, apparently fearing that Hedegård knew something that Harrit did not know.

What I do know, is that I spoke with Hedegård a few days before the trial so I had a good hunch of what would happen. During that talk, Hedegård revealed that Harrit knows nearly nothing about physics. And they have spoken a few times together about 9/11 when they worked together as colleagues.

Thus, I assume Hedegård was just waiting for Harrit to ask about what might cause a collapse faster than free fall. But he dared or chose not to.
 
Last edited:
Steen Svanholm said:
I am not a physicist but the way I understood Hedegård was that the exact measure of Newton has small variations around the globe.

Furthermore, I understood that there may be circumstances where constructions collapse faster than free fall. I assume that we are talking very small decimals' of differences but that they are possible.

If somebody knows what he might refer to, I would be happy to hear that.

One thing is for sure: Harrit did not argue against it. He simply seemed to not understand what Hedegård was talking about - just as I did not - and chose not to dig into it, apparently fearing that Hedegård knew something that Harrit did not knew.

What I do know, is that I spoke with Hedegård a few days before the trial so I had a good hunch of what would happen. During that talk, Hedegård revealed that Harrit knows nearly nothing about physics. And they have spoken a few times together about 9/11 when they worked together as colleagues.

Thus, I assume Hedegård was just waiting for Harrit to ask about what might cause a collapse faster than free fall. But he dared or chose not to.
Click to expand...

Collapse greater than free fall occurs when an additional load is being applied to a falling member. The interior collapse preceded the exterior, so a load was being applied when the exterior columns gave way. When applied load then exceeds resistance at the bottom, the net plus the gravitational force results in acceleration over g.
 
LSSBB said:
Collapse greater than free fall occurs when an additional load is being applied to a falling member. The interior collapse preceded the exterior, so a load was being applied when the exterior columns gave way. When applied load then exceeds resistance at the bottom, the net plus the gravitational force results in acceleration over g.
Click to expand...
If there is any leveraging or torquing going on, it can add additional load. I believe that is what happened when Building 7 fell. Gage and Harrit oversimplify when they say that there are only two opposing forces: gravity and resistance. There can be other forces. So we had gravity plus leveraging plus torquing minus resistance for a roughly freefall RATE of collapse (about a net zero of total resistance vs total load). In fact, femr 2 has pretty much proven that there was a very small period of time, about 3/4 of a second total, when Building Seven's one face IN FACT fell at very slightly greater than freefall acceleration. Even NIST's measurements showed it, but they said "at freefall" because it was so close to freefall. There are threads here that demonstrate and explain this.
 
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope said:
Here's a link to the request to Help Raise $15K

And here's the update saying they'd reached their fundraising goal

It's anybody's guess as to where the money came from: genuine donations from supporters? Existing AE911Truth money cannily shuffled around/re-allocated? Single donation from a rich madman? It wouldn't surprise me if a only fraction of the full amount was raised, and it also wouldn't surprise me if no money at all was raised. ...
Click to expand...

Seconded.
I can't know what money actually flowed from whence to where. I tend to take such claims at face value, but AE911T raising thousands in just days isn't really what I'd expect, judging from past fundraisers, when they used a fundraising service that displayed in real time the amount and number of donations already in. They usually got single donations ranging from 10 to 150 dollars, often averaging 50-100 dollars per day. So raising 15,000, the last 3,000 of which in just a handful of days, is perhaps too good to be swallowed whole...
 
Steen Svanholm said:
...
Furthermore, I understood that there may be circumstances where constructions collapse faster than free fall. I assume that we are talking very small decimals' of differences but that they are possible.

If somebody knows what he might refer to, I would be happy to hear that.
...
Click to expand...

