Professor “Crackpot” Niels Harrit vs “Madness in the Library” Media

harrit

High Court Action – Coming Soon

The dispute began when journalist Søren K. Villemoes published a scathing article (December 2012) entitled, “Madness in the Library”. In the article he referred to Niels Harrit and his 9/11 Truth colleagues as “crackpots” (and grouped Harrit with creationists and Holocaust deniers).

This sounds familiar. ABC’s Jon Faine and Minister Josh Frydneberg did the same to Kevin Braken in Australia.

As a scientist who had taught for 40 years at the University of Copenhagen, Dr. Harrit was appalled at being labeled a “crackpot”, so he filed a libel suit against Villemoes and the editor of Weekendavisen. On August 16, 2013, the two parties appeared in City Court in Copenhagen.

Under Danish libel law, Villemoes had the burden of demonstrating a factual basis for his claim. As a journalist, he must also demonstrate that his reporting meets the standards of good journalism. At the first trial, he did neither. Still, the judge ruled in his favor.

They will be back in the High Court in two weeks and Villemoes will have a much harder time, because Dr. Harrit is being allowed to submit more evidence — namely, the video of WTC 7’s destruction, as well as an actual sample of the WTC dust.

It all started in 2009 when an international team of scientists published an article in the Bentham Open Chemical and Physics Journal detailing the findings of their 18-month study on dust samples recovered from the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001.

Based on their discovery of red-gray chips found in the WTC dust, the group concluded that a high-tech nano-thermitic material was present. This supports the conclusion that wide-scale thermitic reactions were a primary cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction on 9/11. Full Report at ae911thruth.org.

Let the games begin. Hopefully this will be one of many court cases that unravels the lie that is 9-11.

You can support Harrit here (donate) and you can follow the case here at Niels Harrit’s Facebook page.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good points Sandberg

  2. Edwin Vieira says:

    These discussions are all so non-scientific. What needs to be done is an experiment to verify or falsify the official theory: namely, to build an exact replica of WTCB7, reproduce as closely as possible the fires which are supposed to have led to the collapse, and see what happens. Does the building collapse, whether “in its footprint” or otherwise, or not? Surely, with something as important as the 9/11 event, expense and effort should be no object. (Of course, the whole exercise would need to be supervised by a non-partisan team of really disinterested scientists and engineers, with complete public disclosure at, and full retention of records for, every stage of the experiment.)

    • @edwin,
      First, should the US blow up an empty building, owned by them, who are we to bother.
      Second, should, according to Tony Szamboty, the lease holder had agreed with the insurance company(s) to blow up 7, then again, who are we to bother.

    • Edwin, perhaps a good idea but too bloody expensive.
      The US method of coming to the truth is the Jack Bauer method.
      Torture! It is the US way.
      So who best to put in yellow jump suits is those in control in the US on 911.
      God forbid that I suggest torture.
      I know the answer! Water boarding. Now we have it said that it is not torture, merely some enhanced interrogation. Ask Phillip Ruddock, former Australian Attorney General!
      Now that is out of the way to satisfy the KSM alleged admissions that he did it from A to Z we can spread out the following for some water treatment.
      Oh dear, now who in the US mass murder corporation on 911 should we start with?
      Any suggestions! El Kebab, Johnny, X fu or Karulas?
      Then we can get to the truth in a jiffy and forget all this troll crap.
      By the way; KSM has been in custody for 911 for over a decade, can’t wait for his military trial.
      Then again representatives Lynch and Wilson have seen the 28 pages redacted from the official 911 congressional report. Wonder what Carroll and our three musketeers think is contained therein. My guess; another firewall to protect the client of the threesome and Carroll.

      • I recall Wilson, but on reflection it may be Green?
        In any case, Saudi Arabia has been put up as the next firewall of patsies to cover for our resident ttroll’s client.

  3. One matter of interest to people from Sydney in the Harritt case is referred to in the interview , being that Utzon (jnr) who is presently working on the Sydney opera house, is to be called by Harrit.
    In the SMH on 19th November 2009 ( from memory) there is an article relating to the Utzin-Gage discussion of the strange collapse of No 7. In the same section is a blurb explaining the NIST version of No 7. One article was by Seam Nicols and the other by Rick Fenely, Both are still with The SMH.
    One of them may wish to follow up the relevance for the SMH if some one tells them about this development.
    XF; I do not think that Mr. Utzon really cares if you class him as a nutcase, as he and the rest of the 911 thinkers appreciate that you are a few nuts short, in a Sqirrel’s stash and that your opinion is of no consequence.

  4. Actually, if people go to ae911truth.org they can see that Harrit does thank those who have supported his costs. Within his thankyou letter is a link to his 17 minute interview during which he sets out relevant matters pertaining to his case. I commend it,
    Perhaps it could be placed on this site Dee? I am away from resources for a few days to be able to submit it myself. It is very informative.

  5. Dr. Niels Harrit has announced on his facebook page that he has reached his goal… $ 15.000 is on his bank account.

    He wants to thank all the nutcases who made this possible.

    • Sandberg says:

      You know you’ve got nothing to question Harrit’s integrity, so you resort to cheap fantasies about him being a moneyhungry lowlife who couldn’t care less about integrity. Same goes for Richard Gage, a David Chandler, a Kevin Ryan, Greame McQueen etc. It’s pretty sad to watch guys like yourself engage in this type of behavior, but so be it. It says a lot about your personalities and what you’re here for.
      Nobody here of buying any of your cheap bullshit.
      And of course nobody’s perfect, including Richard Gage, a David Ray Griffin, a Kevin Ryan, but that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that they’re on the right track when it comes to finding out what really happened on 9/11.

      • Yes but I do, http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/chainsawprof/P1000572_zps8mhnxv9y.jpg
        Iron spheres such as the Fe 3O4 macro sphere are common when fine steel wire oxidizes or when finely divided Iron oxides
        Are reduced from contacting hot carbons.

        There will be 3 naturally occurring species of such micro spheres, Fe, Fe O, Fe 3O4. Since the Fe is the primary form of sphere associated with thermite an unnatural ratio of Fe to Fe oxides must be shown.

        A 85% to 15% ratio would reach near natural ratio.

        I see no quantifications of the ratios in any paper published by Jones&Harrit and no accounting for natural contamination, so nothing in the paper is relevant in the finding or the structure.
        The paper is pseudo Crackpot Science of no merit.

        • El-Kammo says:

          @Carroll,
          Allow me to add;
          Niels should have stayed within his profession, his line of field, for it is not his profession that is at stake here.
          Let’s say that someone hands a bag of dust, to contract him to find out what’s in it, and he douse.
          Then he would report to his contractor, including his written conclusions, end of job.
          But end of job is not the case, for he has developped into the Danish Richard Gage, giving lectures that support the way Gage thinks.
          Now, his title, his curruculam vitae, is not ment to support theories beyond his field of expertise, only to “wow” or “aw” the audience, like “I am a professor, so I must be right”.

          • Sandberg says:

            No El-Kammo, what every selfrespecting and honest scientist or engineer should do when they encounter such blatant and in-your-face scientific fraud like those reports that NIST has produced (point is very few scientists and engineers have done so up till now, a lot of them willfully I suspect), is to speak up and speak out about it. That’s somewhat of a hard choice.

            It has not happened, mostly because of the sensitive nature of the subject and the fact that one’s automatically labelled a nutcase or crackpot the moment one dares to disagree with the official story let alone come up with a CD-hypothesis for the Twin Towers and WTC7.

            And btw I don’t give a rat’s ass about titles or anything, what I do is see if I can understand a hypothesis in terms of logic and odds of occurence.
            If a garbageman explains to me that WTC7 cannot come down like it did from fires and damage because these two things cannot account for the sudden complete loss of all remaining steel columns, I believe him, because that explanation “makes sense to me”.

          • Sandburg what problem do you have with the crush down, crush up theory what about the shielding mass that falls down the funnel effect of the perimeter columns ahead of the upper building structure?

            Do you understand that it only takes 100,000lbf to fracture a weld on a core column from an off center strike?

            Do understand that the main evidence from photos of the steel,
            was weld failure of the contiguous welds in said core columns which caused separation of core sections every 36ft along the welds?

            Have you actually read the paper By Dr. Greening, and Dr. Benson?

          • Carroll – maybe try answer my questions.
            And I’m still trying to get an answer about how a massive chunks of material can shoot out laterally from the collapsing towers for hundreds of feet… as I said did gravity do a 90 degrees that day?

          • That is the same argument Steven E Jones often used,
            Jones admitted that black iron oxide can be created in fires, mico spheres what he failed to realize is that fine steels like those used in Wire, and in cables oxidizing, can produce the heat, to produce solid decarbonized iron microspheres .
            What you see in the dust as reported by RJLee is most likely a natural product of the fires,
            The chips ignited in the close ups in the videos look like a simple surface gas ignition test, Jones or Harrit refuse to release data, Basils has not done a proper ignition test under argon gas to prove self oxidation.
            If true nano thermite were involved, I would expect the chips residue to be blown apart, and the material the chip was sitting on to be damaged, a gas reaction however the energy is released upward into the air, that is not a phenomenon of a thermite reaction, but of carbons ignited in air.
            I see no evidence any of this material is thermitic and given that I have personally participated in debates with Jones in the past, I find no evidence of merit in the claims based solely on the emperical evidence provided By Jones, Harrit, and Basils.

