World 12/3-15 14:14

Courtroom drama in 9/11 ´crackpot´ libel case

Niels Harrit
Photo: Mike Young
Niels Harrit, former associate professor of chemistry at UCPH in front of the Eastern High Court courthouse. Is it OK to call him a 'crackpot'?
Dust from Ground Zero, a video of a collapsing building on repeat, and scientists discussing Galilei's theory of free fall. Copenhagen's 9/11 libel case court drama had it all. Decision due in four weeks time

Journalist Søren K. Villemoes seemed confident coming out of the courtroom. But his counterpart, the University of Copenhagen's former associate professor Niels Harrit, seemed unhappy with the performance of his star witness.

This is my short conclusion coming out of a four-hour long court drama in the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) in Copenhagen. The issue? Whether it was in the realm of press freedoms of speech for a journalist from Weekendavisen to call Niels Harrit, associate professor, a ‘crackpot’ [in Danish, 'tosse', ed.] in an opinion piece. The wider issue is whether the World Trade Center building collapsed from fire, or by a controlled demolition, as Niels Harrit has argued.

Søren Villemoes was not surprised about what went on in the courtroom. "I would be surprised if this higher court does not confirm the lower court's ruling after today," he said to the University Post subsequent to the proceedings.

Physicist testimony did not support Harrit

Niels Harrit had called in a man who used to be one of his starkest opponents, professor of theoretical physics Per Hedegård from the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institute as a witness on his own behalf. But his testimony ended in a debate over whether the court could understand a deeper debate about the definition of free fall. A discussion of procedure in other words. Per 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: When Per Hedegård was questioned by Niels Harrit about the data in an analysis by Niels Harrit and associates, he told the court that the nano-thermite trace content in WTC dust would imply more than 60 tons of un-exploded material prior to a detonation.

To the University Post subsequent to the stand-off in court Niels Harrit said that his old opponent, then witness on his behalf, in effect had "run away, scared". Niels Harrit confirmed that he had not discussed what he would testify beforehand with Per Hedegård.

Harrit his own advocate

A better witness (from Niels Harrit's point of view) was architect Jan Utzon who told the court that all of the buildings such as WTC 7 that had been through fires, had always burnt out without collapsing.

The actual issue at stake in this court hearing was whether the Weekendavisen journalist's statement that lumps Niels Harrit together with creationists and holocaust deniers was libellous.

Here Niels Harrit, brought in extra evidence in the form of Søren K. Villemoes' own Facebook page subsequent to the trial in the lower court. Here he wrote that he regretted attacking "an outcast", meaning Niels Harrit.

Regret, or just pity?

Niels Harrit, who was his own advocate in court, aggressively cross-examined him as a witness, prompting at one point the presiding judge to butt in, and exhort Niels Harrit to uphold a "positive and respectful tone."

Niels Harrit asked journalist Willemoes in court whether his Facebook statement was indirectly admitting that he regretted the opinion piece. That he regretted calling him a 'crackpot'.

Søren K. Villemoes maintained that his use of 'Crackpot' was not against him as a person, but against his ideas, and that his Facebook comment did nothing to change that.

"Why an outcast," prodded Niels Harrit

"To be honest? Because I had pity on you," Søren K. Villemoes retorted.

The court will rule in four weeks time.

Read a more detailed overview of the case here.

Like us on Facebook for features, guides and tips on upcoming events. Follow us on Twitter for links to other Copenhagen academia news stories. Sign up for the University Post weekly newsletter here, and then follow the University Post on Instagram here.


Crackpot Harrit

By Jos Kammers on 27. May 2015, 1:16.

Yeah right,
CD causes freefall, so all freefall must be caused by CD.
All Dutch cows are black and white, look mommy, there is a cow hanging upside down in a tree, no dear that is a Panda bear.
This is 911 for dummies.
Freefall, what did you see falling with WTC7, I can tell you, you only watched the bloody inglorious bastard videoclip, and your brains tell you that all behind the wall, all that you cannot see, is intact.
911 for dummies.

Free fall implies controlled demolition

By Mark Benton on 23. May 2015, 10:17.

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 mand. 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.

Harrit_Salomon building

By Jos Kammers on 16. May 2015, 16:31.

