Harrit sues paper for defamation

[Steen Svanholm]

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.

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]

Claus Larsen and I (911facts.dk) were at the High Court hearings yesterday.

Read our take on it here in English:

http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023

Kind regards,
Steen

gravitational acceleration which Hedegård affirmed that, yes, it was about 9.88 m/s2

So all of this is taking place on a planet other than Earth? That explains much.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

So all of this is taking place on a planet other than Earth? That explains much.

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.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

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.

 

[chrismohr]

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.

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.

 

[Oystein]

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. ...

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...

 

[jaydeehess]

Effective acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is between 9.83 and 9.79 m/s²

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

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".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

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

The denser the rock the more gravity because of the added mass.

 

[Oystein]

http://youtu.be/N_KFyW9LPRA

Crackpot ?

First goal, show wtc7
second goal, win the case

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.

 

[Spanx]

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.

I does show his intention was to waste everybody's time in order to show Wtc7 in a court.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

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.

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.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

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.

 

[Spanx]

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.

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.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

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.

 

[DGM]

It is really absurd that he does not realize that this would never work in a court room.

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.

 

[Spanx]

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.

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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?

 

[JayUtah]

It is really absurd that he does not realize that this would never work in a court room.

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.

 

[Steen Svanholm]

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.

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.