          • Sandberg says:

            So if this is all true what you’re saying here, then why haven’t you come up with an official report yet, one that defies all of the claims made by Harrit concerning the presence of MIC’s in the WTC dust?

            If it was all that easy, why hasn’t there been an official peerreviewed paper in which this is laid out?

            You sound like you know something about Chemistry Carroll, if you think Harrit is wrong or doing the wrong thing, then act accordingly.

            And btw, this nanothermite issue is of course not really relevant in the light of all the other proof that’s there for some kind of CD for all three buildings.

          • Until such time that people like Niels Harrit can do valid science,
            Provide valid proof, either physical, mathematical, or experimential they will be labeled crack pots and laughed at.
            $ 15000 for what braging rights, it cost me $150.00 to ignite a
            Thermitic paint chip under argon gas by converting an old propane tank into a containment vessel, for the gas by merely making a window and covering it with thick safety glass.
            You would think proving Niels right would have been cheaper than paying his legal fees for his appeal.
            Does not matter how long a career you have had, the evidence, the science has to be valid, it has to stand on it’s own and be logical nothing more.
            We do not need the truther equivalents of old patent medical shows and claims of magic drinks that cure all, valid science that stands the tests it is put though, is what the truth movement fails at.
            I wish Niels luck he needs it because it looks like he is going to be laughed out of court tomorrow if he is only going to do the same old song and dance routines.
            Don’t blame me if I am right just my opinion looking at the data he has so far presented, and solely the data.

          • Sandberg says:

            Maybe you should another look and hard look at both NIST-reports, Carroll.
            Take a look and see if you can find any “valid science, that stands on it’s own and is logical”.

            I can’t.

        • Sandberg says:

          So write a paper about it Carroll, and publish it, have it peerreviewed. You will make a lot of people happy. Frankly, I find it strange that this has not happened already. There’s no official paper whatsoever that refutes the nanothermite-paper of Harrit & Jones. If it’s so easy to refute, if it’s really a piece of “pseudo crackpot science of no merit” by all means, show it to him and the rest of the world.

          • Well said Sandberg.
            I have also challenged Carroll (in email) to comment on the following article about B7 Can it be determined “beyond all reasonable doubt” that fire was the cause of Building 7’s collapse? And, if it looked like a perfect controlled demolition – maybe we should have a peek to see if that was happened?

          • I can show there is no evidence of thermitic materials, in the data, there is no evidence of hypersonic detonation waves to produce Monrue’s Effect ,
            So if you wish to debate I am fine with that as I personally carried out the experiments myself out of my own curiosity.
            Explosives nondirectional could not be used to bring the building down.
            That thermitic oxygen cutters were not used.
            That all residue data could occur naturally.
            Natural thermitic paint chips can occur accidentally in construction.
            Although no credible evidence that they were found exists.

          • Have you also not read the paper by Dr.Greening and Dr. Benson the math for that ejection is in it, there is enough potential energy in the collapses. All that is required is a collision to redirect the mass.
            Gravity pulls things straight downward however the trajectory can be altered by interactions in the decent.
            I would have to look into the specifics, I also realize that there were parts of the aluminum Cladding that was found hundreds of feet from the buildings and misrepresented as heavier steel.

          • Sandberg why do I need to write a paper to disprove, Niels Harrit, and Jones paper, it disproves itself.
            On he claims elemental Al, yet no evidence for that claim exists, in the paper itself, he fails to prove both the Al fuel and self oxidation.
            Two he claims that the structure of the iron oxidide Hemitie proves nano engineering, neglecting that the same structure is produced from the oxidation of ball milled Magnetite Fe 304, to hemitite in the manufacture of pigments for red paint.
            I have simply added cutting dust from Al to international Harvester Red paint an created a paint chip that will ignite under argon, the burn pattern an energy potentials do not match Basile’s examples they are ten to 15 times more energetic.
            There Just seems to be no logic or merit to the claims in the Harrit Jones paper, if you dispute that then point out my errors.

          • El-Kammo says:

            This stuff is out of my league, not my profession.
            Now, should this stuff really exist and applied in the twins, and ignited, then, where was the light that goes with the reaction?
            Same goes for nukes.

          • Sandberg says:

            OK Carroll, why not calling things as you appear to see them…

            You believe Harrit and the lot are frauds, either completely stupid and incompetent, or they all are deliberate kinda scary freaks thinking they can bend science without anybody noticing it. Anybody but the likes of Carroll Sanders that is.

            I assume you went over both NIST-reports with the same rigor you just displayed here? If so, why haven’t you picked out any of the huge discrepencies, glaring errors and outright false statements that these reports contain?
            And surely you don’t agree with the socalled “crushdown-crushup”-hypothesis? Surely you can imagine someone, anyone for that matter, having a slight problem with reconciling fire as the cause for the failing of all remaining steel columns.

          • I don’t think I have to prove your errors, Carroll. What you need to do if you think that Harrit is wrong is write a paper about it in which you prove he’s wrong and why he’s wrong. You can write all that stuff here but that’s no good.
            And what problem I have with the crush down crushup theory you ask? Well, for starters that it’s only a “theory”, based on illogical and unrealistic assumptions.
            Other than that “slight” problem I believe that this “theory” has not really been tested in reality, at all. Therefore it’s not really a credible theory to me. You cannot come out and just claim that all of the potential energy of the upper block goes into just the upper floor of the lower block. That doesn’t make sense at all to me, just as assuming that I would be able to annihilate a big eighteenwheeler truck with my Ford Escort wouldn’t make much sense either. Assuming that the upper block would be in freefall is another assumption that doesn’t sit very well with me, can you imagine? I would assume that that would bother you too. Obviously somehow it doesn’t.
            These are things that have been pointed out many times before in the past, but have been ignored.
            So Carroll, I wonder, will you ignore them also or try to wave them away as if it’s not relevant or important? Or will you acknowledge them and recognize that something else must obviously be going on?

  6. El-Kammo says:

    The only thing Dalia needed to do, when in doubt about me, was to make the call.
    She recieved my CV (mine only) and contact info.

  7. Update : March 3, 13.55 pm (CET)

    It’s not up to you to decide wheter the debate is over or not.

    It would be up to you if you were a neutral moderator in this issue.

    But you’re not neutral (none of us is) and banning people only shows that you can’t stand up to any criticism.

    Grow up and try to learn something from what we are sharing with you.

    It has become very Obvious to me whilst reading the comments that none of the people who oppose to NIST actually has read the NIST report.

    That’s one of the reasons why you can’t and won’t understand (I mean this in a respectful manner) why for example the NIST model doesn’t match the reality.

    In fact, it would be very suspicious if it did as there are so many unknown parameters.

    We’ll have to wait but I wouldn’t be surprised if A&E would come up with a model that does match with what we’ve seen in reality.

    Honest question to you : how should A&E manage to make an exact simulation of the building’s collapse with so many unknown parameters ?

    In my opinion it would mean that they already knew the outcome before even starting their simulation (working backwards for that matter).

    And more importantly, what if the A&E simulation would differ from the videos ? Would you be rejecting it as well ?

    • Sandberg says:

      So XF, are you saying that you actually HAVE gone through the 1000’s of pages of numbers, beautiful graphs and total TNRAT (as Kevin Ryan likes to call it)?
      How many people will have done so, according to your best estimate?
      Kevin Ryan has taken it upon himself to read through that report (Ron Brookman also has written an article in which he shows that fundamental parts of that report on the Towers are deeply flawed) and point out where those reports are flawed. You can check it out for yourself if and if so, where he’s wrong and why. I’ve checked all the points he’s been talking about for myself, checked to see if it’s actually in that report. Guess what, they were. Ain’t that funny?

      Now, you actually bring up a good point about AE911Truth making its own model about WTC7. Not really sure the need to do so, because all the videofootage out there kinda “speaks for itself” so to speak.
      All four walls failing at the same instant, EPH a fraction before that, FFA for the first 2.25 seconds, dropping into its own footprint in about 7 seconds. Case closed.

      • johnnyboy2222 says:

        So much wrong here.

        So watching a video is proof? No wonder most truthers only watch videos, instead of looking into the many reports and research done, which proof the buildings collapsed in a natural way. There are literally dozens of research papers out there.

        Not all four wals fell at same instant, because the collapse damaged several other buildings. EPH did not collapse a fraction before, it collapsed 12 seconds before, Taking down a part of at least the southwall, because you can actually see the sky through the windows after the penthouse collapsed. FFA was only in the second stage.

        The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
        Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
        Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
        Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

        And this was only the north face..

        Its clear, you havent checked out any one of the reports. You were even to lazy to read just the FAQ from WTC1, 2 and 7. But I guess that was all to hard to do, since you were to busy looking at videos.