Now why should I, being Dutch, bother with Americans blowing up their own empty building in a late afternoon ?
Number of injured zero, number of casualties zero, area cleared for 2,5 hours over a distance of 5 blocks, so why should I bother?
Certainly not because of consequenses, because the war on terror was declared with the Salomon building still standing. Not an extra bullit was firerd because of it, so why should I bother?
Gage could not answer this one.
Furthermore, fires were observed and noted(accounts in text and audio, from over 500 firemen) on floors 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29 and 30. There was a gulge cut in the building about 1/3 of the lenght, a piece of a cornor was cut out, a bulge from 7 to 13, corners no longer alligned, tilting, creaping sounds, falling sounds, placing divices to monitor the building and it was actually moving, and worst of all, the hotdog cart was missing, along with the tourists, so it was not business as usual.
This building was freeburning and coming down. Over 500 firemen were pulled out and thee waited for 2,5h till it finally came down, and took a raid on the pickaxes to go find their brothers in the rubble of one and two.
Now read those 500+ accounts of these fireman, they were released by a FOIA. Then try to imagine that some men in black sneaked in to blow it up, with explosives that do not flash and make sound.

WTC7 > let's analyse facts

By bluerider on 19. March 2015, 1:17.

the WTC7 is as big as twice the Montparnasse tower in Paris ( a bit lower, though).. Now imagine that this huge steel and glass mass looses 30 meters of its heigth all of it at the same speed of freefall ( NIST official report : freefall for the 2.25 seconds starting from below), just collapsing and dissappearing under the basement and peripherical walls alltogether... THIRTY METERS of its heigth ! How come ? The burning fires are all inside and totally randomly occuring... statistically our chances, to see what we saw, are near ZERO by dozens of ZERO after the comma before finding any decent figure ! what about the Barry Jennings testimony ? ( the guy died just before the release of the NIST report, but nobody knows what this wife and 4 sons have become since... no private detective would accept to find them bacK....)... what about hundreds of explosions testimonies,and intense HEAT testimonies accompanying the dust cloud, and then as measured by NASA satellites until december... etc. there is no better blind man as that one who do not want to see.

critical thinking?

By Miranda Hall on 17. March 2015, 0:47.

9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception

I think it is very clear.
I hope for people to come out of their fear and realize the truth, sooner the better.
The surveillance is getting heavier and we lack of private life - there is only public life, now a days... welcome to big brother.


By Darryl Pickering, lektor on 16. March 2015, 19:19.

Perhaps it was an alien attack? Martians? Venusians?
That's one theory that's just as impossible to disprove, and as ridiculous, as the current theory being discussed. That's the rub. It's perhaps impossible to scientifically disprove such an alternate outlandish theory. How about a little common sense?

1) WTC was destroyed. Does anyone deny that the buildings in NYC no longer exist? Go to NYC and take a look for yourself.
2) tens of thousands of New Yorkers first hand saw the planes hitting the buildings.
3) the whole world saw the video footage of that.
4) why would USA govt want to destroy these buildings, and kill thousands of their own citizens? To what real advantage?

To all the conspiracy theory fringe elements, I guess it makes some sort of 'logical' sense. Unfortunately, lunatics also have the right to spout their lunacy. I can only hope that most reasonable people can see the lunacy.

In response.

By Inresponsetoblindness on 29. March 2015, 9:27.

1) Nobody denies the buildings were destroyed.
2) The amount of witnesses of the impact of the two planes has no relevance to the third un-impacted buildings eventual collapse.
3) See above-mentioned.
4) Not being discussed, is irrelevant.

The point here is that established science an indeed the scientific method are both being disregarded and public safety all over the world is in danger. The problem (if NIST are correct) is that previously thought safe building materials with a near perfect track record, can in not so abnormal fires, behave unexpectedly and cause total catastrophic failure of entire buildings.

That should be enough for a normal person to be very worried, the buildings you live in or work in or send your kids to, are prone to some very dangerous behaviour.

So the truth in this case is very important for anyone in the world that makes use of steel framed buildings. It is important enough without talking about conspiracies and motives, this is about public safety and the competence of the institutions that protect us.


By Bloggulator on 20. March 2015, 0:37.

The problem with those who criticize the skeptics of the official version of (any aspect of) 9/11 - is that they seldom posit any hard science and substitute rational discussion with name-calling. That suggests they've either have no case to argue, or they don't know the facts.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology version of how WTC fell has been been disproven, even by their own findings (!) - and not only that, NIST cherry-picked the data, omitted vital information that cast doubt on their theory, and outright LIED about certain aspects of the destruction. Furthermore, they pushed the input parameters of their computer model of the collapse way beyond real world conditions in order to get a politically acceptable outcome...and she challenged to release the source code of their collapse model scenario, they gave the unbelievably lame excuse that "to do so would endanger public safety". The NIST report is a worthless pile of dry-labbed poppycock, but it does appeal to the comfort zpne of the populace, hence the lack of hard questioning

If only the powers that be, alongside their corporate media lackeys had been transparent about this from the start......

