From: realiseyourefree
Date: 2012-06-07 22:30:38
Interesting how Jim Fetzer proposes to address these ‘hearings’ from his philosophical background when we who have taken the time to digest and try to understand the empirical evidence thoroughly presented by Dr Wood, know that you cannot seriously approach and comprehend the conclusions made in her work from the same thought process. Clearly, in terms of conclusive evidence… philosophical thought and debate versus scientific fact is surely a no-brainer. Where Did the Towers Go? Chap 12: Science is not about building a body of known ‘facts’. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good. – Terry Pratchett Hence, Fetzer’s Orwellian ‘1+1 may not be equal to 2’ approach would do long-term damage to his own [already tainted] reputation when addressing this subject – nonetheless he is-as already noted by Andrew Johnson-an accomplice in the criminal cover-up, by failing to address Dr Wood’s empirical evidence with the correct scientific method it deserves…he will be therefore knowingly encouraging and injecting falsehoods on this basis alone, never mind asking Clare Kuehn to present a potential de-bunking piece on Dr Wood’s work. Still, they will have to live with their consciensces. — In Cognoscence@yahoogro…, “Andrew Johnson”