        • Sandberg says:

          Johnny, you can babble all you want about reports written by NIST, fact is it’s all there in black and white in every video of WTC7 out there. Your socalled “stage 1” does not exist, it’s a fairytale where nothing happens, it’s made up by NIST, an artificial startingpoint so as to get to the 5.4 seconds.
          The West penthouse failed indeed, some 8 seconds before the EPH failed, and I can say I’m not really impressed with NIST’s “vertical upward progression of failure” (some 34 floors, yeah right) fairytale explanation, pulled out of thin air, with absolutely NOTHING to back this up.
          The Content of the video’s are proof, solid proof, of some type of controlled demolition, that’s right. It’s plain as day.
          I don’t know why you keep protesting that it would not be, I don’t know why you would think that NIST’s theory about WTC7’s total collapse would be anything else than pure conjecture.

          Of course you will keep avoiding talking about the fact that NIST’s report about WTC7 is not peerreviewed, the fact that the inputdata of it’s computermodels cannot be accessed be anyone, plus the fact that they did not use one single piece of physical evidence to formulate their theory (because it was all destroyed of course, all but for one piece (the Swiss cheese piece, showing intergranular melting), investigated by FEMA, called the biggest mystery of it all, and of course not follow up on that the slightest bit).

          So I don’t know who exactly you’re trying to fool here.

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            First of all, i am sorry you still have to watch things in black and white. Secondly, the East penthouse collapsed first, so again you fail. And it was peer reviewed, just like the report on WTC1 and 2, so another fail. The cheesy steel was also explained. so you fail misserably.

            http://www.georgevandervoort.com/images/fa_lit_papers/WTC_Talk.pdf

            You are just a sad troll, wjho has not looked into anything, but just read some silly truther sites and watched a lot of videos. So why don’t you do us all a favor, and crawl back into your mothers basement. Or ask you psychiatrist to put you back into the padded room.

          • Sandberg says:

            So, we’re back at the all too familiar situation: Johnny just boldly stating a few lies followed by a few insults, which I’ve also heard many times before. I feel sorry for you mate, no joke. I forgive your questionable behavior. Hey, don’t worry about us loonies, just let us be, OK? You just sleep tight knowing that the US govt. does not engage in things like this. Deal?

          • “Peer reviewed”?! What next, WTC-7 WAS included in the 911 Commission report? Tell Larry’s dentist we said ‘hello.’ In any case, at least you got the “boy” part correct.

      • Let’s reopen that case (btw, I did read the whole report on WTC 7… My best guess is that YOU’ve read the parts that Ryan was referring to).

        On the other hand, I acknowledge that very few people (outside the construction world) have read the NIST report entirely. As a matter of a fact, I still have to meet the first A&E believer who has read it entirely :-).

        Is it so hard to read a couple of hundreds of pages ?

        You’re only judging the report by its cover (depending on the opinions of others who claim to have read the report). You don’t even know what this report is about. Acknowledge that because you make the same mistakes as Dalia. You’re making statements about the NIST-report that aren’t even IN the report.

        For example : What makes you think that all FOUR walls came down at the SAME time. Where did you read that in the NIST report (or Ryan, for that matter ?). Do you have proof for that ?

        It’s simply not true but I’ll stand corrected if you can indicate me on which page you (or Ryan) has read that in the NIST-report.

        And please stop saying that the building came down in 7 seconds. That’s just ridiculous nowadays.

        Say hello to Ryan from me.

        • Sandberg says:

          Ryan went through NIST’s work on the Towers, and pointed out NIST’s methodology very clearly (assuming zero conductivity for the steel is one, copying Bazant’s ludicrous unproven theory of crushdown-crushup is another, assuming all fireproofing was blown off on te basis of the “shotgunblast test” etc etc.).

          His work is an epic piece of debunking.

          About your question of what “makes me think that all FOUR walls of WTC7 came down at the same time….

          Well, how’bout using my eyes when without video’s of WTC7’s collapse? Good enough for you? And yes I have proof. It’s in every video of WTC7 collapsing. You can take measurements if you want, like Chandler did (when he embarrassed NIST and forced them to admit that WTC7 was in freefall for 2.25 seconds)

          And please, do not start with the silly argument that WTC7 came down in about 16 or 18 seconds, because you choose to start at the time when the West penthouse (magically I would say) dropped through the roof. Good that you would bring that up btw, do you have a solid explanation for this (outside CD, which would explain it easily of course)?

      • Sandberg

        The crush down crush up theory is based on an irrefutable
        Mathematical model, that is available to everyone and has never
        Been successfully challenged since first published in 2008.
        That is why I asked you if you read the Greening, Benson paper.
        Your analogy is on the car and the semi are so flawed, in comparison to the towers you remind me of the time I was contacted by Judy Woods.
        Asking questions about thermite Thermate in 2005.
        First the frame of the truck is a magnesium steel several orders of magnitude stronger than the steel in either tower.
        Second, the vehicles have these little things called wheels, that I think allow them to move.
        They I believe I could be wrong have energy absorbing sespension springs.
        Last I do not believe that either the truck or the car is attached to the ground via a concrete foundation, or has enormous gravitaional loading.
        It is not up to me to repute a vanity paper like Jones Harrit,
        The errors would have been easily caught had the paper actually gone though proper pear review.
        The fact and I state fact, that Jones in Harrit faked proper pear review and paid $100.00 to publish in a vanity paper speak volumes as to the crediblity of the work in the paper.
        Would you accept me publishing a paper and having it pear reviewed by Jhonnyboy?
        Of course you wouldn’t, so why should I accept the Jones, Harrit paper as anything more than a misrepresentation of evidence to boggle the mind of the gullible?

  8. Dalia Mae says:

    Update: 4 March 2014.
    I have had enough of Johnboy from posting ‘junk’ and disinformation. He and is obviously on here to disrupt. He recently wrote in a comment:

    “If you knew anything about research, you know its impossible to model the collapse. It has to many variables.”

    Interestingly, modelling is NIST’s basis for the ‘B7 collapsed from fire’ claim.

    Johnyboy has destroyed his own argument.

    However, I will be blocking him from hereon. He was warned a long time ago.

    • Dalia,

      JohnnyBoy (and I) are not posting ‘junk’ desinformation. We are basically explaining to you in a nutshell why the model of NIST can’t match reality

      This INFORMATION can be found in the NIST report. Once more, you’re showing off with your lack of knowledge…

      Believe me, if one likes to discuss the impossibilities of 9/11 the first step to be made would be reading the f*cking report (unless you want to make a complete fool out of yourself).

      You can’t simply ignore a report as important as NIST.

      In my opinion, you crossed a line in removing JohnnyBoys post. You might as well forbid people to actually read the NIST report for themselves.

      Is that your real intention ? I hope not.

      For a more detailed explanation, this is wat can be found on the NIST FAQ page. Be your own judge and handle accordingly/appropriately.

      29. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse. In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?

      NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris-impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.

      NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the “kink” in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.

      Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, “Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.” The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

      P.S. For even more information, download the full report and read it for crying out loud..

      • Quote:
        “In my opinion, you crossed a line in removing JohnnyBoys post. You might as well forbid people to actually read the NIST report for themselves.

        Is that your real intention ? I hope not.

        Well said XF

      • Sandberg says:

        For crying out loud, why do you think no one is allowed to verify those fancy computermodels?
        Why do you think the report on WTC7 is NOT peerreviewed?
        Why was all of the physical evidence of the supposed world’s first total collapse of a steelframed skyscrapers shipped off and destroyed, while it should have been thoroughly examined?

        How much more damning facts do you need before you start realizing that something is very VERY wrong here?

        • johnnyboy2222 says:

          The reports for both WTC1 and 2 and 7 were all peer reviewed.

        • Well, I can be short on this 🙂

          What kind of “fancy” software will A&E be using to make their model ?

          Some newly developped software (custom made perhaps ?).

          I’m pretty sure that they will hav to use, more or less, the same software that was available for the NIST simulation (maybe it has been improved in the mean time… After all, it’s 2015 and not 2007).

          Believe me, A&E will have to do their own modelling with something linke the ANSYS software that NIST has used for their model.

          It may seem fancy to you but imo it’s rather “standard” software when dealing with this kind of calculations.

          By the way, the report on WTC7 was peerreviewed. That’s why there is a draft report and a final report.

          If it wouldn’t have been peer reviewed, Chandler wouldn’t have got a chance to correct NIST on the fact of the 2,25 sec freefall remember.

          And it’s not uncommon that debris is removed when you try to look for possible survivors.

          We could possibly start arguing about how fast they did the clean-up, but I threw away my tin foil head years ago.

          But be my guest… I guess you’re still wearing yours.

    • Carroll Sanders says:

      Dalia,

      The collapses initiations were easy to model based on the known variables, combined with the photos of the steel that showed connection failure.
      What I question now is why is as9/11 truth concentrating on one point in the model, the girder walk off, based on a lineer, caculation, of expansion solely for that girder?
      Instead of doing a nonlinear calculation for the whole building section, modeled?
      In other words they say the thermal expansion could not occur, by looking at only one elements expansion, ignoring the fact that the entire section is expanding and the girder set height is rising as the column expands and grows in height, placing the
      Girder at an ever increasing inclined angle.
      Dalia
      You should ask them why their model does not reflect reality.
      The girder at column 79 is a key structure it’s failure will cause radical load shifting, the energy will transfer thought the structure, max speed that can occur is 5100 meters per second,
      As I have stated. That will cause rapid connection failure of the
      Structure.

