Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670533

Re: energy and mass

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/29/2026 07:32 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> 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.
>
>> Then: in an effort to protect his alleged masters, he inventent a
>> nonsense theory of nano-thermite-explosions (that was my guess).
>
> More piling nonsense on nonsense.
>
>> This theory cannot possibly be true, because there was no explosion
>> and the actual effect was also far stranger than cold fusion could
>> possibly had been.
>
> A building catches on fire and falls down. What's strange about that?
> It was an unusually large building, and the fires got started when two
> fuelled up jet-airlines flew into the building, but that's where the
> strangeness stops.
>
> You trying to tell us that they fell down in 10 seconds was pretty
> strange, but if probably comes from the fact that an object in free fall
> falling for the top of building would have taken ten seconds to reach
> the ground. One of the towers  had to burn for an hour and three
> quarters before it collapsed, and the other only had to burn for an
> hour. You managed to ignore those inconvenient facts - which makes it
> clear that you don't a particularly firm grasp of reality.
>

A usual enough theory is "Controlled Demolitions, Inc." did it.

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