Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670545

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 30/03/2026 5:48 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000029, 29.03.2026 um 16:32 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>> On 29/03/2026 6:56 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Freitag000027, 27.03.2026 um 16:51 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>>>> On 27/03/2026 6:54 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am Mittwoch000025, 25.03.2026 um 15:26 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's always going to be somebody
>>>>>>>>> who doesn't believe the official narrative of 9/11.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but that wasn't the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question was:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is there still anybody believing the official story? >>>
>>>>>>> The rational majority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is 
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> an insult to rational thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The claims that you have been making - like the Twin Towers 
>>>>>>> falling down
>>>>>>> in ten seconds - don't suggest that you can do rational thinking, or
>>>>>>> recognise it when you run into it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTC7 is a usual outlier to otherwise the "Jones" theory versus
>>>>>> the "NIST" theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephan Jones was a proponent of a theory, that can't possibly be 
>>>>> true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jones assumed, that the WTC buildings were destroyed by explosions 
>>>>> of nano-thermite.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the buildings didn't explode!
>>>>
>>>> Thermite isn't an explosive. It just burns and gets very hot.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
>>>>
>>>>> What really happened that was far stranger than mini-nukes or 
>>>>> nanothermite:
>>>>>
>>>>> The twin towers simply 'dustified' in mid-air and vanished.
>>>>
>>>> It would have been very strange if it had happened. I've not seen 
>>>> anybody sane claim that it did. The concrete got hot as the towers 
>>>> burned, and got smashed into small rubble as each floor fell down on 
>>>> the floor below as the steel frames got hot and failed. There was a 
>>>> great deal of dust around after the Twin Towers had fallen down, so 
>>>> by no means all of it "vanished"  - if any of it did
>>>>
>>>>> Since Stephan Jones was also the expert for cold-fusion of the 
>>>>> Department of Energy, I assumed, that Jones knew what had happened 
>>>>> and wanted to divert the attention away from cold fusion.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Cold fusion is weird - not because of anything it has been observed 
>>>> to do, but because people have kept on looking at it since 1989 when 
>>>> Pons and Fleischmann first reported it. I'd run into Martin 
>>>> Fleischmann when I was post-doc at Southampton 1971-73, and he was a 
>>>> professor there and he was perfectly respectable electrochemist back 
>>>> then.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
>>>>
>>>> The proposition that it might have destroyed the Twin Towers is 
>>>> definitely lunacy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have not said, that the WTC was destroyed by cold fusion.
>>>
>>> I actually assumed a 'weaponised' version of the so called 'Hutchison 
>>> effect' (similar to John Hutchison himself, together with Tom Beardon 
>>> and Judy Wood).
>>
>> So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something even 
>> more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.
>>
>>> But possibly Stephan Jones assumed it was 'cold fusion', because he 
>>> was an expert in that topic and that might eventually have looked a 
>>> little similar.
>>
>> Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-reach.
> 
> I have created several 'conspiracy theories' myself. But I usually don't 
> use the term 'conspiracy'.
> 
> Most of the time these 'theories' ain't theories, but guesses. And they 
> are usually not guesses about conspiracies, but are guesswork about the 
> activities of secret agencies and their 'spooks'.
> 
> Sorry, but that's actually all what is possible, because 'spooks' are 
> spooky and try to keep their activities secret.
> 
> That leaves only guesswork as possiblity.
> 
> E.g. I have compared the book 'my Struggle' in English with the same 
> book in German (called 'Mein Kampf') and found something quite interesting:
> 
> the book in German must be a (bad) translation of an English origional 
> and not the other way round.
> 
> That is at least astonishing, but still guesswork.
> 
> I also found, that this picture (which could be found in the English 
> version of 'My Struggle') looks like a very bad montage:
> 
> https://img.br.de/be3a4a28-0381-4039-a60e-db00a08150ee.tiff
> 
> What was dubious that were the heads. They looked like cut out and glued 
> over other heads.
> 
> Anyhow..
> 
> But you can't reject guesses about activities of spooks, just because 
> they are guesses.

Actually you can and should. The spooks are free to post the same sorts 
of guesses, and use them to distract from and devalue evidence-based 
accounts.

The classic example is climate-change-denial propaganda which is biassed 
guess-work designed to distract people from the evidence-based science.

> The simple reason:
> 
> the agents don't announce their activities in the newspaper.

Unless they are posting as gullible suckers, spreading fatuous stories 
designed to distract people from the inconvenient truth.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-18 09:11 +0100
  Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-18 21:28 +1100
    Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 12:10 +0100
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-20 01:35 +1100
        Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 07:44 -0700
          Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 07:52 -0700
            Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:42 -0700
              Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 09:58 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 10:28 -0700
        Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 11:00 +0100
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 02:54 +1100
            Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-22 10:31 +0100
              Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 22:21 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-23 09:21 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 22:31 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:11 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 09:02 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 21:40 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:26 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 08:54 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:51 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 09:56 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Daren Remond <ndno@dmrndd.us> - 2026-03-29 13:04 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:33 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 01:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 07:39 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:48 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 18:15 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-30 10:17 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:13 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 22:46 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-03-31 13:57 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-25 08:59 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 15:00 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 02:47 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-27 09:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 03:17 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 10:39 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-29 10:19 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Cloro Sandiford <iofnd@dosc.us> - 2026-03-29 13:01 +0000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-30 08:31 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 02:45 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-31 09:39 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 23:10 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-01 09:47 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:34 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-04-01 18:23 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:12 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 23:42 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 09:57 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-06 02:53 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 13:09 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:11 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-08 09:13 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-08 22:56 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-03 10:31 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 03:16 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 09:38 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 04:15 +1100
                Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-03 23:18 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 21:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-05 10:14 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 20:58 +1000
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-04-06 12:51 +0200
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-07 04:27 +1000
      Re: energy and mass The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-03-19 11:17 -0700

csiph-web