Here is an example of a "structure" that falls faster when it hits the ground than when it doesn't:



The reason this happens is:
a) Preliminary thought experiment: Imagine a beam that is floating at rest in space, with no gravity acting on it. Now hit one end with a hammer, perpendicular to the beam's axis: That end will be accelerated in the direction that you hit it. The entire beam will start to rotate, and the far end will actually move in the other direction, due to that rotation. The beam will rotate about a point that is 2/3 along the way to the far end, so if acceleration of the near end that you are hitting is a (say, 20 m/s2), then the opposite end will accelerate at half the rate in the opposite direction: -a/2 (or -10 m/s2 in the example)

b) Now lets look at a beam that is free falling and not rotating, with one end lower than the other. The entire beam is accelerating at the rate g = 9.805 m/s2 (that's the rate in NYC) - its middle and both ends, all at the same rate. Next, the lower end hits the ground - the impact will accelerate this lower end upwards. Now the same thing will happen as with the beam floating in space: The opposite (upper) end will experience an acceleration of half that rate in the opposite direction - downwards. This downwards acceleration adds to gravitational acceleration, and the upper end can now be seen falling "faster than gravity".
 
Steen Svanholm said:
I am not a physicist but the way I understood Hedegård was that the exact measure of Newton has small variations around the globe.

Furthermore, I understood that there may be circumstances where constructions collapse faster than free fall. I assume that we are talking very small decimals' of differences but that they are possible.

If somebody knows what he might refer to, I would be happy to hear that.

One thing is for sure: Harrit did not argue against it. He simply seemed to not understand what Hedegård was talking about - just as I did not - and chose not to dig into it, apparently fearing that Hedegård knew something that Harrit did not know.

What I do know, is that I spoke with Hedegård a few days before the trial so I had a good hunch of what would happen. During that talk, Hedegård revealed that Harrit knows nearly nothing about physics. And they have spoken a few times together about 9/11 when they worked together as colleagues.

Thus, I assume Hedegård was just waiting for Harrit to ask about what might cause a collapse faster than free fall. But he dared or chose not to.
Click to expand...

Density differences in the earths crust, and force induced changes in debris.

The denser the rock the more gravity because of the added mass.
 
Spanx said:
http://youtu.be/N_KFyW9LPRA

Crackpot ?

First goal, show wtc7
second goal, win the case
Click to expand...

This is a 10 minute interview with Harrit by a truther after the hearing, done in a pub.
He doesn't mention his witnesses, Hedegard and Utzon, anbd also doesn't mention how the judges interrupted and admonished his presentation.
 
Oystein said:
This is a 10 minute interview with Harrit by a truther after the hearing, done in a pub.
He doesn't mention his witnesses, Hedegard and Utzon, anbd also doesn't mention how the judges interrupted and admonished his presentation.
Click to expand...

I does show his intention was to waste everybody's time in order to show Wtc7 in a court.
 
Oystein said:
This is a 10 minute interview with Harrit by a truther after the hearing, done in a pub.
He doesn't mention his witnesses, Hedegard and Utzon, anbd also doesn't mention how the judges interrupted and admonished his presentation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thanks to you all explaining me about free fall, extra load, leveraging, torquing etc. Very educative. Not to mention the free fall-video from you Oystein.

Liked it all. :-)
 
Steen Svanholm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe it is written in a special code that only truthers are able to crack, I would imagine smoking pot before hand would help crack the crackpot code.
 
What the High Court did not get, in my opinion, was why Harrit and the Truth movement find it significant that NIST does not cover the collapse sequence of TT in detail, floor by floor. The problem in his logic is that he seems to think that the lack of detailed explanation is automatically suspicious.

Harrit skipped directly from the lack of collapse explanation to saying that he was against crime and thus hinting that an uninvestigated crime took place during the collapse but without defining what this crime was or who did it.

It is really absurd that he does not realize that this would never work in a court room.
 
Steen Svanholm said:
It is really absurd that he does not realize that this would never work in a court room.
Click to expand...

This is all part of the tunnel vision that goes along with conspirator theories. They assume everyone sees things the same way. Tony Sz just tried to justify his WTC7 arson theory by pointing out the fires in the towers only accounted for 4% of the structures, therefore the towers couldn't have started the fires. When all else fails, try making it an impossible math problem. :rolleyes:
 
Spanx said:
The way I see it, Harrit wants to go to court in order to present what he calls evidence which shows 911 was an inside job. Once the judge has been shown the evidence he/she is bound by the law to have knowledge of a crime which should be reported.
Click to expand...

I believe this ^ was Neils Haritts intention.

Unfortunately Niels did not report a crime, just what he believes is a crime and of course he didn't say who is responsible for the crimes he claims.

Obviously all of his ramblings are nothing to do why he was in court.
 