NATO's secret armies

By bluerider on 19. March 2015, 1:19.

better read this book before jackassing. by Daniele Gänser, from the Basel University, Switzerland, contemporary history PHD professor...

keep your eyes open

By Sao on 17. March 2015, 12:03.

Dear Darryl, I could reply with a very extensive comment to yours, to speak for all those who you, very confident, call lunatics.

I will rather just point to one of your 'arguments', number 3, and ask you to watch this:

I rely on your likely scientific background, so please let me know whether you have an explanation for that.

North and South tower

By Sao on 16. March 2015, 15:46.

The fact that building 7 has been chosen by the truthers to be sold as the "smoking gun" already tells us much of what the public (experts, not experts, smart and not smart people) is ready to accept from 911 and how painfully careful the truthers hve to be in their cause. I am a scientist, I consider myself sharply skeptic and critic, and I have been forming my own opinion on 911 since 2003 (way before loose change and the more sensationalist documents were produced). For me building 7 is obviously an inside job, but there is equal evidence to claim that the twin towers were demolished and, in contrast, nobody dares to talk about it. How sad is that the obvious is transformed in dubious so easily (about building 7)...I can understand why the twin towers are a much tougher cake to sell because there were planes involved, structural damage, bla bla bla... In fact the use of explosives is as clear as in building 7 (the physics), but there is even more visual evidence for the twins. Why does nobody talk about it?

The Event...

By Brian Jørgensen on 15. March 2015, 20:28.

Not 1, not 2 but 3 building collapses in (near) free fall speed...

It did NOT happen on different dates...

It did NOT happen three different places...

It all happend same day same site...

It never happend before...

It never happend again...

Nature of energy waves?

By Spuzzum on 15. March 2015, 7:33.

"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections"

The column in question is Column 79. They said "thermal expansion" caused the column to rock off it's support, causing the rest of the 25 internal and 58 external columns to fail as well. In other words, the failure of 1 column, caused 82 other columns to fail as well.. all within seconds of the first.

NIST also says that the only reason that column rocked off it's support in the first place, is because none of the columns had stud supports. Recent FOIA blueprints show that indeed there was shear studs.. on all the columns. There's no way in hell it should have "rocked off", and even more ridiculous to think that it caused the complete collapse of a building with 83 total columns, especially at the speed it did.

Complex Natural Energy Waves

By Dean Sanderson on 14. March 2015, 5:02.

We may have been out maneuvered again. Out of the blue, Per Hedegård has struck a blow against science and favoring doubt. Its almost as if he had been coached.

By invoking such ideas as "the complex 'nature' of the energy waves" he is in a single stroke forgiving the judges and the general public for not siding with the "truthers" and implying that Niels Harrit, whose expertise is chemistry not mechanics, may have been naive and overzealous in his conclusions, thereby betraying the public trust. Per implies natural law is at work but that it is complex, difficult to understand, and even more difficult to explain.

This has been a personal challenge for some time now as many people I've met find this complexity (of the fall) to be a sticking point. People don't like to dwell on a depressing subject, especially one that is mentally taxing. Better to leave it to the "experts" to haggle over. The problem is that no one will trust experts spouting uncomfortable ideas. Democracy will fail if we don't accept that it requires an educated, critically thinking public. We must take responsibility for our own understanding.

When faced with the vastly more frightening idea of powerful government involvement it is easy for people to rule out the demolition hypothesis as not satisfying either motive or opportunity. If you begin with the premiss that demolition is ruled out then it is easy to see that it must be the responsibility of science to explain how the apparent magic bullet is really just a complex application of natural law. Any failure to do so is an indictment of the science community, most of whom would rather not like to risk public ridicule by declaring the King naked.