      Max combustion rate for nano thermite is 2400 Meters per second, for aerogel thermite it’s a little over 800 meters per second.

      Niels Harrit proposes the use of non explosive gas generating
      vibration sensitive Aerogel thermite, brought a building down
      faster than natural connection failure,

      5100 meters per second or 800 meters per second,

      You take your pic, which is faster, it is just that simple.

      I do not expect to change your views just presenting the facts.

      • Carroll. You agree it is all based on modelling. What you put in is what you get out. Maybe you should explain in detail how you get to your ‘expert’ determinations. I say again…. Like a stuck record. It looked like a perfect demo…. So investigate for that. I did ask Barnett about the modelling. But he couldn’t explain the difference. I doubt he even saw a difference. Stunning. Again I ask you…. Who is paying you?

        • Carroll Sanders says:

          Dalia Mae how much is the truth movement paying you?

          Those. Types of complex computer models stand as a mathematic proof, based on known engineering equations and principles.

          The data is given and the models are available for review, and fact checking, that is why NIST had a review period.

          No One came foward during the review period with anything to disprove the math.

          The truth movement has said the numbers and the math are not important,

          The truth movement can not dispute the mathematical models, they have given up on trying.

          Why does the actual truth from empirical data upset you, are you that terrified because you know you are wrong?

          • sandberg says:

            OK, I’ve concluded you’re some kind of disinfoagent, for sure.

            NIST-models of B7 are not available for review, that’s common knowledge, that’s what stands out, and that’s why the TM keeps bringing it up.

            Fancy math don’t mean shit if it cannot be backed up with experiments. That’s also common knowledge.

            So, we’re done here.

  9. In my last message I provided a link to the Jonathon Cole thermate demonstration.
    PLEASE NOTE.
    Down a bit in the comments section to the link are two comments by professor Jones dated 11.11.2010.
    Prof. Jones discovered the minute iron spheres the WTC dust with the thermate remaining chips. He simply has the dust etc in a plastic bag and ran a magnet over the top. Well, surprise, the minute spheres were attracted to the under surface of the top of the plastic bag.
    For the benefit of new readers to 9/11, the molten spheres are less than a hair’s diameter and clearly can only be formed by high teperatures sufficient to melt iron. They become spherical by the nature of the natural air pressure being constant on all sides as they cool in the air. Like making shot gun pellets!!
    In short, the normal aircraft and office fires could not reach those temperatures but the temperatures raised by militray grade nano thermate can reach the necesary temperatures.
    Jones showe me a video of one of his experiments: He probed under a miscroscope a minute pece of thermate chip, and placed two electric ‘prongs’ (electrodes?) for the want of a better word, and ran a charge through. Immediately there was a flash of energy and even he, in his reaction demonstraded the effect on him. He jerked his head back from the microscope eye piece in ‘fright’, for want of a better word.
    I saw a video of a similar experiment experiment he carried out, with the same result.
    Cynics and disinformation ‘murderer protectors’ may well like to attempt to debunk me. Well cynics, I was with Jones at an Apple phone store, getting him set up in Sydney in November 2009 and he had sent to him via the store, the video we are talking about and in that context we had our chat on the above. At times informal conversations are more genuine and natural and thus more credible than speeches. Jones was credible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Someone who knows Harrit might wish to send this account to him for his case.

  10. The Jonathon Cole thermate demonstration is linked below at 911 blogger.com (and at other places) [it takes about 14 minutes]
    The Faine, Frydenburg and all the humpty dumpty main stream media sitting on a wall, ignored the demonstration.
    Of course the Niells Harrit thermate paper, with 8 other experts, was also ignored by the wall sitting toadies.
    See:
    http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate.
    I noted it years back! Must have been in about 2010, gee wiz time flies.
    Pity the three musketeers have been out of touch for so long.
    As the wall collapses, no one will be able to put the toadies back together again, they may as well move off to Queensland with their pest relatives and live in a swamp, their credibility having been shot to pieces.

  11. Dalia Mae says:

    Johnyboy—why do you keep going. You (JB), EK and X have proved you are here to disrupt any truth. I wonder why you haven’t posted some of these comments on the Disinformation article. It is a simple Q and A: Do you think there is reasonable doubt B7 was downed by fire?
    But you continue attacking – the modus operandi of disinfobots – personalities and side issues.
    I suggest you all move along.

    • El-Kammo says:

      @dalia,
      <>
      I know, women can’t stand it when men don’t respond…..
      How is your boyfriend Christopher doing with the number of comments on his money post?, Is he feeling lonely, like you?

      • El-Kammo says:

        December 14, 2014 at 1:07 pm means that structural engineers are not allowed to interact, but it is fine for Gumshoe lunatics to have meetings to put their heads together to come up with a cunning plan

    • johnnyboy2222 says:

      Why would I want to reply there? Now its much more fun, to see just all the crazy reactions. Like the one with the nukes, thermate and explosives. That cracked me up lol 🙂 And you wonder why we don’t take the truth movement serious………..

  12. El-Kammo says:

    So, “maybe” the three musketeers know eachother in someway, “maybe” even work at the same office…..”maybe, maybe”…, meaning El-Kammo, XingFu and Johnnyboy2222
    Well,
    This is from an old satellite we want to ged rid off:

    1. Dalia Mae says:
    December 14, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    Brilliant Christopher, Mary and I’ll include Ned (and David who emailed me). Let us formulate a plan of accountability.
    Reply

    From Gumshoe:

    https://gumshoenews.com/2014/12/13/the-australian-government-needs-to-respond-to-torture-report/#comments

  13. johnnyboy2222 says:

    Hres a nice clip from Jesse Ventura about Super thermite being painted on a beam.

    • johnnyboy2222 says:

      What Jesse Ventura cut out of the video from the test, was the result, which is hillarious!

      And thats how truther advocates, fool the gullible like you lot on here.

      • Jos Kammers says:

        Wat ik hier waarneem is vooral heel veel licht. Stel je voor dat de gehele constructie zo zou zijn behandeld….

      • Sandberg says:

        You’ve also checked out Jonathan Cole’s experiments, right?

        But maybe it’s better to ask “Are you familiar with Jonathan Cole’s thermite tests”?

        • johnnyboy2222 says:

          Yes, ive seen the tests, and did you see how much Thermate he has to use to cut one piece of steel?

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            Which actually failed.

          • Sandberg says:

            Oh it failed did it?
            Right, sure it did. You know, you may go on for as long as you like, trying desperately to defend the official story with your pityful arguments, go ahead. I see right through these tactics, I’ve encountered this many times before. Getting back to Cole’s experiments, so your argument would be that “too much” thermate would be needed? Something like that? Well, instead of making these vague silly arguments, maybe you could pay a little more attention to the core of these experiments, being the ability of thermate to cut through steel and creating sharp steel edges while doing it. Of course you know that this refers to FEMA’s findings on the one piece of steel they examined from WTC7. Which NIST never bothered to follow up on, of course. But hey, nothing to worry about, right Johnny?

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            Whahaha, according to Harrit, dozens ton of thermate never fired, so take a wild guess on how much thermate had to be in the buildings. But I have already shown that large parts of the outer columns were still connected to eachother and that the core stood longer tan the rest of the building during the collapses. And that piece of steel was explained many years ago.

            http://www.georgevandervoort.com/images/fa_lit_papers/WTC_Talk.pdf

            So again you fail. Now tellus what happened to the buildings according to you. And maybe go over it step by step. So what was used, who used it, when did they use it, and where did they use it.

            You can do it!

        • johnnyboy2222 says:

          And he was using normal thermate btw. Jones et all, claim Superthermite was used, so they tested that. They might as well have put peanut butter on the columns. The energy output from peanut butter is higher than from nanothermite. And if they used thermite, the light from all the thermite being burned, could be seen from the moon.

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            Speaking of the moon. They never went to the moon, or is that not one of your other theories?

        • johnnyboy2222 says:

          What amazes me, is that you are not worried about how Jesse Ventura, cut out the part of the test with the result. That really does not bother you, the spreading of lies?

  14. Dalia Mae says:

    • johnnyboy2222 says:

      lol, I guess it was a rockets that destroyed the building!!!! :DDDDDDD Whahahaha. What a tool!