Last edited:
So it's the good ol' misprision of treason ploy again? Sounds like the standard conspiracist tautology: If the judges rule in favor of the conspiracy theorist then it's the vindication they've been seeking; if the judges rule against them then it's misprision of treason and the judges should be censured.

Conspiracy theorists always seem to have a very delusional opinion of the objective credibility of their claims. After 13 years, why would national-level judges be "astonished" at replays of old news footage?
 
Steen Svanholm said:
It is really absurd that he does not realize that this would never work in a court room.
Click to expand...

Not really, in my opinion. I find it entirely plausible that someone who spent his entire career in academia would have no clue how legal proceedings work. I find it entirely plausible that someone who has devoted considerable post-retirement attention to public advocacy of a conspiracy theory (and done largely in a vacuum) would not understand his proper burden of proof.

In the original trial, arguing that you are a Real Scientist and that therefore anything you want to propose must therefore be Real Science is a very tenuous way of trying to show you're not a crackpot and shouldn't be called one despite the general majority opinion worldwide -- which you solicited -- that you are.

I don't know how it works in Denmark. But in other kinds of law, the appeal is not simply "I didn't like the verdict so I want a do-over." The original trial tests the allegation that the reporter defamed him. An appeal tests a different allegation: namely, that the original trial court erred in its decision, either by some improper exercise of process or by a misinterpretation of law. For example, you could argue that a shaky ruling in limine improperly prejudiced the jury by allowing or limiting crucial evidence, or that an important precedent was not applied.

If Danish appeals are like Common Law appeals, you can't just go in there and present your case again, because you presume the judges are familiar with the record of the original trial. You can't just present new evidence for your original allegation, because the appeal is whether the trial court erred according to the original case, not whether it would have reached a different decision if it had been shown other evidence.

And it's certainly not a good idea to simply present the original line of reasoning: I'm a Real Scientist and therefore my 9/11 claims are Real Science. Showing to a court that he fervently believes his conspiracy claims are supported by defensible science doesn't help him. What he doesn't seem to have figured out is that Real Scientist and Crackpot (Danish, tosse) are not automatically mutually exclusive. Harrit already had the burden of proof for defamation under Danish law. To attempt to satisfy it with a roundabout claim that his conspiracy theory has scientific legitimacy is to ignore other ways of determining whether science generally accepts his claims and methods -- ways that could legitimately be applied by a non-scientist journalist or judge.

In other words, based on my non-lawyer understanding of what happens in an appeals proceeding, and my assumption that Danish law works substantially the same, I don't think Harrit had much prayer of knowing what he was supposed to have done during the oral arguments. And as I've said, I bet the judges disregard nearly all of the pseudo-scientific arguments. They were marginally relevant in the original trial, and I think they would be wholly irrelevant in an appeal. And I don't find it odd at all that an academic who steeps himself in conspiracism would know how to orally argue a legal appeal.
 
JayUtah said:
Not really, in my opinion. I find it entirely plausible that someone who spent his entire career in academia would have no clue how legal proceedings work. I find it entirely plausible that someone who has devoted considerable post-retirement attention to public advocacy of a conspiracy theory (and done largely in a vacuum) would not understand his proper burden of proof.

In the original trial, arguing that you are a Real Scientist and that therefore anything you want to propose must therefore be Real Science is a very tenuous way of trying to show you're not a crackpot and shouldn't be called one despite the general majority opinion worldwide -- which you solicited -- that you are.

I don't know how it works in Denmark. But in other kinds of law, the appeal is not simply "I didn't like the verdict so I want a do-over." The original trial tests the allegation that the reporter defamed him. An appeal tests a different allegation: namely, that the original trial court erred in its decision, either by some improper exercise of process or by a misinterpretation of law. For example, you could argue that a shaky ruling in limine improperly prejudiced the jury by allowing or limiting crucial evidence, or that an important precedent was not applied.

If Danish appeals are like Common Law appeals, you can't just go in there and present your case again, because you presume the judges are familiar with the record of the original trial. You can't just present new evidence for your original allegation, because the appeal is whether the trial court erred according to the original case, not whether it would have reached a different decision if it had been shown other evidence.

