From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

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

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 guesses. 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.

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.

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
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

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

...

So, material objects with a mass larger than 20 to of steel and >>>>>>> concrete 'dustified' in mid air and were blown away.

They got broken up in a series of smaller collisions, as each
floor fell onto the floor below it, and got further broken up by
each impact in succession.

That's not how things fall, if they hit something hard below.

If you would drop something breakable from some height upon
something breakable, but with high resistance against breaks, you
would expect a different pattern:

the upper part of a collision would cause breaks in the parts
below, but also breaks of the same kind in itself, because the both >>>>> parts were assumed to have the same strength.

What happened to the Twin Towers was that the towers caught on fire
and got hot, weakening both the steel frame and the concrete.

When they got weak enough the Towers collapsed, floor by floor. About
the only stuff that fell a long way were the supporting columns,
which leaned way from the building and eventually fell outwards,
hitting adjacent building. Each floor collapsed inwards, stopping at
the next floor (but not for long) before the next floor failed

If we concentrate on the upper part only (for a moment), we would
expect parts of the falling piece to splinter off and fall partly
outside of the former building shape, hence would fall in free fall >>>>> outside down to the ground.

Why? It's all tied together by a steel frame, which may be failing,
But stuff isn't going to "splinter off". There don't seem to be any
reports of that.

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

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.

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
9/11 debris', click on the 'pictures' tab and scan through the results.

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.

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

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.

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

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

No!!!

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

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

Not so much unlikely as inappropriate.

Why?

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

Doesn't matter that much, what percentage would break of the upper
part, because at least some parts would do that.

An unsupported assumption.

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.

But not necessarily in large chunks.

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the
perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous
mass and velocity.

I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.

No, they didn't.

But isn't that astonishing??

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

You're right...

... supposed steel would burn!

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

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

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!

And it didn't hit the ground!

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

These tiny droplets were actually blown away by the wind.

And, yes, I didn't expect that.

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

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

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

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

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

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
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 31/03/2026 6:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

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.

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.

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'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

precisely to fund climate change denial propaganda in a way that doesn't expose them to prosecution.

And we've got Maciej Wo+|niak who posts nonsense about Einstein because
he can't think straight.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 3/31/2026 1:46 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 31/03/2026 6:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

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.

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.

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'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

precisely to fund climate change denial propaganda in a way that doesn't expose them to prosecution.

And we've got Maciej Wo+|niak 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.




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

But even at the height of the actual impact zones, sections of the >>>>>> perimeter wall of the twin towers would fall down with enormous
mass and velocity.

I saw it happen on TV. They didn't.

No, they didn't.

But isn't that astonishing??

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

You're right...

... supposed steel would burn!

It does.

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

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

Sure, that would happen.

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

Not an evidence-based claim.

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

23 micron on average

That is quite a different story!

One that got told in the link I posted

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.13025

and you have snipped without comment.

And it didn't hit the ground!

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

These tiny droplets were actually blown away by the wind.

And, yes, I didn't expect that.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

It got smeared out over Manhattan.

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!)

23 micron diameter dust doesn't fall fast.

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.

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

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

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actuaally I did.

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

or this one

https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/Handheld_Mapping.jpg

but there are many more opf these pictures!


...

TH
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actually I did.

Really?

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

But what do you think it is telling you?

or this one

https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/Handheld_Mapping.jpg

but there are many more of these pictures!

All of them meaningless in isolation.

You are exhibiting the same pathology as Maciej Wo+|niak 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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 4/1/2026 5:34 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are exhibiting the same pathology as Maciej Wo+|niak 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.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

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

On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actually I did.

Really?

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

But what do you think it is telling you?

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.

or this one

https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/
Handheld_Mapping.jpg

but there are many more of these pictures!

All of them meaningless in isolation.

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
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

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

But what do you think it is telling you?

or this one

https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/
Handheld_Mapping.jpg

but there are many more of these pictures!

All of them meaningless in isolation.

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


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 3/04/2026 7:12 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actually I did.

Really?

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

But what do you think it is telling you?

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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.

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.

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.

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

This is cleanly visible on that photo, too.

If that's what you really want to see,

or this one

https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/app/uploads/2021/09/Handheld_Mapping.jpg

but there are many more of these pictures!

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_on_the_World

All of them meaningless in isolation.

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.

Which you haven't done.

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 blur your intuition.

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Is Sydney your first name, middle name or last name?
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 4/04/2026 3:38 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 4/04/2026 3:38 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You got a wife? Have you got any pictures of her??
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 4/04/2026 5:18 pm, The Starmaker wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 4/04/2026 3:38 am, The Starmaker wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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. >>>>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am 24.03.26 um 13:46 schrieb john larkin:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

George Carlin put it better than I ever could:

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vg >
about halfway into the clip.

What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth.

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)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 24.03.26 um 13:46 schrieb john larkin:

On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:20:02 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

George Carlin put it better than I ever could:

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_FQZUSy1Vg >
about halfway into the clip.

What a nasty creep. I bet he would have signed up for Nazi Youth.

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

[to _a_ Nazi]

ACK.

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.

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:

<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#appendix-C>

F'up2 poster

\\//,
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 14:42 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:12 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actually I did.

Really?

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

But what do you think it is telling you?

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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
...

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

'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
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 5/04/2026 6:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

'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.

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 5/04/2026 5:57 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 14:42 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:12 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

On 1/04/2026 6:47 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000031, 31.03.2026 um 14:10 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 31/03/2026 6:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

You could SEE these large chunks on several photos.

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

Actually I did.

Really?

But google is nice and provided tons of links.

E.g. this is a good picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/
September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_04.jpg

But what do you think it is telling you?

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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.-a 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dumped each floor onto the floor below

Sure, something like that...

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

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

That was a VERY unusual habit!!!

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

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

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.

THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!

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

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 12:58 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 5/04/2026 6:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

'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.

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.

Well, possibly...

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

E.g. have a look at this picture:

https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/local/news-articles/greater-new-york/1-36484-003-1000x1213.jpg

Here you can see a building, which wasn't hit by a plane, but is quite
rusty.

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
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

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

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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.

-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections
were build mainly equally.-a 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dumped each floor onto the floor below

Sure, something like that...

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

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

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
60 tonns.

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?

That was a VERY unusual habit!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!

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

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

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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.

-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections
were build mainly equally.-a 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dumped each floor onto the floor below

Sure, something like that...

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

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

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
60 tonns.

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?

That was a VERY unusual habit!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Because they went sideways before they went down.

There the kinetic energy would be even higher.

A lot of it went into bending the columns

THAT was INSANELY surreal!!!

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

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.

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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 6/04/2026 8:51 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.04.2026 um 12:58 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 5/04/2026 6:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000003, 03.04.2026 um 18:16 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 3/04/2026 7:31 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snipped lots of wishful thinking>

what made these steel beams rust overnight?

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.

'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.

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.

Well, possibly...

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

E.g. have a look at this picture:

https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/local/news-articles/greater-new-york/1-36484-003-1000x1213.jpg

Here you can-a see a building, which wasn't hit by a plane, but is quite rusty.

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.

This means, that rust appeared almost instantly.

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

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.

Radiant heat works that way.

That was all VERY strange!

Less strange if you knew more.

My current guess:

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

The was a perfectly visible field of radiant heat.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 20:11 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

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

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

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.

And what shape was that?

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.

-aFrom where they came exactly is hard to say, because these sections >>>> were build mainly equally.-a 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dumped each floor onto the floor below

Sure, something like that...

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

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

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 60 tonns.

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?

That was a VERY unusual habit!!!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Because they went sideways before they went down.

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

https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291527_AP01091002603.jpg


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: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291530_AP01091105609.jpg

It shows rows of parking cars, with remains of the perimeter walls of
the twintowers inbetween the cars.

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:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58512318

There you can see a picture, which shows car inside the rubble of one of
the towers.

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:

https://www.bu.edu/files/2021/09/resize-3905155592_0d38904c5e_o.jpg

How did that happen?

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


TH

...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 8/04/2026 5:13 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Montag000006, 06.04.2026 um 20:11 schrieb Bill Sloman:

On 6/04/2026 9:09 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

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

<snip>

Because they went sideways before they went down.

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

https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291527_AP01091002603.jpg

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.

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.

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

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.

This is another picture with strange content: https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/291530_AP01091105609.jpg

It shows rows of parking cars, with remains of the perimeter walls of
the twintowers inbetween the cars.

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?

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

Or his page:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58512318

There you can see a picture, which shows car inside the rubble of one of
the towers.

I can't see any car.

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:

https://www.bu.edu/files/2021/09/resize-3905155592_0d38904c5e_o.jpg

How did that happen?

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

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?
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2