    • johnnyboy2222 says:

      • Sandberg says:

        You really think that this reply has any merit in that it would debunk Chandler’s claims (which btw, aren’t nutty at all, but more the result of precise observation. Let’s not forget that NIST didn’t even bother to explain a single thing about the collapses themselves)? A fair number of squibs can be seen above impactpoint, right before the toppart starts to tilt. A few of them can be seen also with the start of the collapse of WTC1. But what happens here is that the whole part seems to break off all at once. Not very likely that some fires caused that, because something like 40 corecolumns (not to mention about 200 perimetercolumns) would have to break simultaneously to make this happen. But no, OCT believers believe it’s all possible for random fires and local damage to make this happen.
        That’s your problem, fine by me, but at least have the guts to come up with a few sound arguments to back up that theory.
        Problem is, claiming fires and local damage would be able to produce these kind of results is extremely tough, because what happened is entirely INconsistent with wat fires are capable of doing to large steel structures. So the fires and damages are grossly exaggerated, and the strength of the steel structures is grossly underestimated. Never mind looking at details like simultaneous failure of large numbers of steel columns, accelerating debris leaving dusttrails, disintegrating topparts, very small debrispiles that stay very hot for months, mwaaaaah, just unimportant details.
        Until you think about Columbo “Uhhhh, one more thing…”

        When one starts looking at details, the official story comes apart, pretty fast. Same goes for the arguments that debunkers use. When you look at them more closely, they’re without merit.

        • johnnyboy2222 says:

          If you knew anything about research, you know its impossible to model the collapse. It has to many variables.

          And talk about guts rofl…….. I have never met a truther who told me what happened that day according to him/her, so show some guts and tell us what happened to the buildings, the planes, the passengers,how many people would have to be involved, and so on.

          • Christopher Brooks says:

            I know how this comm-entity feels because I have never received any legal standard evidence from anyone that proves the identity of the Mastermind of the “Muslim Conspiracy Theory”.

  15. Sandberg says:

    Yes Dalia, thanx for that.
    I’m always surprised at the arrogance of socalled “debunkers”, thinking they can outsmart the well informed about 9/11. But as always, when push comes to shove they have nothing but insults left to spew. As for the existence of AE911Truth, I have yet to see a logical or coherent theory as to why someone like Richard Gage would engage in a huge scam in which he would try to sell some totally implausible theory which he could not back up with solid evidence while trying (and somehow succeeding!!!) to persuade other buildingprofessionals to come and join his little scam asking them to throw away their professional integrity and what more for some fame and some lousy dollars.
    Concerning both Towers, I’ve never seen anyone even try to engage in a serious discussion about what happened to those towers after they started to “move downward” so to speak. All they do is point to the assumed impossibility of rigging the towers, that way they can avoid talking about anything else.
    What is so troubling about this is the unwillingness of so many people, no matter what kind, to have a serious normal and decent conversation/discussion about this subject. And that includes many buildingprofessionals, sadly enough. But we must not get bogged down. Love is the only way forward. Let’s hope and see what the judge will rule.

  16. Sandberg says:

    All these people dismissing evidence for (some form of) controlled demolition, I wonder if they lack proper eyesight. It’s not that hard to see that all four walls of WTC7 fail at more or less exactly the same instant (some 8 seconds after the penthouse suddenly and magically dropped through the roof, something I would love to see a coherent explanation for, outside CD), and a fraction after the EPH started dropping (thereby pulling the sidewalls inward). So what’s the problem? To even wonder whether such a precise thing could ever occur due to the random burning of a few floors and some random damage to this huge structure is beyond me. Anyone can see that this is not some kind of “natural” or spontaneous” collapse. And of course people knew in advance that day that it was gonna come down. Funny when you think it would be something that never ever happened before in history, as NIST claims it is. Something I don’t ever hear OCT believers talk about.
    Of course not even mentioning the fact that NIST will not disclose it’s inputdata that they used for their fancy models that btw look nothing like what can be witnessed in every WTC7 video out there. So no one is able to verify their findings.
    What I’m saying is:

    Why are we having this conversation?

  17. johnnyboy2222 says:

    Why did you remove my reply to Ned about the Gold? I even linked to an article where they talk about the gold, with an image! And you are the one that needed an explenation for the bolt connections, so i gave that to you. And then you say I didn’t watch the video? So explain to me why it is a stupid anology?

    • Sunday is cleaning day for Dalia.

      On that day she removes everything out of her house that doesn’t please her.

      Frankly, I’m surprised that only 20 or so comments were removed 🙂

  18. John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

    No office? What’s this then?
    2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189
    Berkeley
    CA 94704
    It ain’t big and it ain’t pretty but it needs rent, electricity, Internet connection for MILLIONS of users world wide.

  19. El-Kammo says:

    Ban me, for crying ou loud, just ban me, for you wackos cannot stand critics.
    Ban me and have great fun with THE video, unaware that there are many, many videos and NIST has about 10.000 pictures.

  20. El-Kammo says:

    With the help of some fine ae lunies, crazy Niels will show THE video to the judge, to prove that he is not crazy.
    He will only show the cut version, the last part of the baby tower.
    Like allways……over and over again………., thinking that others will not notice.

  21. El-Kammo says:

    Observed, proof is available:
    EPH tumbles into the baby tower along with the floor that makes the baby’s roof.
    Then, for 12sec nothing happens to be seen with the naked eye. And then THE video starts.
    Indeed it is time fore you to reinvestigate.

    • El-Kammo says:

      So, according to you wackos, the demolition starts at the very beginning of THE video, thus, explain the EPH and baby’s roof floor.

    • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

      XF,
      You insinuate that Richard Gage is making large “profits” from donations.
      AE911Truth is a 501c3 organisation. According to that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, a 501c3 organisation is tax exempt non profit organisation. A&E are designated religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)
      In the last few years I have donated a few bob to them and I can assure all readers that it’s not easy to get any funds out of me over the Internet. One of the rules with these 501c organisations is that by law, they are required to publish their accounts openly and accurately and they can also be audited so it would be pretty stupid to try to falsify the accounts. Only after I researched them thoroughly was I comfortable in parting with my cash. One area I did pay particular attention to was Mr Gages wages. Although I cannot remember the actual figures, I can assure you that he receives far less than he used to as an architect. You can google these accounts for yourself.

      • El-Kammo says:

        60.000y for Gage, Board of Directors I do not know.

        • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

          My point is made. I am happy to be corrected but I believe that the board of directors and all other volunteers receive zero. You can find all the info in their accounts.

          • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

            So that would be ZERO actual profit?

          • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

            Gentlemen,
            It is difficult to judge wages in different countries but $85k in Australia would be peanuts for a professional using today’s exchange rate or even the exchange rate a few months ago. When I did my original research some time ago, Mr Gage was making considerably less than the average experienced architect in San Fransisco, where he lives.
            I have recently been an employer in a high tech industry and it would be embarrassing to offer such wages here.

          • I’d like to disagree with you because someone who plays with carton boxes can hardly be expected to work in the high tech industry (if you catch my drift 🙂 )

          • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

            So he’s an idiot? I have noticed that none of his building have collapsed at gravitational acceleration, symmetrically into their own footprint give or take a few hundred bucks.

          • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

            Now your just being silly. I am actually pretty upset at the meagre numbers you are quoting. None of these figures are earned. They are all donated which gives an indication of how many people world wide agree with them. The rethink campaign alone raised something in the region of a quarter of a million dollars US or even more within a short space of time. It is an indication of A&Es reach that they can raise $15k for Mr Haritt within a few days. The number of attacks by you guys proves how concerned you lot are. The number of comments just on this fairly insignificant website is incredible.
            A&Es wages, rent, expenses etc are all reported in their accounts and to quote x dollers per day just proves how desperate you lot are. Are we really that dangerous to get this amount of attention. If so, we are winning (which does surprise me considering what we are up against.)

          • Sorry John – your comments might not make sense – but I have TRASHED the countless comments from these guys. I have warned them…. countless times. Stupid, insulting, deflecting, confusing, comments that are seeming designed to clutter are going. I’ve been putting up with this for so long. If they want to write a sensible and respectful comment about Gage and his wages, fine. To be quite honest, when you hear of banker’s bonus’ or others …. Michael Farrell $29 million. or viacom’s Moonves (CBS) bonus of $27.5 million 3 years running. I mean the cost of one tomahawk is $1.3m and they fired 47 in one night in Syria.
            So it seems these guys are barking at a cat in a tree, when the pride of a 1000 lions are roaming the streets. Such nonsense.
            I will be publishing an article on this soon. And they can continue with their nonsense then….

          • Quote :
            “Michael Farrell $29 million. or viacom’s Moonves (CBS) bonus of $27.5 million 3 years running. I mean the cost of one tomahawk is $1.3m and they fired 47 in one night in Syria.”

            I must be stupid because I can’t see the relevance with 9/11 or Gage.

            Who can anyway ?

            Keep trashing comments btw… It won’t change the fact that Gage isn’t a high rise builder.

            You’re believing someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about but that’s not my problem… It’s your problem.

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            What rent? They have no office. But I believe that Gage has a rented home, so I guess he pays for that, and he has a car, which he also pays from the donations, and he gets to go on holidays, also paid by donations. And it is also earned from the selling of DVD’s, t-shirts and cups. And my only concern is, that Gage is spreading lies to the gullible, like you. His presentations are full of lies and mistakes, and thats what bothers me. He gives presentations to people who are not sure what happened, and he is feeding them lies.