And it's certainly not a good idea to simply present the original line of reasoning: I'm a Real Scientist and therefore my 9/11 claims are Real Science. Showing to a court that he fervently believes his conspiracy claims are supported by defensible science doesn't help him. What he doesn't seem to have figured out is that Real Scientist and Crackpot (Danish, tosse) are not automatically mutually exclusive. Harrit already had the burden of proof for defamation under Danish law. To attempt to satisfy it with a roundabout claim that his conspiracy theory has scientific legitimacy is to ignore other ways of determining whether science generally accepts his claims and methods -- ways that could legitimately be applied by a non-scientist journalist or judge.

In other words, based on my non-lawyer understanding of what happens in an appeals proceeding, and my assumption that Danish law works substantially the same, I don't think Harrit had much prayer of knowing what he was supposed to have done during the oral arguments. And as I've said, I bet the judges disregard nearly all of the pseudo-scientific arguments. They were marginally relevant in the original trial, and I think they would be wholly irrelevant in an appeal. And I don't find it odd at all that an academic who steeps himself in conspiracism would know how to orally argue a legal appeal.
Click to expand...

It is in principle possible to appeal any case from the City Court to the High Court in Denmark, but the court may reject it, and they will if absolutely no new information or evidence will be presented in the appeal case or if the case itself is not of a principal matter.

In the Harrit case, he wished to add some extra evidence in the form of a video of WTC 7, his dust samples and a Facebook Thread, in which his opponent Villemoes comments the City Court result and says that he is actually sorry that he called Harrit a crackpot.

The last piece of evidence was indeed relevant for the case and Harrit put quite an effort into this. Indeed that was his best performance but he could not get Villemoes to admit that "crackpot" was aimed at Harrit as a person. He maintained that it was aimed at Harrit's theories. Villemoes was sorry about the crackpot expression because his article was never aimed at Harrit but at a museum in Copenhagen which had an absurd exhibition about the Armenian genocide having not taken place.

Villemoes never expected a libel sue from Harrit no more than he would expect a libel sue from creationists whom he also mentioned alongside with holocaust deniers. Therefore, from Villemoes' point of view this whole case is an enormous amount of wasted time and even winning is quite useless. It does not change anything for journalists, the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech.

Should he however lose, it would be a terrible shock for the freedom of speech and the way that the press works in Denmark. It would set an extreme limitation for what opinions you may express publicly. In fact, it will not be able to criticize anything openly and directly. That would certainly be a problem.

That alone speaks quite clearly of the outcome of the case. I have no doubt that Harrit will lose again. He has got no libel case and definitely no case concerning his reputation as a scientist.
 
At the Niels Harrit fan club on Facebook, a Henrik Kragh Jensen asked today:

Henrik Kragh Jensen said:
Niels Harrit, my understanding before the trial was that Hedegård supported your questioning of the official explanation, but not your theory. I don't know Hedegård personally but quite a few that do, and they were adament that that was the case. The impression I got from the trial was exactly that as well.
Click to expand...
And the Admin of the fanpage replied:
Niels Harrit Fan said:
Let me just say first, that this is an administrated page, and you are writing with an admin, not Niels Harrit in person.

I wrote what I wrote, because it is not true that Dr. Hedegaard "spoke directly against" Niels Harrit. What he did say was, that it was difficult to calculate free fall, because energy moved faster then free fall. When the judge in control of the protocols asked him, what it was he supported, Dr. Hedegaard answered, "The report (meaning the nanothermite report), I looked at it and it is good". Dr. Hedegaard said that he had calculated, that it would take 60 ton of thermite to bring down the towers, and that it was hard for him to imagine that could have happened. Dr. Hedegaard said the same thing around 5 years ago, so he was telling the truth when he made the point, that he never really looked into it actually. This is why Hedegaard could substantiate, that he thought the controlled demolition theory was nuts (because its really not Niels Harrits theory, even though many would like to make him look like a lonely nut case, being the only one with that idea). But again, when Hedegaard said that he found that the nanothermite report was good, then its hard to make the conclusion, that Dr. Hedegaard "spoke directly against" Dr. Harrit.

