Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by zimishey
Niels may have no doubts about controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Many others that understand demolitions have doubts and Niels finding red paint in the dust is not proof of anything other than that Niels wants a little attention.
The Bentham paper is full of errors and poor analytical protocols and its conclusions are not justified.
OK, here's a confession I wish to share with you. I am not a chemist, and do not even have an O level (UK) in chemistry. But I am not the one severely criticizing him. This doesn't mean to say I 'believe' him---I am the authentic sceptic--I do not know, and am investigating.
I can say that I bothereed to watch that video from beginning to end, and --hmmm well i SENSE many of you here haven't by what you say, though I could be wrong, so forgive me.
But I have confessed about my lack of chemist credentials, and thus would feel somewhat intimidated when face to face with someone who had over 40 years experience as a Chemist to naively contradict.
But you and those here, will you let me know YOUR experience in chemistry please. What is your expertise? This is a fair question considering your antagonism against his evidence. It is so I can get a handle of the proceedings. Thankyou
edit on 8-3-2011 by zimishey because: spelling and added text