          • You didn’t make a point.

            You made MY point.

            All the money is going to Gage.

            He’s a selfish little bastard 🙂

    • El-Kammo says:

      In Lala land, things that cannot be observed with the naked eye or highres camera cannot happen 😀😀😀😀😀😀

  22. Christopher Brooks says:

    El- Kamo comm-entity has posed a critical relevant question,
    “Do we measure with the same ruler?”.

    How would things work out if the engineer, the carpenter and the glassier had different “rulers” to measure their work.
    It simply will not be at all productive towards achieving the results any sectional interest desired.

    The “ruler” is a legal and social contract of agreement that releases the increment of association, the dividend of community profit above individual effort.

    Our philosophy, and the constituted formulations we set down in law, regulation and practice must be respected and observed with harmony and consistency if the social construction is going to satisfy and serve our expectations and keep us happy and living in peace.

    The comm-entities do a service in demonstrating a very different moral “ruler” than I hold true because they have expressed satisfaction with the integrity of the 911 Commission investigation which was very clearly designed and staffed to limit accountability and keep selected information hidden from essential scrutiny.

    They ignore the logical relevance of the documented climate and pattern of lies and deception over centuries that dish up a crony infested media/military/intelligence/political and banking matrix that can be researched and documented in it’s personnel, methods and ambitions if anyone just makes the effort and takes the time.

    This political reality generates equivalent predictable aspects of legal integrity as does the gravitational forces pertaining to the Trade Centre towers.

    One may even color the argument by suggesting,
    the notion that Western legal systems are NOT highly conflicted by establishment power when adjudicating any threat to monopoly methods is a “crackpot” version of reality that could only be held by the uneducated or those suffering amnesia.

    Okay, there is that other optional philosophical school where facts and truth are simply whatever best fits the cause of Zionism at any given moment. “Truth” and “justice” are defined by what is good for the chosen elect and all else is irrelevant.
    There is no logic, reason or classical evidence basis to the Zionist mindset. The Zionist selects the “reality” of it’s choosing and nothing will ever adjust that anointed belief.

    Curiosity, objectivity, genuine learning, compassion and compromise all become vulnerable traps for those who are lacking education of this dimension of our political and economic life.

    Harritt is gambling against the odds in a legal system which can award extensive costs against him if the decision goes against his case but in rare instances like the Zundel trials in Canada in the early Eighties, as the trial record reveals for the world to read, the “Holocaust” lies and myths did not fare well under the rigor of legal standard scrutiny.

    The legal issue appears not central to investigating the 911 crime but we shall be watching the case with interest.

    • Christopher, your first eight paragraphs are rich and marvelous. Really, wow.
      I don’t understand the next two, which envision Zionism as a belief system. Who are “the Zionists,” please? I challenge you to show how their beliefs differ from those of any imperial cabal that conquers everybody and then has to engage in deception to avoid the law.
      At times I see complicated books explaining numerology, Kabbalah, or interpretations of “the Talmud” — the plot being that, with the impetus given by Mayer Rothschild (1744-1812) and his five sons (plus, don’t forget, five daughters), all power come into the hands of “the Jews.”
      Maybe it is so, but I can’t see it. Today, in China, there is a suffocating, violent, awful totalitarianism. Has this got anything to do with Jewry? Personally I’ll be pleased if it turns out that the baddies belong to one ethnic group (Jews or whatever), as folks have the psychological ability, from our evolutionary past, to deal with an enemy that is identifiably “foreign.”

      What we don’t have the ability to deal with is an enemy that looks like us and is occupying prestigious roles in our society. Might as well call this The Daddy Syndrome.
      We simply cannot haul our own Dad into jail. (Let’s see if the Danish court dares to accuse Daddy.)

      By the way, Wayne Madsen has been telling us for yonks how the members of Congress meet annually at something called The Prayer Breakfast. Looks to me as though men and women who are sinning against society have to make up a religious-like story to cover their own conscience. (In this case it is ostensibly Christian.)

      But that is just a guess on my part.
      What say?

      • Christopher Brooks says:

        Mary, words are just our form of communication and political and ideology labels are fraught with the complexity of who’s “ruler” is translating and interpreting.

        A society will need common meaning of language if we have any chance of building permanent stable understanding of each other and the physical world.

        Sometimes this is the innocent confusion of our cultural, education and philosophical difference but commonly words have the designed magical power and effect on human behavior that I describe as the Sorcerers craft.

        The engineer designing in Dubai employs the same exacting principles when he designs in London or Moscow, Tehran or Jerusalem. The Architecture will give a contrasting visible appearance but below the surface the physics and mathematics are identical.

        The efficiency of cooperation relies on agreement on our “rulers” that measure physical dimensions or time and the same applies to our terms of communication we call language.

        Zionism is a project of the Rothschild Gang to establish a National Jewish State to give legitimacy and open opportunity to advance the program of the previously stateless international power cabal, that for centuries had derived and exercised the incredible benefits of exploiting mankind with the money monopoly deception.

        Whomever controls money creation with interest governs by monopoly power. I assume readers fully grasp the mathematical certainty that this collection evidences and explains.
        https://gumshoenews.com/2015/02/12/australia-needs-money-creation-reform-and-honest-sovereign-money-policies/

        The words and labels might well be declared as just another factional manifestation of tyranny until you find yourself, anywhere in the Western world, branded and banished for critical opposition to Zionist ideas, Israeli actions or Jewish history. No similar sanction exists against Christian or Muslim symbols, beliefs and history.

        The London/New York money monopoly has, until recently, destroyed genuine opposition to it’s magic by grafting, ingratiating and extorting itself by purchasing new interpretations of traditional Christianity and Muslim world views along with the viscous fundamentalist Jewish legions that are all tools to steer and protect the will to power over the whole earth.

        The money masters dream of achieving their utopia though they know the critical method rests on defending and extending their money printing deception to all human activity.

        All the poisonous mischief directed at critics of this power and it’s money magic, conjure distracting emotions and self censoring fear by casting “hate speech” spells and social/political death threats upon all who dare speak up to question and expose the powerful Auschwitz lies and the many other layers of deception that are possible to instigate and protect when your principle business is creating the financial credit “rulers” from thin air and selling the numbers as debt to a mesmerized Western world.

        The Rothschild Gang have gone into business with China according to a recent James Corbett report and it makes sense.

        Chinese leaders, according to this analysis, recognized with the “sacking” of the USSR by designed disintegration, they had no choice but to undertake super-charged development to build their National power and strength or they would fall totally under the Rothschild money domination.
        This strategy is explained as a bit like dancing with the devil to escape the devil.
        Undoubtedly, the Rothschild Gang believe they were using bait to capture their prey.

        This conflicting arrangement between the Rothschild Camp and Chinese independence is essential to understanding the urgent tensions swirling around the pace of the new BRICS economic universe and the determination of the CIA/NATO to bring Russia under submission.
        Developments on the Ukraine/Russia battleground took another dangerous notch towards the inevitable “Russian Spring” revolution yesterday when former opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov was assassinated.
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-01/boris-nemtsov-west-condemns-murder-critic-putin-blames-foes/6271576

        So the drama continues to play out it’s deadly scenes as the various plots unfold on the stage of unrehearsed human struggle, where many of the characters wear deceptive masks and negotiate the tangled self serving allegiances that have fragile complex choices managing both master and their servant constituents perceived satisfaction for survival.

        Perception has risen above reality whereby the sorcerers skill is pitched against the determination and tenacity of a small well educated dissident few, who, press forward against the odds, striving to make a difference, planning relentless attacks against the enemies vulnerable positions, never ceasing to rally those around to combine and cooperate to magnify the effect and unbalance our target, knowing that the enemy is relying on our pessimistic acceptance and would melt into the ground if the masses would just turn up to defend their honest freedom potential.

        This birthright, to access and experience the fullness of life and discover, achieve and release all human and spiritual dimensions that this earthly reality offers is presently trapped and contained by the tyranny of the chosen and their money monopoly magical deceptions.

        Human purpose has been taken hostage.

        Take care we are not found to be the most knowledgeable soul on the subject of our jail and our jailers.

        Start digging tunnels and seducing the guards with how much better life can be if we tear down these prison walls and set ourselves free from the chains of debt slavery.

        • “is presently trapped and contained by the tyranny of the chosen and their money monopoly magical deceptions.”

          Not just that but also human nature, to look aftrer one’s self.
          And to go into denial at the drop of a hat.
          Thank you for the reply, Christopher.

          Would you agree with me that the ones who are doing this are also very trapped, and are pitifully losing THEIR “birthright”?

          • Christopher Brooks says:

            Yes Mary, I agree. Sorcery is all about manipulating our human nature and turning our behavior towards a purpose that is ultimately destructive to ourselves and our communities but serves the agenda of the power loving manipulators.
            If you contemplate intelligently it is impossible to ignore the metaphysical “evil” dimensions of the world situation which introduces all the questions surrounding “secret societies” and “occult practices” that you briefly alluded.
            Coming to a certain conclusion regarding what “birthright” every human is negotiating with their life choices delves into the philosophical ocean.