What Dr. Hedegaard had not looked into, the 3rd witness, architect Jan Utzon had, when he told the court that steel framed high risers do not collapse du to fire, and that he jad no doubt that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition. So in that sense, Dr. Hedegaard is not important, because he stated in court, that he never really looked into this.

Admin.
Click to expand...

Is that true? Hedegard told the court the nanothermite report is good? Color me sceptic...
 
Steen Svanholm said:
It is in principle possible to appeal any case from the City Court to the High Court in Denmark, but the court may reject it, and they will if absolutely no new information or evidence will be presented in the appeal case or if the case itself is not of a principal matter.
Click to expand...

The same concept exists in American law. An appeals court is not generally bound to hear any case. Typically they choose cases that have interesting and important points of law, or cases where lower courts have ruled differently on similar issues.

In the Harrit case, he wished to add some extra evidence in the form of a video of WTC 7, his dust samples and a Facebook Thread...
Click to expand...

See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.

...because his article was never aimed at Harrit but at a museum in Copenhagen which had an absurd exhibition about the Armenian genocide having not taken place.
Click to expand...

My impression was that Villemoes' treatment of Harrit was simply a brief, passing reference.

Should he however lose, it would be a terrible shock for the freedom of speech and the way that the press works in Denmark.
Click to expand...

The English phrase "to have a chilling effect" is how we would characterize such a ruling. Censure for a mild epithet offered in passing seems like quite a chill to me.

He has got no libel case and definitely no case concerning his reputation as a scientist.
Click to expand...

My feeling is that he doesn't get to use the courts to ensure that his public figure reputation matches what stature he may have enjoyed as a scientist earlier among fellow scientists. When he departs from accepted scientific practice and instead actively seeks attention in the public eye for polemical purposes, that's a different reputation. He can't insist that his critics apply scientific rigor in their criticism, nor insist that public reaction be universally good.

Thanks for the informative summary.
 
JayUtah said:
See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.
Click to expand...

American courts will usually only hear newly discovered evidence or witnesses, and the appealing party will probably need an explanation as to why this couldn't have been found at the time of the trial. Evidence or witnesses that weren't used or weren't found because the losers were too lazy to find it won't cut it.
 
JayUtah said:
The same concept exists in American law. An appeals court is not generally bound to hear any case. Typically they choose cases that have interesting and important points of law, or cases where lower courts have ruled differently on similar issues.

See, this is where I think Danish and American law may differ. It is unusual in American law for an appeal to consider new evidence and witnesses. I don't think an appeal would be heard in a U.S. court just because a victorious defendant publicly expressed regret or sympathy for the plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Redwood said:
American courts will usually only hear newly discovered evidence or witnesses, and the appealing party will probably need an explanation as to why this couldn't have been found at the time of the trial. Evidence or witnesses that weren't used or weren't found because the losers were too lazy to find it won't cut it.
Click to expand...
Agreed and it is similar from an AU law perspective.

AFAIK the situation with appeals is still similar across all the "common law" jurisdictions - AU, US, UK, CA, NZ etc - despite the divergences and statutory changes imposed since they left the English oversight.

An appeal in common law jurisdictions is primarily an assertion of an error on law - not in fact. The Danish Code Law system may be different.

For example the AU Federal Court principles on appeal can be summarised - my emphases:
For an appeal to succeed a party must convince the Court that the Judge that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:

applied an incorrect principle of law; or
made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.

The Court hearing the appeal:

does not consider any new evidence or information that was not presented in the original case (except in special circumstances)*;
does not call witnesses to give evidence;
does read all the relevant documents filed by the parties for the original case;
does read the relevant parts of the transcript of the original case, if available;
does listen to legal argument from both parties to the appeal.
Click to expand...
Note the * (except in special circumstances)

That's where - no matter what jurisdiction - the practising lawyers in the jurisdiction know how the courts will proceed. The Danish appeal system may allow revision of evidence of fact. And the Danish "special circumstances" will be procedurally or case law different to how it is allowed in US, AU or any other jurisdiction.

And prudent generic non-practising lawyers from another jurisdiction (e.g. me :o) make no comments.
 
