Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show Part 1 of 4 parts

[Jeannon Kralj]

Here is a transcript I did of a radio show of 5 years ago of Dr. Fetzer.  It covers 9-11 truth seeking activists being channeled and directed within strict boundaries, it covers the Wellstone assassination, and it covers how true scientific method can be distorted.  I will not include a few introductory remarks.

 

Transcript:  The Dynamic Duo radio show of May 17, 2007, Genesis Communications Network – www.gcnlive.com. 

 

...

O K ?  When you suppress inquiry and the exchange of views, you’re engaging in propaganda.  It’s something that the Soviets did.  It’s not something I would presume the United States wants to emulate.  And what I found so ironic reading that article was that it struck me that much of what goes on in 9-11 research today is operating on a similar principle.  There’s a prevailing view here within the 9-11 research community that’s committed to a certain way of looking at the issues related to 9-11 and that is actively operating to suppress alternative views.

 

I received a fascinating email from a member of our audience making some key points about this where I was talking about in passing with Peggy Carter yesterday about how one way to contain 9-11 research is to define its boundaries very narrowly and then encourage very active research within those narrow boundaries.  In this case, that amounts to creating boundaries around the idea that thermite or thermate was involved in the buildings on 9-11.  And to my utter astonishment, some of those who promote this theory still describe the destruction of the buildings as a “collapse” as opposed to a pulverization, when we have overwhelming photographic evidence illustrating vividly that the buildings were pulverized and that masses of the concrete and the steel in those buildings was turned to very fine dust, not to mention the furniture, the desks, the chairs, the computers, the human beings and other living things. 

 

Don’t forget eleven hundred bodies were never recovered.  Eleven hundred bodies were never recovered.  Those were bodies that were turned in to very fine dust.  Never recovered.  That’s completely inconsistent with a “collapse”.  Even involving explosives, you would expect to find body parts, even if they were detached from bodies.  And you’d find lots of skulls and torsos and arms and legs, but here we’re talking eleven hundred bodies, no parts of which were recovered.  This is stunning stuff.  And it certainly implies that something was going on here far beyond the use of any merely conventional explosives. 

 

But what’s going on in the research community is an attempt to constrain research that would actually have the capacity potentially to explain what’s going on.  By reaching beyond conventional weaponry in to the range of unconventional weaponry such as lasers, masers, plasmoids, mini-nukes.  I mean, who knows in advance of actually conducting investigation that theories or hypotheses about the use of lasers or masers or mini nukes are wrong?  You can’t know that without investigation.  And I’m going to suggest that a gigantic hoax is being perpetrated on the research community by the claim that scientific method supports this very definition of the use of Thermite and Thermate.

 

Well, I have now taken a look at the latest paper of the leading proponent of that view, Steven Jones, and it doesn’t add up.  I mean it may be impressive to those who are naïve about the nature of science and who are incapable of reading a paper that has the least degree of technical sophistication to it, but I’m going to suggest to you as we go through this paper that what we have here is a rather elaborate snow job, where the most important points made are actually concessions that the evidence that he has found is merely consistent with the use of Thermite or Thermate but doesn’t prove it was produced by Thermite or Thermate, where provided that there are multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job.  And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly inadequate.  Hopelessly inadequate.  And that while he talks a lot about science, he is, alas, not practicing it.

 

Now you have to bear in mind that we find this in many professional fields like medicine and law.  How many times do we find there is a physician who has been practicing medicine in some rural community for years and he doesn’t have a license.  Never went to med school.  Sometimes the community likes him so much they want to keep him in spite of that.  Or a lawyer who’s practicing without a license.  There are frauds and quacks across the board and some of them call themselves scientists.

 

go to

Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show  Part 2 of 4 parts