  23. So the three musketeers are whinging because AE and Harritt may receive some donations for their investigation/s.
    Time is money!
    So boys, how much have you lot contributed to protecting mass murderers?
    More interesting is why?

    • El-Kammo says:

      @Ned,
      To me it is not about protecting anyone, to me it is about understanding how a structure is designed and will behave.
      So, do you want to talk about structures and the major differances between them, with me?
      Go ahead.

      • El-Kammo says:

        @Ned,
        I am just a dumb ass bas when it comes to buildings, but willing to learn, so don’t spank me, teach me.

        • Maybe comment on whether this structural engineer is talking nonsense

          • El-Kammo says:

            Yes, this structural engineer with 37y experience is talking nonse

          • El-Kammo says:

            Try some other ae engineers

          • Maybe explain how 400 bolts can break per second…. You explain why he is wrong

          • El-Kammo says:

            @dalia,
            Because his assumption is based upon THE video !!!!
            And you cannot hide the other videos

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            And the saddest thing, is that this “experienced” structural engineer(he is in fact a civil engineer with a bachelor in civil engineering), has to be told by an architect, what happened to the buildings.

            https://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-dusterwald/47/602/a85

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            Do you understand anything about dynamic loads Dalia? Think of a glass plate with a big concrete block on top of it. The glass plate wont break. Now lift the concrete block, and drop it on top of the glass plate. now what happens? Those bolts are not designed for such high shear loads, and will just break apart in a milli second. Thats simple engineering, so I don’t understand why this guy has a problem with it.

          • You didn’t seem to listen to what he said… What a stupid analogy. Honestly

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            Not my fault you don’t understand the difference between static, and dynamic loads. I am truly amazed that he doesn’t understand that as a structural engineer. I tried to explain the difference to you, but you failed to understand what I was trying to explain. The weirdest thing, is that he truly believes you need to blow up all those 400 connections, before it fails. So I am really worried about the constructions he has designed.

            The way he is explaining it, is if you pull with a slowly increasing force on the bolts. Thats how you test bolts for tensile strength. We learn that in the first year of engineering, where you get to test out all kinds of equipment to test steel. So maybe he quit engineering after the first year. Else I can’t explain the stupidity of his remarks.

            Here is an example of such a test. But that is in no way how it would react under dynamic loads.

            Just think of pulling on a piece of gum real slow. You will see it expand to a long length. Now take another piece of gum and give it a jerk with both hands to tear it apart.

        • El-Kammo says:

          @Ned,
          Please explain the baby tower in your own words, teach me, awaken me. 😀😀😀😀

          • I don’t think Ned’s a structural engineer, high rise building designer or architect. Like me I think Ned has used common sense. But delighted you are open to being awakened.
            First of all, drink some Ayurveda, – worry tea to balance the mind or Arjuna myrobalans.
            Step one – remove preconceptions and prejudice. Like in a court of law on a jury. One must be open to all possibilities.

            Step 2. It doesn’t matter who did it and for what reason.
            3. Then look at the baby tower video
            4. The (FEMA & NIST) experts said how collapsed from fire
            5. Did they investigate all possibilities?
            6. Does the NIST computer simulation match reality
            7. Has something like this ever happened before?
            8. Is there consensus on the cause of collapse among structural experts
            9. Do the experts that disagree with NIST benefit or maybe risk their careers by voicing their opinion?
            10. Does the establishment benefit from NIST’s findings.
            11. Is it possible for a building to fall at the speed of free fall (even for a second or two) – thus without resistance – without help of some form of severing or explosive?
            12. Has something similar happened before in a steel structure
            13. Do you believe beyond reasonable doubt that fire was the cause
            14. Is there any reason another independent open inquiry be conducted – considering 1,000 of experts believe fire was not the cause.
            15. Should the building have fallen in a more haphazard and randon way – considering the pillars and construction of the building was not
            symmetrical

            start on this EK

          • El-Kammo says:

            @dalia,
            3] “the baby tower video”
            Yeah right, THE video, like there is only ONE video, THE video.
            Unlucky for you wackos, there are more videos.

          • Years ago I spent personal time with Jones, Gage, legge, Leider and less with Harritt.
            I spent a few days with Lt. Col. Bob Bowman. (Ret. EIP)
            I have had much discourse with David Ray Griffin and read all his relevant books
            I have no time for you or your nasty
            mates.
            Teach yourself and do not attempt to waste my time.

          • It only proves that spending so much time with nutcases will only turn you into a nutcase yourself.

            I can’t understand why you didn’t want to take the time to read the NIST report.

            Is it so hard for you ?

      • To me it is about mass murder used to justify wholesale murder in the Middle East.
        You can stick with design architecture, that appears to be your social limitation.

  24. What’s the fuss boys? (JB, EL-K & X). Or is this a little worrying that “crackpot” evidence is going to be heard in a court of law and be on the record. It is most unlikely that the courts will let him win—
    If you are hassling this blog in the manner you are doing over something so “small” – I wonder what kind of pressure is put on lawmakers over there.

    • Asking people to donate $ 15.000 isn’t a SMALL thing… This is about making big money over the people who died on 9/11 and it has nothing to do with 9/11.

      THIS trial goes about an insult at the address of Mr. Harrit.
      No more, no less.

      • You are right with regard to 15k “no small thing”. But how have you got it so WRONG Xingfu. The invasion on Iraq (a country which had nothing to do with 9-11) was orchestrated by people at Washington/Pentafon – and this made – what countless billion profit. Why don’t you write about you distate of that profit and expenditure. You always skew the profit issue. Extraordinary

        • Well, let’s say that we agree upon the fact that the USA had no reason whatsoever to invade Iraq. I don’t know if I alreadymentioned that on your website but I totally agree on that point.

          It’s a good start that we CAN agree on some of the points that you’re making. Listening to each other is crucial imo.

          Concerning the profit issue of truther websites (and I stated before that I don’t count YOU in on this one), I think it’s really sickening that people (like Gage et al) make a big profit on this issue whilst they are clearly lying to the people.

          You may want to disagree with me (and that’s fine by me) but let me make it very clear to you that I have litterally multiple examples of how they don’t tell the full story.

          That should be kind of disappointing if you’re looking for the truth, shouldn’t it ?

          But hey, I had to find this out all by myself you know (and it took me several YEARS to find out… Don’t think that I just read one or two “offical reports”… I did more than that).

          That’s why I’m so angry about this and that’s the only reason why I invest so much time in this.

          So, I guess that when I found out that you were writing books on 9/11 for children for crying out loud that you got my attention.

          We don’t want to tell lies to our children now do we ?

          And let me tell you another thing : I’ve never stated that there has been no involvement whatsoever of the US regarding 9/11 but that’s of little concern of the truth movement in my opinion.

          I THINK IT’S VERY UNLIKELY.

          The truth movement states that it’s not possible that 3 building came down due to fire. Well, I’m sorry but it can happen and will probably happen again in the future if there’s no water to put out the fires). Of course most building are equiped with sprinkler systems and in a normal fire these installations will work just fine.

          It becomes a different story if planes crash into buildings. This has cut of the water supply.

          Same thing goes for building 7. WTC 7 had 2 separated water supplies for the sprinkler system. One on the roof to supply water to the upper floors (where no fires were observed) and one depending on the water main supply (which was damaged due to the collapse of the twin towers).

          Consider the above for a minute and try to understand that fire will do awkward things to steel when it’s being heated (and cooled off as the fire goes along the building).

          You really should have a look into the NIST report to understand how building 7 was built in order to comprehend why this building could come down due to fire.

          I admit that I had about over one hundred questions after reading the NIST report (I’m not a structural engineer but that goes for Gage as well, right) and I asked these questions to someone who knew his stuff about buildings.

          Frankly, 2 or 3 questions were left unanswered.

          It’s a big mistake to think that NIST could pull off a report full of lies when so many professionals have looked into this stuff and no one (except Gage and friends who still claim that the building came down in 6,5 seconds) has ever come up with arguements that disproves the NIST report.

          One should expect that Gage has read the NIST report… But why does he invent this 6,5 second fairy tale ? It’s nowhere to be found in the report !

          Video shows also that it took much longer than 6,5 seconds.

          Who’s cheating ?

          I bet my house on it (and everything else that I posses) that Gage is the fraud here.

          • johnnyboy2222 says:

            The war with Iraq is a good example as to why 9/11 wasn;t a false flag. It would have been far more easier for the US to hide some chemical weapons in iraq, than to pull off 9/11 as truthers think it happened.

          • You are forgetting that the otherwise reason for 911 was a bank Heist of the gold in 5 and 6, a cover up of the financing of CIA black operations and the fraudulent dealings carried out when the SEC closed
            For a couple of days plus wiping out by murdering the personal in the office of Naval intelligence who were
            examining
            the above and
            the banks involved.
            Simpletons just look at buildings being blown up.
            You task is to obfuscate and misinform to protect the real
            Perpetrators……. Sucker!

          • Dalia Mae says:

            To keep discussing and debating ‘you guys’ (XingFu included) maybe the agenda of JB, EK, XF etc. It maybe a deliberate ploy to absorb my energy.
            But let me address this one “sickening” issue XingFU.