Calling some a crackpot... or their beliefs crackpot would involve on some level demonstration of what constitutes a crackpot and what they or their beliefs would meet that standard. Obviously this is a term of art and not a black or white situation in many cases. But it WAS a perfect opportunity for Harrit to introduce his "ideas"/work which were the subject of and basis for the remark. I don't think the "slur" amounts to a hill of beans and not terribly outside the characterizations of the conspiracists on the media. The case was an opportunity to get their "views" about 9/11 some mainstream attention and to reinforce their assertions that the world is prejudiced against them. It's a no lose situation for truthers because no publicity is bad publicity and they had a slight chance of having someone state on the record that Harrit's work was "legitimate".

He will likely lose the appeal. But it will be touted as a Pyrrhic victory and proof to the truthers that once again... the fix is in.
 
Oystein said:
At the Niels Harrit fan club on Facebook, a Henrik Kragh Jensen asked today:


And the Admin of the fanpage replied:


Is that true? Hedegard told the court the nanothermite report is good? Color me sceptic...
Click to expand...

No, Hedegård did not say that the nano report was good. He said that it was good that Harrit et al. actually presented a report (in contrast to informal claims and freely flowing rumors) because with a concrete report, it is possible to check the figures and replicate the experiments in the report.

And Hedegård did exactly that and had calculated through simple multiplication that the amount of claimed nanothemite in the WTC-buildings would be roughly 60 tons of UNEXPLODED nanothermite, and he added that this figure had to be at least twice as much if we include the EXPLODED nanothermite.

He did not say directly that it was impossible amounts but, as far as I remember, he said that it was difficult to imagine how all that nanothermite could have been placed in the Twin Towers unnoticed.
 
Thank you for that detail Steen. I have a feeling the truthers will collectively be tuning out the 60+60 tons of nanothermite figure, instead agreeing with each other that Hedegård had called the report 'good'.
 
KDLarsen said:
Thank you for that detail Steen. I have a feeling the truthers will collectively be tuning out the 60+60 tons of nanothermite figure, instead agreeing with each other that Hedegård had called the report 'good'.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but let us await the resume from the High Court that should be published with their ruling on the 9th of April.

I am quite certain that they will ignore everything that is not closely related to whether "tosse" is libelous or not.

Actually, at an instance, when correcting Harrit's questioning, one of the judges said that the court could not settle issues concerning truths/facts of the natural sciences.

They also said, when Harrit presented his magnetic dust to Villemoes and asked him if he could see that some of the dust was magnetic, that Villemoes could not be expected to understand whatever science, Harrit tried to show him.

They clearly found that Harrit was out of line and stopped him. He did stop right away, but at that point it was quite obvious that he had weakened his own case by diverging so much from the libel issues.
 
JSanderO said:
Calling some a crackpot... or their beliefs crackpot would involve on some level demonstration of what constitutes a crackpot and what they or their beliefs would meet that standard. Obviously this is a term of art and not a black or white situation in many cases. But it WAS a perfect opportunity for Harrit to introduce his "ideas"/work which were the subject of and basis for the remark. I don't think the "slur" amounts to a hill of beans and not terribly outside the characterizations of the conspiracists on the media. The case was an opportunity to get their "views" about 9/11 some mainstream attention and to reinforce their assertions that the world is prejudiced against them. It's a no lose situation for truthers because no publicity is bad publicity and they had a slight chance of having someone state on the record that Harrit's work was "legitimate".

He will likely lose the appeal. But it will be touted as a Pyrrhic victory and proof to the truthers that once again... the fix is in.
Click to expand...

I expect Harrit to react to a lost case the same way as he reacted in the City Court, by calling it a political verdict.

But the Danish media did not pay anything near as much attention to the appeal in High Court as they did to the City Court case. In general, there is a clear fatigue both amongst the truthers and in the public in general concerning conspiracy theories about 9/11.
 
911Blogger titles "Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later) March 15, 2015" and presents the afterglow interview at the pub. A couple of cheerboys, and Prof. SE Jones comment.

One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:
some Danish truther said:
The two host said they from now on officially are convinced the 911 attacks was an inside job, of some sort.

...

The DR channel 3 is targeted young adults around 20-40 years, and the show is some what popular.
Click to expand...
Can some of you Danes comment on this?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
911Blogger titles "Three Judges “Astonished” At Now Seeing The Collapse of Building 7 (14 years later) March 15, 2015" and presents the afterglow interview at the pub. A couple of cheerboys, and Prof. SE Jones comment.

