Optakt 11/9 morgen Flight 11 kapres Flight 175 kapres WTC 1 rammes Flight 77 kapres WTC 2 rammes Flight 93 kapres Pentagon rammes WTC 2 kollapser Flight 93 styrter WTC 1 kollapser WTC 7 kollapser Epilog

Påstand

Fysikeren Per Hedegaard støtter lektor Harrits synspunkter.0.

Baggrund

I tiden op til at den danske pensionerede kemilektor Niels Harrit skulle prøve sin injuriesag i landsretten, opstod påstanden om, at Niels Harrits tidligere kollega, fysikeren Per Hedegaard, havde skiftet synspunkt fra at mene, at Niels Harrits teorier var ”gak” til nu at støtte Niels Harrit.

Især et opslag på ae911truth.org af Josef Hanji og Ted Walter den 26. Februar 2015 proponerede for påstanden:

“As for witnesses, architect Jan Utzon will again speak on behalf of AE911Truth. In addition, Harrit will call upon colleague Per Hedegård, a professor of physics at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute. In City Court in 2013, Villemoes’ lawyer had used a statement from Per Hedegård dismissive of Harrit as a way to substantiate the claim that Harrit was a crackpot. However, since Per Hedegård now supports Dr. Harrit’s view that the official explanation for the collapse of the three WTC buildings is in violation of Newton’s laws of physics, he has insisted on appearing in court to testify on Dr. Harrit’s behalf.”0

Men også af en af de absolut førende skikkelser i Sandhedsbevægelsen, Richard Gage, fremsatte påstanden nogle dage senere.

“Today, Dr. Hedegård has completely reversed his position and insists on testifying in support of Dr. Harrit!”1

Begge opslag benyttede i øvrigt lejligheden til at opfordre læsere til at donere penge til Niels Harrits retssag i Danmark.

Fakta

Per Hedegård har udtalt sig og er blevet citeret flere gange offentligt om Niels Harrits teorier, fx allerede i Jyllandsposten den 10. Februar 2010, lang tid før Harrits injuriesag:

”Professor i fysik Per Hedegård, Niels Bohr Institutet, har til Politiken udtalt, at “det meste af hans (Niels Harrits, red.) hypotese er det rene gak, og han burde spørge sig selv, hvorfor han er den eneste lærer her på fysik og kemi, der tror på det.”2

Byretten
Da Niels Harrits injuriesag mod Weekendavisen blev behandlet i byretten, refererede Niels Harrit til en samtale, der skulle have fundet sted mellem ham og Per Hedegård, og som således fremgik af byrettens dombog:

”Foreholdt, at Per Hedegaard til artiklen udtaler, at det meste af hans (Niels Harrit, red.) hypotese er det rene gak, forklarede han, at professor Per Hedegaard flere gange forud for citatet i avisen har udtalt, at ”data betyder ikke noget”. Desuden er Per Hedegaard kendt for at være en skælm. Foreholdt at Politiken den 14. August 2010 blandt andet har citeret ham for at kommentere sine kolleger, herunder Per Hedegaards manglende opbakning med: ”De ved ikke en skid… alle er bange og lyver”, forklarede han, at han blev kontaktet af en journalist fra Politiken og bedt om at kommentere Per Hedegaards udtalelser. Han ville gerne medvirke og kommentere Per Hedegaards udtalelse, fordi han ønskede presseomtale af sin teori. Efterfølgende har han talt med Per Hedegaard, der grinende fortalte, at han havde talt med journalisten fra Politiken, og at journalisten var helt skudt i roen. Længe efter gik Per Hedegaard under navnet ”Per Gak Hedegaard”. Han mener, at Per Hedegaards udtalelser er ubefæstede, og at han burde være indkaldt under sagen for at forklare sig i retten i dag.”

”Per Hedegaard fornægter Galilei og Newton. Hans udtalelser om Per Hedegaard er også hårde ord mod en kollega, men så burde Per Hedegaard have været mødt op og forsvaret sine synspunkter i dag.”3

Interview med Per Hedegaard

Den 3. marts 2015, kort tid før Harrits injuriesag skulle for Landsretten, lavede 911facts.dk et interview med Per Hedegaard4, hvori han blev spurgt om, hvorvidt han havde skiftet synspunkt:

“…han (Niels Harrit, red.) er stadigvæk tosset, hvis du spørger mig.”4

Hedegaard havde også en overordnet holdning til Niels Harrit et al’s rapport om påstået fund af nanotermit:

“Det er dog en rapport, der har tal og fakta i sig, og dem kan man jo så tage fat i og se, hvad man kan få ud af det.”4

Og en holdning til selve konklusionen i rapporten:

“For mig at se kan han (Niels Harrit, red.) jo slet ikke konkludere noget som helst, og det gør han jo heller ikke. Han er jo snedig.”4

Og Hedegaard havde selv regnet på tallene, der fremgik af rapporten:

“100 tons, det er ret meget, ikke? Det vil jeg sige, det er et argument imod den teori, at der skulle være nogen sprængstoffer, for man kan ikke lige sådan komme af sted med at placere 100 tons sprængstoffer, uden at nogen lægger mærke til det.”4

Han tilkendegav desuden sin mening om argumentet om, at World Trade Center 7 skulle være kollapset som følge af en sprængning:

“Der er jo et enormt spring i logik fra frit fald til den konklusion til, at det ikke kan være brand.”4

Landsretten

Da Niels Harrits injuriesag mod Weekendavisen blev behandlet i Landsretten, var Per Hedegaard indkaldt som vidne og fortalte ifølge domsudskriften:

”Per Hedegaard har forklaret blandt andet, at han har forholdt sig til data i den fremlagte tidsskriftsartikel med en kemisk analyse af støvet fra de to tvillingetårne/bygning 7 og har udledt følgende: Forfatterne anfører, at de kemisk har analyseret nanotermit i bygningsstøvet. Han er imidlertid interesseret i mængden af nanotermit i støvet, og i artiklen er brøkdelen af nanotermit i det i bevaring tagne materiale angivet. Almindelig forholdstalsregning leder frem til, hvor meget nanotermit, der i givet fald oprindelig må have været, og regnestykket viser 60 tons, og det er vel at mærke det uafbrændte termit. Oven i dette har været det afbrændte termit, og det synes han i givet fald har været temmelig meget.”5

Efterfølgende

Også efter injuriesagen var afsluttet i landsretten, blev Hedegård citeret af flere medier, der havde fulgt sagen, fx University Post:

”Per Hedegård’s testimony appeared not to support Niels Harrit’s claim that WTC7 could not have been a free fall but a controlled explosion.

He even implied that the speed of the building’s collapse could theoretically be above free fall due to the complex nature of the energy waves, undermining the clear-cut nature of Niels Harrit’s argument. All in all, his testimony did not appear to support Niels Harrit: When Per Hedegård was questioned by Niels Harrit about the data in an analysis by Niels Harrit and associates, he told the court that the nano-thermite trace content in WTC dust would imply more than 60 tons of un-exploded material prior to a detonation.”6

Og nærværende redaktion, 911facts.dk, som også var til stede i landsretten, skrev en artikel om retssagen, hvori Hedegaard blev gengivet:

”Harrit’s next witness was his star witness, Professor of Physics Per Hedegård, whom Harrit knows well. Hedegård had previously dismissed Harrit’s theories as “gak”, a Danish term for “up the pole”, but, according to a press release from AE911Truth, where Harrit was also appointed one of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement8, he had apparently persuaded Hedegård that the latter was wrong and Hedegård would now be willing to show up in court, in full support of Harrit’s theories.

However, this did not happen. Hedegård answered Harrit’s questions but did not support his theories at all. Harrit pointed to gravitational acceleration which Hedegård affirmed that, yes, it was about 9.88 m/s2, but the point – whatever it was – was totally lost on the judges: One pointed out that it was hard to understand the relevancy of a scientific fact. Hedegård then pointed out that, from the data in Harrit’s nanothermite report, there would have to be about 60 metric tonnes of unreacted nanothermite, which would mean that there would have been even more inside the buildings that actually reacted. It was clear that Hedegård found it quite unbelievable that so much had been placed without anyone noticing. One of the judges were taking notes and even had to ask for clarification from Harrit on this point.

