Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670444
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: energy and mass |
| Date | 2026-03-25 09:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2hijjFi66uU5@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <n29qnmFbrurU2@mid.individual.net> <10pojcn$380fj$1@dont-email.me> <n2cavsFnf0rU4@mid.individual.net> <10pr8a3$1db2$5@dont-email.me> <FQ-dnXkxAp6txVz0nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Am Montag000023, 23.03.2026 um 16:11 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 03/23/2026 04:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 23/03/2026 7:21 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am Sonntag000022, 22.03.2026 um 12:21 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> the huge basement was not a compact mess of stone and steel, >>>>>>>>>>> as we would expect, but was almost entirely undamaged. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As you might expect if you neglected to think about what had >>>>>>>>>> actually happened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, not at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I personally thought, that an exotic weapon was used, which >>>>>>>>> could turn large structures of steel and concrete into fine dust. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I would have doubts about al-quida having such a device. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or anybody else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That should shock you, since that would mean, that 80 to 90% >>>>>>>>>>> of the original building materials vanished without a trace. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dust clouds are ephemeral. They blow away. They don't have to >>>>>>>>>> blow far away to avoid showing up in the basement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dust blows away, that's true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But how would you transform a 400m skyscraper into fine dust?? >>> ... >>>>>>>>> It also happened in mid-air, because the fine dust was blown >>>>>>>>> away, before it had reached the ground. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 400 meters is quite a long way up in the air, and a fierce fire >>>>>>>> generates a lot of air-circulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, yes 400m is quite a height. But free-falling rubble needs >>>>>>> only a few seconds to pass that distance. >>>> >>>> 9.032 seconds. It gets up to a speed of 88.57m/sec. >>> >>> A little wind drag and we get 10 seconds for a piece of rubble to fall >>> down from the roof. >> >> The bulk of the building was below the roof. >> >>> The speed would also be very high and in the range of 300 km/h. >> >> Only if it fell all the way from the roof, and if it didn't slowed down >> the air currents feeding oxygen into the fires and replacing the hot air >> rising out of the fire. >> >>> That would have the momentum of a fast train, which would smash with >>> enormous force against the floor. >> >> If were a large piece of rubble, Stuff isn't going to fall off the >> building until the structural steel embedded in the concrete has got hot >> enough to lose it's structural integrity (and probably start burning to >> iron oxide). >> >>> Such falling steel is used in 'bunker busters', which can penetrate >>> several meters of reinforced concrete. >> >> But they aren't hot when they hit the reinforced concrete. A burning >> building doesn't disintegrate in a way that produces massive projectiles >> designed to penetrate cold reinforced concrete. >> >>> Since the towers were extremly large, there would have been an >>> enormous number of such falling pieses. >>> >>> The WTC-plaza should have looked like a target for bombing in a >>> jet-fighter training range. >> >> In your not-all-that-well-inforned opinion. >> >>> But that wasn't the case! >>> >>> Instead of being totally destroyed, the WTC-plaza looked almost >>> entirely unharmed. >>> >>> On the following day the street level was clearly visible and >>> seemingly undamaged. >>> >>> E.g. you can see delivery- and fire-trucks in the rubble, which looked >>> a little dusty and had been hit by smaller parts. But the glass of >>> their windows wasn't broken. >>> >>> Also the statue 'The Sphere' was a little damaged, but stood still >>> upon its pedestal and that on the WTC-plaza. >>> >>> From this we can draw the conclusion, that only a few/none of the >>> heavier parts falling down from up to 410 m made it to the ground. >> >> Only if you ignore most of the evidence. >> >>> This fact is actually quite surprising and would deserve an explanation. >> >> The actual facts have been looked into at length >> >> The post you are ostensibly responding to included this link. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center >> >> which you seem to have snipped. >> >> It is quite detailed, and seems to suggest that the towers collapsed one >> floor at a time, so most the debris fell one floor and provoked the >> collapse of the next floor, rather than falling unimpeded. Some of the >> outer columns peeled off and fell outwards, hitting adjacent buildings >> on the way down. >> >> Nobody seem to have felt the need to invoke external forces to explain >> what happened. >> > > 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 official story has more holes than a Swiss cheese and is actually an insult to rational thinking. TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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