            I have no idea of Gage’s financial status. I could guess that he probably sacrificed a good career for a very risky one. Proabably earns 4X LESS than he could.

            I also know other people who have lost hundreds of thousands by their conviction for speaking out for the truth. And I know that as fact. So your argument and attempt to denegrade truthers is a disgusting Tavistockian attempt to diminish their arguments.

            But I can speak for myself. Speaking out, producing books, time on Gumshoenews, loss of regular work for my views has been an exceptionally financial burden. So you are speaking plain bullshit.

            I look forward to the day when gumshoenews monetises and makes its first dollar to have a voice against the Murdochian press in Australia. I mean why should Murdoch be venerated and applauded for making billions for his version of the news (his truth) – but you deplore my attempts to tell what I believe to make a dollar.

            Disgraceful attempt to shut up open democracy. Addition: But we don’t live in democracies.

  25. So, calling the official investigations an official ly is fine with you lunies, but calling Harrit a crackpot is not?
    Do we measure with the same ruler?

    • John O'Donnell, Brisbane says:

      Dalia,
      Wow, The disinformation experts are all over this one. It pretty much proves that they are all working from the same office.
      Somebody somewhere is obviously concerned at this court case which is surprising as they have used every trick in the book (legally and illegally) to shut down every other case and I can’t really see any difference with this one but I suppose you gotta keep pushing.
      It is undeniable that Mr Harrit is a very respected scientist. Ask his colleages and his students, I have.

    • Gregory Herr says:

      “calling” a man a “crackpot” is one thing…it is altogether another thing to scientifically & logically eviscerate the credibility of a written “report”.

  26. Mary Maxwell wants to mess with the Danes? no kidding?

  27. I placed a bet, 1 case of beer, that Niels will lose again.
    Not for the way he thinks about 911, but about the insult that Niels takes personally and actually is not, because the insult is to entire groups, like the 911wackogroup and the holocoust denial-group. The 911wackogroup was adressed in the article and it is reasonable to assume that the author took little Niels as an example because wacko Niels is Danish.
    This is not about 911, do not feel honored.

    • Now what if little wacko Niels will win?
      Then he puts at least 25.000 weird Danish money into his pocket, but what about the $15.000 you wackos donated to him with warm feelings and tears into your eyes? Will he return it?
      Whahahahahaaaaa, you wackos, the 911 game is all about the money, dumb ass basses.

  28. johnnyboy2222 says:

    Here is a question for Dalia and Mary. What will Harrit do, if he wins the lawsuit, with the money that has been donated?

  29. johnnyboy2222 says:

    i wonder if Harrit wil let his dust samples test for nano thermite btw, or is he just showing a bag of dust and hope the judge will believe him when he says that there is nano thermite in the dust?

    • Since he refuses to analyse the dust by a third party, my best guess is that in the meantime his wife has accidentally vaccuumed his sample of dust.

  30. Ok, here’s an excerpt from an e-mail that I received from Niels Harrit.

    Quote :
    “The observations CLEARLY indicate that BOTH explosives (course of collapses) and incendiaries (thermite, at least two different kinds) were used.

    It is not our duty to explain why, and in general we should not speculate in hypothetical blast scenarios beyond our observations.”
    End quote

    So, it’s not his duty to explain why…. ?

    Then don’t bother spending $ 15.000 on a trial, ok ? If you don’t give answers, you’ll lose the case. It’s as simple as that.

    This has absolutely NOTHING to do with courts being bought off.

  31. The only reason why I still have some respect for Dalia is because she, at least up until now, has no “donate” button on her website.

    That convinces me that she’s really looking for the truth (unfortunately, she and others still have lots of things to find out about 9/11 but hey, that’s where we come into the game)…

    btw, you’re welcome 🙂

  32. OMG ! They need another $ 15.000 according to the A&E website.

    Holy crap ! How many times does A&E have to do the same trick (asking LOTS of money) before you people will understand that they don’t care about the truth ???

    If you people really think that these “truthers” care about the truth then think again (or get a new brain).

    Isn’t $ 15.000 a whole lot of money just because someone called him a crackpot.

    Would anyone of you spend so much money on a trail each time that you’ve been insulted ? I guess not, so why would anyone want to support this, in my opinion, loser (who doesn’t even care to answer my e-mails properly) ?

  33. I have heard that Danish courts are corrupt. But even if they aren’t, how can they rule justly in this case? To say that the libeler must pay (or apologize, or whatever) would be to say that the term “Crackpot” is libelous because the man was telling the truth (or at least taking a decent scientific approach to the dust elements). And that amounts to saying that the US government case is wrong. The need to keep the lie going is really causing contortionism everywhere.
    Even in the US courts, it seems “impossible” for a judge to rule fairly about 9-11. Poor old Judge Denny Chin was given the task of adjudicating the case Gallop v Cheney in which April Gallop, a female solder at the Pentagon, said she saw no plane parts. Her claim is that Cheney injured her by not evacuating the building. I quote her pleadings: “Since Cheney knew for 71 minutes that a plane was coming towards Washington, there should have been an alarm sounded within the Pentagon building so employees could run for safety. Indeed such alarms, complete with evacuation of the building, had been so common in the past that employees found them annoying.”
    If you were Judge Chin, how could you dismiss her case? He found several creative grounds. One was that to prove a conspiracy there must be “a meeting of the minds,” i.e., the conspirators have to actually meet. April Gallop was offering no proof of that. Yet there are numerous photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld chatting. Indeed they’ve been bosom buddies since the 1970s.
    I think His Honour (or the clerk) took their inspiration from one of the first treason cases in the US, against Aaron Burr. In 1807 Burr got off because it was not proven that he and his buddies had a “meeting of the minds.” I guess somebody wanted him to get off.
    Makes me think of a case in Canada where a woman got off, regarding a traffic violation, because the signs were not written in French, as they should have been (as well as English). Never mind that the lady in question did not speak a word of French.

    • Sure thing honey… When truthers go to court and they lose (due to lack of evidence) then the courts are bought off…

      You really do believe that, don’t you.

      To me, it tells me that truthers can’t stand losing. We already knew that you people are losers but if it wasn’t bad enough already, you turn out to be bad losers too.

      Shame on you !

      • johnnyboy2222 says:

        Thats the beauty off it all. They can go both ways. They can say that they don’t want to go to court, because they believe the system is broken, or they could go to court and lose and say that the system is broken. So a win-win situation really. Either way the system is broken.

    • johnnyboy2222 says:

      “One was that to prove a conspiracy there must be “a meeting of the minds,” i.e., the conspirators have to actually meet. April Gallop was offering no proof of that. Yet there are numerous photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld chatting. Indeed they’ve been bosom buddies since the 1970s.”

      Yeh, because 2 people chatting face to face can only mean they are talking about a conspiracy…. How sad are you? And there were other people who saw lots of plane parts all over the ground floor of the destroyed part of the Pentagon, or even on the grounds before the Pentagon. So why would a judge give any credit to someone saying she saw no plane parts, while it is obvious, there were plane parts.

      Nice part you wrote on Gallop btw. Love your comments below each item.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-april-gallop-versus-cheney-rumsfeld-myers-9-11-court-case/24475

  34. johnnyboy2222 says:

    Isn’t it weird that they don’t mention that 15.000 dollar on their official website? And again for the gazzilionth time, they cut the first part of the collapse from the video they want to show the court. isn’t that called falsifying evidence?

  35. johnnyboy2222 says:

    I wonder if you ever read that piece of dunk in which they claim the nano thermite story. Because its laughable. It disproves their own theory, if you know what to look for. I’ll give a hint. Energy.

  36. johnnyboy2222 says:

    I read somewhere that AE911 is asking for the legal feas which amount to 15.000 dollar from its contributors. Isn’t there a thing called Pro Bono? Or does no one want to help this lunatic out for free?

    So have you all donated yet, so Harrit can go to court?

    • Last time that Harrit stood before court and lost the case has costed him 15.000 Danish Crowns (+/- $ 2.300) (*)

      Why would they be asking for 7 times this amount ?

      Does Gage and his friends all need new shoes (again) ?

      (*)Today, a danish court ruled against Niels Harrit in his lawsuit against a newspaper, which had mentioned him as “Harrit and the other conspiracy loonies”. Harrit had sued the newspaper for 25.000 dKr (a little under 4.000 USDollars) because he didn’t like being called a looney. He lost, and has to pay 15.000 dKr to the newspaper to cover their trial costs.

      Edit: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article2095969.ece

  37. Dalia, don’t bet your house on it, OK?

    • Why not ? Is something wrong with the explosive evidence ?

      Oh right… Courts have been bought… I Always forget that 🙂

      Losers !!!

Trackbacks

  1. […] A recent article by Dalia Mae Lachlan told us about a pending lawsuit by Danish scientist Neils Harritt. (It’s a libel case against a journalist who called Harrit a crackpot for his theory of the 9-11 building collapse.) I said, in a comment to Dalia’s article: […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: