Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670543

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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 gusses. 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.

The simple reason:

the agents don't anounce their activities in the newspaper.

...

TH

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