usenet weirdness

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

You see lumps of concrete - you don't know where they came from or how much they weigh.

And what shape was that?

But you don't know what they are or where they came from. You want them to be sections of the perimeter wall, but simple assertion doesn't hack it.

They were the vertical structural columns, which tilted over as they fell down, after the steel links in the floors of each storey failed and dump each floor onto the floor below

If that's what you really want to see,

Not many showing what looks very like a complete multi-storey rotating restaurant. There can't have been many candidates in the area. For something that had to have fallen 400 metres, it looks surprisingly undamaged. Presumably it rode down on the the floor-by-floor collapse.

Which you haven't done.

Few people have useful intuitions about pictures of fallen down buildings. Even fewer about ones a big at the World Trade Centre. There haven't been many to practice on.

Encasing steel beams in concrete doesn't stop them rusting. It they'd been bare, the fire would have stripped off any corrosion protection they had, and got them hot enough to encourage rather rapid oxidation.

Is Sydney your first name, middle name or last name?

It was Bill Sloman, Nijmegen but fifteen years ago I moved to Sydney, Australia. I am Australian, and so was my wife.

You got a wife? Have you got any pictures of her??

She died in 2022, in Nimegen as it happened. I was there. Her obituaries do include pictures, but I don't share that kind of information on this sort of forum.

Am 24.03.26 um 13:46 schrieb john larkin:

He was the antithesis to Nazi if there ever was one.

Nasty creeps are those who use war crimes to hide Sex Crimes. Another way to put it is they kill children to hide they rape children.

Gerhard

(msg was left over in the pipeline)

ACK.

Sad, but true.

BTW, it is recommended to put the "<" and ">" around a URI _without_ additional spaces. That is, you can *either* use whitespace *or* you should use "<" and ">", around URIs:

F'up2 poster

\\//,

The sections of the perimeter walls were pre-fabricated and lifted to their position with cranes. There the large pieces were bolted together and later welded.

The sections looked more or less similar and consisted of a number of vertical and horizontal steel beams.

If you see such pieces in the rubble, you know with certainty that they came from one of the twin towers.

From where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections were build mainly equally. If there were any differences at all would be a good question. But at least I don't know about any differences.

Therefore you only know, that they stem from the outer perimeter walls of one of the towers.

The mass was roughly twenty tons each (sorry, but I actually don't know the exact weight).

I know what the were, but not were they have been before, because these sections were mainly equal.

Don't know if there were significant differencers, which would allow to identify the individual piece.

Sure, ssomething like that...

BUT: why didn't twenty ton massive pieces of steel with a velocity of up to 350 km/h damage the ground level of the WTC-plaza????

That was a VERY unusual habbit!!!

Instead of piercing through the floor, these sectitions pierced through the facades of adjacent buildings and remained intakt outside of the WTC-Plaza, while turning into fine dust inside that WTC-area.

THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!

...

TH ...

'Rapid rust' was among the strangest things happening at 9/11!

MANY massive steel items collected rusted almost instantly. That were not only steel beems of adjacent buildings, but lots of other items collected rust very fast.

That was a VERY (!!) unusual phenomenon.

Usually it can take weeks for bare steel to rust, even in 'hostile' environments.

TH

If you want to speed up a chemical reaction, get the reagents hot.

The Twin Towers fell down because the fire started by crashing the jet planes into the buildings got hot enough to weaken the steel frames. It also got them hot enough to rust remarkably rapidly.

Your unfortunate ignorance makes you see mysteries where anybody better educated would have known what was going on.

Probably because there weren't any twenty ton massive pieces of steel falling freely from the top of world Trade Centre.

Nobody makes a habit of dropping twenty ton pieces of steel from the tops of very tall buildings. It is anti-social and discouraged.

The columns didn't drop vertically - they swayed out of the vertical and eventually swayed far enough to fall over, but the sway meant that they didn't fall freely or vertically.

The insanity is all in your insistence on imaging what might have been going on, rather than trying to find out.

Well, possibly...

But adjacent buildings were not hit by planes and didn't burn.

E.g. have a look at this picture:

This means, that rust appeared almost instantly.

There were also these 'half-burned cars', where the burned side was also very rusty, while the other half of the same car was still undamaged.

That was all VERY strange!

My current guess:

there was an invisible field in action (possibly 'scalar waves'), which was tuned to resonate with steel and concrete.

This was centered around the twin-towers and was able to turn Steel-beams into fine dust and less resonant steel at least into rust.

That was something like a HUGE 'microwave oven', which turned the large buildings into molten metal and dust and cars and other stuff into rust.