One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:

Can some of you Danes comment on this?
Click to expand...

As expected no mention as to what the court case was actually about.

Lol, with all the spam on the net now and Harrit's clear intention was to show Wtc7 and wasn't really bothered about the case, I would like to think after the verdict willemoes will have a pretty strong case against Harrit whether he win or lose.

I would say that any person who is willing to attempt to possibly give someone a prison sentence in order to show the Wtc7 collapse is either a crackpot or very stupid.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
One guy posts "Niels Harrit on Danish live DR3 TV show "Monte Carlo på DR3" this night". Harrit is on from 11:45 min onwards. Commenter says:

Can some of you Danes comment on this?
Click to expand...
Monte Carlo på DR3 is a satire show, carrying on from a radio show they did for a while. I don't watch it myself as I don't particular care for their brand of satire.
 
KDLarsen said:
Monte Carlo på DR3 is a satire show, carrying on from a radio show they did for a while. I don't watch it myself as I don't particular care for their brand of satire.
Click to expand...

Well, do they seriously take Harrit serious?
 
They are very young "journalists" - one is not educated, as far as I understand - and they have obviously only heard Harrit's version. They do' not talk much about the court case. They talk about WTC 7 and nanothermite.

Harrit is very direct and claims that WTC was a controlled demolition without any doubt and that incendiaries and explosives were used.

This is a gradual change from when he appeared on TV earlier, right after the publishing of the nano report, where he was more indirect and said that it "looked like" a CD, and "what else can it be?"

Classical radicalization amongst cults.
 
Oystein said:
Well, do they seriously take Harrit serious?
Click to expand...

They dont.

Monte Carlo is a popular satire show, where irony is well integrated in almost every aspect of the show.

Knowing their previous work, they let Harrit talk and encourage him by "agreeing" to what he says. The reel agenda is clear, to make Harrit look like a fool all by himself.

Their approach to news related subjects, are much like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, where the person interviewed is led to present his or her points in a way, that makes them look silly.
 
Josarhus said:
They dont.

Monte Carlo is a popular satire show, where irony is well integrated in almost every aspect of the show.

Knowing their previous work, they let Harrit talk and encourage him by "agreeing" to what he says. The reel agenda is clear, to make Harrit look like a fool all by himself.

Their approach to news related subjects, are much like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, where the person interviewed is led to present his or her points in a way, that makes them look silly.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.
 
Steen Svanholm said:
I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it either, but from the description I'd think more "Colbert Report" than "John Stewart". Colbert always tried to "out-crazy the crazies", so to speak, and it wasn't always obvious that he was making fun of the ultra-right-wing viewpoint.

Just thougth I'd toss that out in case the comparison helped anything.
 
Steen Svanholm said:
I am not sure I agree here.

I admit that am not familiar with the "Monte Carlo Show" in general so it may be true that their format is to let people talk unhindered and possibly make a fool of themselves, but the interview with Harrit is definitely not satire in any obvious or classical form, and to me, it does not resemble Jon Stewart in any way.

Except for the tinfoil picture of Bush in the background, which I would consider a very subtle hint, I see and hear nothing else than the two hosts agreeing with Harrit on all accounts.

At least, if they are ironic, I would guess very few young people interpret it that way, and the show aims at young people.

I am, however, open to the possibility that I am too old to understand the irony of the show. And I am quite sure that the truther communities see it as long awaited "opening" in the media towards their alternative world views.
Click to expand...

I fully agree that the truthers sees this as a victory and also that Harrit didn’t meet any opposition in the show, but I am pretty sure the two hosts didn't fell for it and I am perhaps also in general a bit more confident in the danish youth's ability to decipher what they see.

Perhaps I should clarify that the comparison to Jon Stewarts show goes for the first half of his daily show, not the last part, where Jon himself has a more in depth interview with a guest.

Truthers have a very narrow perception of things, so for them getting WTC 7 mentioned anywhere in the media is labelled a success, and they are right In saying that people in general don’t know about WTC 7, but then again even fewer are familiar with what the official explanation actually says.
 
It looked to me like the presenters of the show were trying not to laugh.

Maybe that's just the way they are on serious matters ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom