La réponse de Fetzer... :
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ModestProposal.html
My opinion is that it is possible to be "too conservative" about what we are doing in the research community. The truth does not leap out at us like Athena from the forehead of Zeus! We have to struggle to establish what is the case, piece by piece, little by little, and at certain junctures we may have to abandon what we previously thought was the case because of the advent of new evidence or new alternative hypotheses. Their emergence ought to be a cause for celebration, not the occasion for anguish! When I began to fully appreciate the total and complete devastation of the WTC as a consequence of Judy's work-- which made it for me inescapable!--it became apparent that there is no way an explanation of how the Twin Towers were destroyed could possibly be adequate to explain the destruction of the other buildings in the WTC. That, combined with learning about the "bathtub", was for me an epiphany, because until then I had not begun to appreciate the full dimensions of the problem or why so much of our effort was not good enough! In my view, super-thermate cannot explain this devastation!
For that reason, I described what I was learning as "Fascinating!", an adjective I continue to use. I was not thereby endoring the idea that the source of energy might have come from a location in space, but the reasons she adduces for entertaining that possibility are fascinating, too! Science requires imagination and courage, which does not appear to be widely distributed among the members of the 9/11 community. The evidential situation demands rigor in reasoning and exactitude in the process of thinking things through. It is actually well encapsulated in Conan Doyle's observation, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever reamains, however improbable, must be the truth!" We must be willing to abandon our most prized conclusions if they turn out to be incompatible with new evidence. And we must not ignore any hypothesis that might provide us with novel and unexpected access to the truth. I have no idea if Judy's conjectures will pan out, but they deserve to be explored. There is too much that we have not explained to ignore them.
Ce qui est amusant c'est que que cet abruti de philosophe nous ressort les mêmes âneries proferées ici :
One of the virtues of science, of course, especially when it relies on mathematics, is that false claims are more easily exposed. Judy had advised me that the 30 second calculation for a grand piano had been done by a friend and that she had yet to verify it. According to the new calculation, the piano (:lol:) would have hit the ground in 12 seconds. I dare say that confirms my basic point, since the 9/11 Commission and NIST have assigned times of destruction for the towers of 10 seconds and 9 seconds a piece*. So even though the calculation was flawed, the key point remains. The Twin Towers were demolished in less time than free fall through air! That is simply astonishing and establishes a crucial parameter for any explanation of their destruction to qualify as adequate.
Il interprête aussi faussement qu'ici le rapport du NIST qui parlait des
premiers débris de facade touchant le sol après 10 secondes. Le reste de la chute étant caché par la poussière et les débris. Ces éléments de facade détachés tombaient librement le long de celle-ci depuis le point d'impact et non du sommet.... Quand on part d'une fausse prémisse la conclusion ne peut être juste.