What was entirely unharmed was apparently paper, which managed to fly away from the towers, while the metal cabinets these papers were stored turned into dust.

TH

Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 18:53 schrieb Bill Sloman: ...

You would certainly agree, that the twintowers actually collapsed.

So: 'what was up had to come down' (in one way or the other), because steel-beams are not supposed to stay floating in the sky.

We could discuss the size of the pieces, but not the total mass and the hight, from where these pieces had to come down.

Each tower was made from roughly 600,000 to of material.

So, it we had, say, ten-thousand pieces, each piece would have a mass of

That's a little large, so lets assume 30,000 pieces of debris (per tower).

That would give us an average of 20 to per piece.

But by looking at the pile of the rubble, there haven't been 30,000 pieces of an average of 20 to in each of the piles.

I would say, there were less the ten-thousand pieces of such a mass, possibly far less (in both piles combined!).

But, if you prefer that, we could also assume 40,000 pieces with an average mass of 15 to or 60,000 pieces weighing on average 10 tonns each.

What would you prefer?

You are absolute right and nobody would drop such piece intentionally from such a height.

But we're not talking about intentions, but about the collase of a skyscraper. This did happen and therefore we need to assume, that the pieces fell down some way.

Sure, but the pieces 'falling' sideways had enough kinetic energy to pierce through the steel structures of adjacent buildings.

So: why didn't they cut through the floor level of the WTC-Plaza???

There the kinetic energy would be even higher.

Well, I was never in New York and all I have are such pictures.

Therefore, I can only used pictures of independent sources.

This is certainly not evidence in a classical sense. But you could easily obtain similar pictures from other source and could choose, whom you trust more.

TH

The top of the column moved further sideways that the bits closer to the ground. I'd imagine that the columns lost the their lateral support from the top down - as each floor fell down onto the one below it, the tops vertical columns would splay out a bit further until the residual stiffness wasn't enough to constrain the lateral motion and they'd go from being bent to being u-shaped with what had the top now hitting the ground.

Because they went sideways before they went down.

A lot of it went into bending the columns

You need lots of pictures - and some sense of what was going on - before you can make sense of them. Making nonsense of them takes a lot less effort.

It was hit by the fire in adjacent building. A burning building tends to heat up adjacent building - radiant heat is the obvious mechanism, but flames are moving hot air.

The steel got hot, and rusted rapidly. High temperatures do make chemical reactions (like steel oxidising to rust) go fast.

Radiant heat works that way.

Less strange if you knew more.

The was a perfectly visible field of radiant heat.

It's a candidate for silly idea of the year, but the competition is fierce.

Burning building are more like regular ovens. You burn the fittings in the building in the old-fashioned way - like feeding chunks of wood into a wood stove - and that generates heat.

Fires generate air currents and not all of the air sucked in finds something to burn. Loose paper can get blown away (though most of it will have got burnt up).

Look at this picture and ask yourself: what is depicted on this photo?

You see a fireman and a police car, which is standing on the street near the ruins of one of the WTC-buildings.

The police car is hardly damaged and there was almost no debris and you can clearly see the street level.

This means: the remains of that destroyed building didn't fall outside of the buildings own footprint.

This fact alone is extremely strange, because this would mean, that the building had mainly vanished without a trace.

This is another picture with strange content:

But the cars had still windows, which were covered with dust, but were not broken.

Now: such a huge steel beam could break the windscreen of any car with ease, even if it didn't drop from more than a meter.

So, why didn't the windows break?

Or his page:

These cars looked quite undamaged, if you take into account, that just recently the remains of the largest building in the world fell upon them.

Or that issue: lots and lots of unburned paper in the streets, while none of the filing cabinets remained:

I mean, if you melt the cabinets, the paper should be burnt (at least a little).

TH

...

It doesn't. It means that the remains of the destroyed building didn't fall into that area outside the buildings. It doesn't say anthing about other areas.

In fact we know that the vertical columns did fall sideways, and some of that steel did fall outside the footprint and did hit adjacent building, but your picture doesn't include any of that.

It's not a fact, it is simply an invalid extrapolation from a single and unrepresentative bit of evidence. Your reasoning is either extremely or totally incompetent - perhaps both.

Because none of the finite number of steel beams happened to fall in that particular area?

I can't see any car.

Not all paper gets kept in filing cabinets. I do tend to keep small piles of paper on my desk, and most big cities have news kiosks with racks off magazines around the serving counter.

You do seem have a remarkably defective grasp of reality. Many of the engineering managers I've run into have the same kind of problem - perhaps the training you get is designed to instill this defect?