Working against us is the inherent difficulty of any impossibility proof. Look at how long it took to produce a proof of the relatively intuitive Four Color Map Theorem in a way that was acceptable to mathematicians. To prove something as possible you need only show a single successful example. To prove something impossible you have to entrap all possible opposing cases. One effective way to do this is to show that any successful opposition to the hypothesis is by its nature self contradictory. If I tried to do that here I would loose all my audience. Instead I will make a meager stab at reducto ad absurdum. Here goes:

I can understand how a mere chemist like Niels Harrit might not understand how these complex natural energy waves work but you would expect more from NASA. They specialize in this free fall stuff except that they call it "orbiting". If they would only install more of these Complex Natural Energy Wave units they could virtually eliminate orbital decay by changing the rate of free fall without having to expel mass. We could keep the Space Station up there forever with only the use of solar power. Heck, if George Clooney had this stuff in his backpack he would not have had to die. If we could grab our own bootstraps and generate some of these Complex Natural Energy Waves we might not even need spaceships and boosters to ascend into the stars, escaping the fate of our dying sun.

Now how cool is that?

Dr.Harrit 9/11

By JOHN CAMERON on 14. March 2015, 0:51.


Attack on Pentagon is easier for layman to understand

By Enver Masud on 13. March 2015, 18:05.

A Boeing 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon — something else did.

I live less than a mile away, and as I tried to view the damage at the Pentagon, the first question I and other onlookers asked was, "where's the plane."

It's much easier for the layman to evaluate the evidence from the Pentagon than from the World Trade Center.

Check it out at —

Understanding and Education

By Ken Allan on 13. March 2015, 7:32.

Professor Harrit is not idiot, in either Chemistry or Physics. He is unfortunate to be caught in a debate which is really highly specialised in that it requires not only an understanding of Newtonian physics but also the ability to apply it to observable phenomenon. The collapse of WTC Building 7, as with the Twin Towers, and the analysis of its motion is not for the lay person to understand easily. The average person neither has the educational background nor the understanding of Newtonian physics to know the difference between free fall and any other type of motion that can be witnessed by the collapse of an architectural structure. Unfortunately, the science behind some of the nitty gritty issues to do with the collapse of the WTC Buildings and their debris is all like that. For instance, thermite, never mind nanothermite which incidentally is basically a similar material is a chemical substance that also requires a fair degree of knowledge and understanding of Chemistry. I sympathise with Harrit. He is correct, but even the average High Court judge will not be able to understand the matter of his arguments.

reply to understanding and education

By Barry Mead on 13. March 2015, 14:59.

That is true but what is sad is admittance of lack of knowledge. If the judge knew one thing it would be to ask any expert pro the official version. Can you show the court a total not partial collapse by fire of a steel framed building.
Or,i don't understand this i am told free fall Meant no resistance so what took away the walls resistance?
I understand I am told iron needs to be vaporised to produce microsphere of it,so how hot is that and how hot did the towers get and how hot does this thermite get.
Or, can any of you take any building and make the top crush the progressively stronger bottom, please do a demonstration.

There is no scientist in the world given fire and a steel frame and even replication of the damage, can produce the same effect,it is why none have.
Look at the debunkers,they invest so much time in words to defy physics when a simple experiment would silence conspiracy theories forever so why has not even one debunking person tried? I'll tell you why,they will fail and know it so they won't publicly try to replicate what would be impossible.

Inside job..

By Poul Andersen on 13. March 2015, 6:50.

We all know that it was an inside job, no questions asked.
All what is needed now is for this judge to grow a pair !

Takes some clout to stand up and be on the offensive

By Gio Zane on 13. March 2015, 4:06.

Anyone with some objectivity and common sense can realize with minimal research that 9/11 was the biggest false flag in history. However the trial turns out for the first time we have had a 911 truth advocate stand up for thesscientific reality and his own public dignity. Bravo. The next case of 'defamation of character' will have a foundation laid by this one no matter what the outcome. Its time for the 911 truth community to stop apologizing for the hard facts and instead feel 'pity' on those that refuse to consider the deep implications.

Niels Harrit is correct

By Enver Masud on 13. March 2015, 1:00.

Read FREE book: #911UNVEILED at

Nixon's foreign policy advisor wrote:

"9/11 Unveiled . . . is the best short summary of what most Americans and virtually all of the rest of the world consider to be the 9/11 mystery"

The World is Watching!

By Mike Baldwin on 13. March 2015, 0:15.

With NIST admitting that building 7, for over 1/3 of it's collapse was at free fall acceleration, the facts of this case are not in question. What's in question is the integrity and fearlessness of this judge.

Free Fall and collapse

By Barry Mead on 13. March 2015, 0:02.

As Ken Doc points out, free fall is not debatable. Therefore if the libel is because of the "ideas" the idea being attacked cannot be free fall.
Theoretical physicists implications of the potential to exceed free fall is the outlandish claim, i wonder if he submitted a handful of examples where, with no force but gravity, any object, let alone a building has exceeded free fall.

