usenet weirdness

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).

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.

Then: in an effort to protect his alleged masters, he inventent a nonsense theory of nano-thermite-explosions (that was my guess).

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.

TH

The entire neighborhood of the twin-towers got struck by large sections of the perimeterwalls.

Some of these sections were HUGE and hit neighboring buildings up to several hundred meters away (like e.g. bulting WTC 7).

That's why the assumption of simple free fall drop wasn't unlikely at all.

WHAT???

If a building collapses under the own gravity, it is actually VERY likely, that the pieces fall down to the ground in one way or the other.

No, they didn't.

But isn't that astonishing??

I mean: you drop a piece of the enromous buildings composed from steel and concrete and a weight of a locomotive from a skyscraper.

And it didn't hit the ground!

Instead it turned to dust in mid-air and gets blown away.

If you would think, that such a behavior is 'natural', you were a hopeless case.

Well, in 'collapse under the own weight' I would see an influence of Earth' gravity.

What gravity 'really' is, that is not perfectly understood. But at least we know, that gravity makes unsupported things drop down.

As we have some confidence in gravity, we could assume with certainty, that heavy objects do not float in the air.

The kinetic energy and the momentum of falling debris would have been enormous.

E.g. a piece of 'moderate' mass (by WTC standards) would have, say, 20 to.

If dropped from a hight of 400 m it would have a kinetic energie at ground level of about 78.000.000 Joules.

That is just enormous and about five times the kinetic energy of an artillery shell.

Sure, but the pieces hadn't.

The twintowers were build from-steel beams with insane masses,

These steel-beams had thick wall and large dimensions.

There ware also used in groups of beams in the perimeterwalls and were welded together.

A few kg are just not the rigth dimensions for the sections of the walls.

These sections had masses well over twenty to.

Well, we usually have smaller pieces and larger pieces and some sort of mean 'piece-size'.

How about 10 to?

TH

'Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen' wasn't meant that way!

It's is more like 'management by engineers' rather than 'management of engineers'.

'Wi.Ings.' are kind of 'special forces of the industry' and able to do many jobs, if necessary. ...

TH

Sadly, turning it into an academic speciality has that effect. The emphasis goes on the management, rather than engineering.

Or they can convince themselves they can. People who have done the engineering themselves have a much better idea of what their subordinate engineers are telling them, and are much better at avoiding second guessing their subordinates. One engineering manager told me not to make suggestions to one of my junior engineers, who was brilliant, but not all that self-confident - he'd take me too seriously. My ideas were mostly pretty good, but the risk of a pretty good idea displacing a brilliant one was not to be taken lightly.

So not cold fusion - which doesn't seem to happen - but something even more improbable, verging on the absolutely fatuous.

Conspiracy theory nut cases do go in for that kind of lunatic over-reach.

More piling nonsense on nonsense.

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.

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:

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

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.

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

They can also scream that whoever disagree with them must be a stupid uneducated crank, but fortunately they're usually too dumb to keep their lies consistent.

And another example is The S*it of Einstein.

That's not the way I read the reports. One the steel holding each floor in place started giving way - from the top because the building was on fire hot air rises - the top floor fell onto the floor below, which then fell onto the floor below a little later. Those two floors then loaded up the third floor so it failed even more rapidly, and so forth down to ground.

This left the supporting columns around the outside of the building disconnected from one another and they started swaying and eventually fell sideways, hitting adjacent buildings. They were studtural columns, not perimeter walls

A 400 meter long column is pretty big, and there were quite a few of them.

Not so much unlikely as inappropriate.

But not necessarily in large chunks.

Only if you have preconceived and unrealistic ideas about how a burning steel-frame building building might fall down.

You don't drop it. It falls off, largely because the steel has got hot enough to let the frame come apart

Of course it did. Just not in the way that you like to imagine.

Some of it did. More of it got turned into loose rubble and got moved sideways on the way down by the air-currents that circulate quite fast around a burning building

That doesn't seem to be the behavior that was actually observed

The problem is that you are fixated on the building coming apart into large chunks. The individual floors stayed more or less in one piece but they fell straight down,and ended up as thick stack on the ground level.

But they tend to fall straight down, not whizzing off in random directions.

But they had to be hauled up into place. The cranes that lift them up from ground level limit the maximum mass of each component part, and they do have to be forced into exactly the right positions before they can be welded together.

Once it was all assembled there might have been an insane mass of steel up there, but it wasn't prefabricated in particularly large chunks.

But the fire would have weakened those welds.

But you do have to have a reason for selecting a particular mass distribution for the fragments.It is the sort of thing that should show up in the documentation of the disaster.

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 09:15 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

No, I don't think that spook can or should do that, because they are not allowed to say, that they are 'spooks' (actually 'agents').

This would be 'deconspiracy', what is regarded as a crime for almost any agent of any agency. ...

TH

Am Montag000030, 30.03.2026 um 17:45 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

I'm mainly a 'visual person' and prefer to look at pictures.

