One Smart Chic

I just finished watching a series of interviews from "Experts Speak Out". There are many great bits of
information, and I encourage you to watch all of the testimonies thoroughly.

This is one of my favs because she's so direct and logical. There is also a great deal of science in her
delivery. Enjoy!

reply to post by turbofan


When your "gut" tells you something, generally speaking, the "gut" is right. When she talks about what you see when the towers fall, is like what I felt in my "gut" that morning. It seemed a controlled demolition.

Argument from incredulity is one of the most popular fallacies among truthers. The standard structure of the argument is that experts are all liars and your own uneducated gut feeling is what we should listen to. Just look at the videos and it is just obvious. It has nothing to do with logic though.

reply to post by aero56


Gut feelings (intuition) is right more so than wrong in most cases, on the night (my time) of the twins collapse my gut told me instantly, its the muslims! How wrong was my gut?

Wiki

Gut feelings are generally regarded as not modulated by conscious thought, and as a reflection of intuition rather than rationality.

Since you are throwing 'rationality' out the window why do you still want another investigation? It would only give you rational explainations to things you don't believe.

What good would a 'rational' investigation do?

reply to post by samkent


hahaha

there has been no rational investigation.

I still cant believe that people cant see what is going on here

OPEN YOUR BLOODY EYES!

how many educated professionals are going to have to come forward before the sheeple wake up?

INSIDE JOB

She is a smart lady.
What the OS fails to explain is that even if temperatures did reach 2,600F, (enough to melt steel) the entire structure of the tower would be acting as a heat sink, carrying heat away from the fires themselves. Bottom line is that temperatures would have had to been even hotter than 2,600 in order to melt steel - something only possible as she says through an exothermic chemical reaction.

No where in the OS does anyone claim the temperature reached 2500 degrees.

Just another misconception from the gullible crowd.

Originally posted by samkent
No where in the OS does anyone claim the temperature reached 2500 degrees.

Just another misconception from the gullible crowd.

Not to mention, no where in any of the reports does anyone claim the fires melted the steel. The fires only needed to be hot enough for the steel to lose it's structural integrity, about half the temperature where steel begins to melt. Blacksmiths has known for some 10,000 years that iron doesn't need to be actually melted for it to bend.

Before these self declared truthers actually renounce the so-called official story it would behoove them to at least know what the official story actually is first.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Bent steel does not explain iron spherules in the WTC dust.
To create those it was necessary to have a heat source high enough to melt steel, not just lose it's structural integrity (which would fail to explain a symmetrical collapse of both towers as well).

reply to post by Asktheanimals


not to mention the floods of molten metal pouring from the buildings before they were demolished, or was that molten aluminum from the aeroplanes... oh no that burns silver not red... hmmm

not to mention the floods of molten metal pouring from the buildings before they were demolished, or was that molten aluminum from the aeroplanes... oh no that burns silver not red... hmmm

If there were floods of molten metal (as you call them) in addition to the fires we all seen, wouldn’t that put at risk the wiring and other equipment needed for controlled demo?

Or is there another plausible explanation that covers the collapse and fire and molten metal?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Bent steel does not explain iron spherules in the WTC dust.
To create those it was necessary to have a heat source high enough to melt steel, not just lose it's structural integrity (which would fail to explain a symmetrical collapse of both towers as well).

You are making that hypothesis up on your own. You know that and so do I. When the towers collapsed it sent every imaginable form of debris in every direction, and with steel columns and supports breaking, twisting, and generally self destructing, it more than accounts for why there would be residue of steel and aluminum throughout the area of a collapsed building made of steel and aluminum.

You should know there are groups who likewise point to the Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium being found in the dust as being proof of a nuclear demolition:

The nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center

They are making THAT hypothesis up on their own. You likewise know that and so do I.

Excellent video op thanks for sharing. Science doesnt lie but unfortunately theres alot of ignorant people roaming the earth who refuse logic thought. Hopely one day the truth will prevail and the dead will recieve justice

Is the title of this thread meant to read "One Smart Chick"?

If so have I fallen into the hot tub time machine? I mean, really - "Chick"?

reply to post by turbofan


She said "office fire". Instant fail. There was an almost entire commercial passenger plane in the building. This is not a common content for most offices that I am aware of. Lets not even bother with all the heat sink and melting steel crap.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Ever hear of welding and burning of steel?

Care to guess how much dust in those buildings contained iron spherules from construction and from 30 years
of modifactions, upgrades and maintenance carried out on the steel work

Consider that the exterior walls were made from sections of steel columns with spandrel plates WELDED to
the steel columns

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by turbofan

 

When your "gut" tells you something, generally speaking, the "gut" is right. When she talks about what you see when the towers fall, is like what I felt in my "gut" that morning. It seemed a controlled demolition.

when I was 12 and watched it happen I knew it was controlled. 12 year old me knew that so...lol

The part at 3:00 with the mechanic telling her the engine burned up because of no oil was hilarious. Yeah, women don't know crap about cars.

But if it is so obvious that the official story can't be true because of physics and thermodynamics then why haven't the vast majority of engineers come out and said so in almost TEN YEARS?

This is some weird psychological bull#. Do our school produce lots of geek wimps that won't challenge authority?

It should have at least been determined within SIX MONTHS that airliners could not do that to skyscrapers that big. And then the engineers don't demand info as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

psik