When asked about the structural failure of WTC 7, Hedegaard pointed out that it was extremely difficult to explain and that you could not conclude that it was brought down by explosives, merely by looking at the video. When the judge asked Harrit if he had more questions for Hedegård, Harrit gave Hedegård a long stare, and said “No, thanks.”7

Og endelig offentliggjorde et af Sandhedsbevægelsens egne medier, www.ae911truth.org, et detaljeret referat fra landsretten, skrevet af Josef Hanji, samme person, som er kilde til nærværende påstand:

”When Per Hedegaard finally entered the court room, he looked nervous and confused. Asked specific questions by Dr. Harrit, he was unable to give direct answers. For example, even though the looping video of the collapse of WTC 7 was shown a second time during the testimony of Utzon and a third time when he took the stand, Dr. Hedegaard said he could not see any violation of physical laws. While agreeing that the collapse of WTC 7 looked close to free-fall acceleration, he noted that it was too complicated for him to say for sure.

“But what does it mean when a building is falling 9.8 metres per second squared, Per?” Harrit asked. The professor of physics said he did not know. “This means the building is in free fall, Per,” Harrit elaborated. “And when a building is in free fall, is there then energy left to destroy the supporting structure?” Hedegaard’s answer was confusing. He talked about how energy moved faster than free-fall and suggested that WTC 7 could have fallen even faster than free-fall.
“But Per, you told me you had looked at the data, and that you supported it,” Harrit responded. Again, Hedegaard gave a confusing answer. The judge in charge of court protocols asked the witness what data it was that he actually supported. “Only the report,” he replied, referring to the nano-thermite report. “I read some of it, and it looked good.”
Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings.

Though Hedegaard did say he found the nano-thermite report “good,” his other answers were clearly not what Harrit had been expecting. An obviously disappointed Harrit told the judges he had no more questions for the witness.
Villemoes’ lawyer asked Hedegaard if he could support statements he had made about Harrit quoted in an article used in City Court — statements substantiating that Dr. Harrit was a “crackpot”. Hedegaard replied that he still agreed with his statements in the article, in which he had called Harrit’s theories “nuts.” That became the final answer from the last witness of the day.”8

Konklusion

Intet tyder på, at Per Hedegård på noget tidspunkt har delt Niels Harrits synspunkt. Både før og efter, at Sandhedsbevægelsen hævdede, at Hedegaard havde skiftet mening, har han tilkendegivet:

  • at Harrits teorier var gak/tossede.
  • at nanotermithypotesen medfører usandsynlige konsekvenser og derfor ikke holder.
  • at frit fald ikke beviser noget, slet ikke sprængning.

Det tætteste, Per Hedegaard i øvrigt kommer på at støtte Niels Harrit i noget, er, at han jævnfør Josef Hanjis referat fra landsretten synes, at rapporten i sig selv ser god ud. Dette stemmer imidlertid fint overens med hans udtalelse til 911facts.dk i interviewet kort før landsretsmødet, hvor han er mere specifik og forklarer, at fordi der er tal og fakta i rapporten, kan man vurdere den nærmere ved at regne på tallene og dykke ned i fakta. Så den holdning har Per Hedegaard tydeligvis også haft hele tiden, både før og efter at Sandhedsbevægelsen hævdede, at han havde skiftet mening.

Påstanden, der er blevet anvendt som argument for at donere penge til Niels Harrits retssag, er med andre ord usand.

Kilder

  1. Libel Lawsuit Against Danish Media Sets Stage for 9/11 Evidence in Court, Josef Hanji and Ted Walter, AE911TRUTH.org
  2. 911 Truth: Distinguished Scientist Dr. Niels Harrit Sues Danish Newspaper for Libel, Richard Gage, GlobalResearch
  3. Dansk skeptiker: Hvad skete der med bygning 7?, JyllandsPosten
  4. Sag nr. BS 33D-8/2013, Domsbogen, Københavns Byret
  5. 100 Tons, det er ret meget, ikke?, 911facts.dk
  6. Udtalelser anset for en meningstilkendegivelse, der ikke var strafbar efter straffelovens § 267, Domsresuméer, Østre Landsret
  7. Courtroom drama in 9/11 ´crackpot´ libel case, University Post, University of Copenhagen
  8. March 12th, 2015: Niels Harrit appealed his libel suit today in court, 911facts.dk
  9. WTC 7 & Nano-thermite Evidence Admitted, Josef Hanji, AE911TRUTH.org

Q & A