So, I ask google for pictures by typing in something like 'aftermath of

Then I find a picture, which shows a very large piece of the perimeter walls, which pierced inside an adjacent building.

I estimate the mass to about 20 to and have something, to prove you wrong.

You should adjust your understanding of the term 'falling' to something, which is directed downwards.

'adjacent' means actually not 'downwords', but 'sideways'.

It is among the more astonighing aspects of the distribution of the debris, that quite a few pieces 'fell' actually sideways.

No!!!

These huge beams were bolted and welded together from much shorter pieces.

Why?

I mean: gravity acts downwards, hence things tend to fall down.

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

You're right...

... supposed steel would burn!

Sure, that would happen.

But still these parts would have masses of several tons each.

What we encountered instead were tiny droplets in the range of microns.

That is quite a different story!

These tiny droplets were actually blown away by the wind.

And, yes, I didn't expect that.

Some did, but we were expecting ten-thousands of massive pieces and not just a few.

If you don't believe, that most of the debris was blown away, than you should say to where it actually went.

It didn't fell upon the WTC-plaza, because the street level was mainly undamaged. (you could actually see cars in the rubble, which had unbroken windows!)

It wasn't in the basement, because there exist videos, where firemen and rescue workers marched through all the floors of the basement and have not been hindered by any material there.

So: where did the millions of tons of debris go? (estimated mass was 1.6 millions tons)

TH

Unless their masters have told them to do it. Undercover agents are free to do all sorts of stuff that their masters wouldn't admit that they hadtold them to do. Agents do go undercover to make their antics deniable.

Oil companies contribute to the "merchants of doubt'

And we've got Maciej Woźniak who posts nonsense about Einstein because he can't think straight.

And we've got Bill Sloman, going into spitting and slandering because he was caught lying (and not even consequently). As expected from stupid, fanatic scum.

But you can't post a link to any of them.

It does.

Not an evidence-based claim.

One that got told in the link I posted

You are expecting ten of thousands of massive pieces.

When I posted a link to a report that seems to have more or less itemised them, you snipped it.

It got smeared out over Manhattan.

That was taken in the hour so before the building collapsed.

Most of it ended up stacked in floor-by-floor layers in the basement. The buildings actually collapsed floor by floor, from the top down. Nothing fell all that fast because it fell in floor by floor stages.

The vertical columns that supported the building didn't. They bent sideways as the floor beams that had linked them together fell down onto the floor below, and eventually bent far enough to fall down, but only after bending quite a long way from the vertical.

Actuaally I did.

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

...

TH

Really?

But what do you think it is telling you?

All of them meaningless in isolation.

You are exhibiting the same pathology as Maciej Woźniak did when I went after him for not posting informative links. He posted two totally irrelevant links to prove that he could do it - missing the point that they do need to be relevant to be informative.

A delusion, typical for a brainwashed relativistic idiot.

You see hundreds of parts of the former perimeter-walls, each in the ranger of more than 20 to, lying outside the WTC-plaza.

Actually I don't know, what that strange building was, but it didn't belong to the WTC complex.

Because the sections of the perimeter walls are easy to identify by their very special shape, we know, that these pieces flew from the twin-towers to where they were found on the next day.

This would allow us to reject the claim, that these pieces didn't fall down, because you can clearly see numerous of these pieces on that picture.

It was strange, however, that these pieces flew that far and remained there, while the much more logical place to fall upon (WTC-Plaza) wasn't hit as much as that building, which apparently belonged to the harbor of New York.

There are also sections of the twin towers, that pierced through the walls of adjacent buildings.

This is cleanly visible on that photo, too.

No!!!!

You look at a picture, identify the visible items and try to figure out, how the pieces managed to get there were they are seen.

The best way is to isolate the image and concentrate on very few items.

It doesn't make any sense at all, if you get overwhelmed with too many images.

Isolation of evidence is essential!

After that, you need to connect your findings again.

But too many pictures at once just blurry your intuition.

...

TH

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.04.2026 um 17:34 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

You need to look and identify, what you can see on that particular picture:

you see three men with helmets, that do some stuff (what that is is actually irrelevant here) and lean upon a huge piece of reinforced concrete.

They stand apparently on street level and on a surface which is covered with some remains of the twin-towers.

More interesting is the building in the background, left of these three men.

In front of that building an excavator (with the sign 'Yannuzi') is collecting steel pieces from a huge pile of rubble.

Above that excavator is a huge section of the perimeter walls of one of the twin towers, that pierced through the facade of that building.

All windows of that building are seemingly broken.

The remaining structural steel elements look rusty and the facade is covered with something dark, which looks like soot.

This would allow us several questions:

what caused that 'soot'?

why are ALL windows broken?

why is the pile of rubble in front of that building, which didn't belong to the WTC-complex and not where these men stand (what is most likely much closer to the former towers)?

why were these men able to stand on street level and not upon a pile of rubble several meters high? (IOW: why is there that little rubble?)

what made these steel beams rust over night?

...

TH