Moreover, since as Ken says, and scientists worldwide know, free fall means 0 resistance, -ABSOLUTE NOTHING-Now again, i ask, can ANY scientists or layman, demonstrate, a single example of free fall of an object supported on 3 or more sides after being subject to fire. Even a stool made wood on 3 legs will not fall straight down, and all supports give way at the same time.
But building 7 had more than 3 "legs" it had multiple supports, but NIST would contend that a single failure resulted in the complete internal collapse, the only noticeable effect of which was the collapse of the penthouse on one side, followed by the total drop of the whole building.

Of course there we STILL have a problem, a little thing called external walls, because 0 resistance means, 0 resistance,so what took away the walls?

And, we must recall that NIST initially denied free fall.
So presumably Harrit was a crack pot back then when he said it WAS free fall. But did the journalist make mention that the work of David Chandler, a single physics professor, vs NISTS entire team for their wtc investigation, forced an about face?
Did the journalist write that, though he refutes the premise of the claim-That explosives were used, government complicity etc- that the claim itself is true?

No, yet, the claim is true, therefore step 2 after proving it is to cite science and say naturally this does not happen, this we know.
Therefore, the challenge must be a claim of "Yes, fire can,does,has,will, cause free fall collapse" Since the claims of Harrit etc match known science, this requires any libelous persons making a counter claim to prove it. Prove free fall of steel structures from fire.

Prove 1/5th of a building can crush the remaining 4/5ths. Prove, a 22 degree tilt won't slide off a building rather than falling straight down through the path of most resistance.

I had hoped for science to, being at last on display, allow a reality to be confirmed.
It seems otherwise may be the case, but all i can say is, anyone who doubts Harrits claims, you are making the claim, PROVE IT!

Free Fall Debate?

By Ken Doc on 12. March 2015, 22:45.

There is nothing to debate about Free Fall. NIST even admitted that Building 7 collapsed at Free Fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. So what is to debate?For this to happen all structural supports have to be eliminated at precisely the same time. Something that fire alone could never accomplish.


free fall

By Write your name here (anonymous comments will be deleted) on 12. March 2015, 23:55.

quote "For this to happen all structural supports have to be eliminated at precisely the same time"

No.The external structure could have resisted ... because it had been transformed
to an empty box by the internal collapse ... 8 seconds or more before.
The external structure was not structural

Acceleration of gravity,

By Brian Rogers on 13. March 2015, 19:15.

Acceleration of gravity, there could be no resistance, therefore Ken is correct logically. All supporting structural beams would have to be removed simultaneously. NIST refuses to release their computer model.

Nice NIST paper theory, but um, no

By Superlogicalthinker on 13. March 2015, 1:49.

Nice try buddy, youre just plagerizeing from the NIST report. That BS about the "hollow shell". Ya, it's such a crock of shit. Only paid dis info agents for the US government cite that bullshit.

Free Fall

By Barry Mead on 13. March 2015, 0:06.

Really? Then replicate it, because it never ever happened before, and FYI 4 walls are not 0 resistance. So i challenge you, build just 4 walls as high as wtc 7 and then knock them down and time it.

Oh but one thing, if there was NO internal building, what caused the walls to collapse from the bottom? Obviously every part has survived the drop and pulling of the internal floors, so we are now saying, the wtc 1 will see perimeter walls buckle by a floor or two dropping, but an ENTIRE building crashing down internally, and not a window cracks not a twist or turn, NOTHING?
Please, science is not banned, legally you are allowed to use it, please do.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Fill in the blank
KUA3 Dragør Luftfoto
The University Post has cycled out to investigate how the Law, Theology and IVA faculties are planning to inject (student) life into their new campus in Copenhag
Arctic iceberg
ADVENT CALENDAR 2016 - Can you see what it is on the beach? See the photos and follow the Greenland trip in the days up to Christmas Eve
Science 5/12-16 8:51

The Arctic mission

Arctic Station 1 December
ADVENT CALENDAR 2016 - Off the west coast of Greenland is a research station called the Arctic Station. The University Post visited it in late October

Contact University Post

Write us an email:

Or call the newsroom on +45 35 32 28 98
(Monday - Thursday 9.00 - 16.00)

University of Copenhagen

  • Nørregade 10
  • 1165 Copenhagen K
  • Denmark
  • Tel. +45 35 32 28 98
Write us an email: