Date: 2015-10-25 20:43:44
Ben, I’ve read the article and frankly I think Andy Mercer’s contribution is a waste of space, time and energy, and is exactly the type of rhetoric suited to the retards who seek an excuse not to look at hard facts by labelling Dr Wood’s work ‘a theory’.If Mercer is genuine, his understanding of very basic scientific knowledge and factual evidence falls so short and even has the gall to present 10 questions to Dr Wood which are an insult to someone of her calibre. Also, he has done no basic research into what Dr Wood has said or written at all so I don’t think this is even worth reading.Perhaps it would have been more worth his time spending ten minutes in a science class for eight year olds to learn what empirical evidence is and what is not; i.e a class measures a pupil’s height with a tape measure and they all agree little Joe is 4’9″ tall; that’s empirical. To understand FACTS, one needs to understand what FACTUAL evidence is(empirically based) and how it is used in forensics. How is this not understood before anyone even looks at Dr Wood’s book! She even gives us the opportunity to learn what we should have learnt form the beginning in order to see what is real and what isn’t, and yes it’s all logical. Finally, I think you make some useful and valid points Ben, despite the 9/11 article being labelled as up for debate. Also the destruction of the towers were not a conventional “collapse’ and irrefutable facts are not changed by debate, but I see that you have written your contribution in order to bring WDTTG evidence to light; which is far more than what others are doing. Thanks.