XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 20/02/2026 3:03 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/19/2026 03:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons').
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such
>>>>>> beams
>>>>>> in existence was not that far away:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brookhaven National Lab.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had
>>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL
>>>>>> was located.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting better all the time !
>>>>>
>>>>> So actually those criminals at BNL
>>>>> (you know, scientists, what do you expect)
>>>>> destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
>>>>> (just after the planes hit)
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep it up !
>>>>>
>>>> Well, that was just an IDEA!
>>>>
>>>> The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
>>>> site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
>>>>
>>>> Only problem with this theory:
>>>>
>>>> BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
>>>> the Hamptons.
>>>>
>>>> Could have been a little too far away for muons.
>>>
>>> Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there.
>>> They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
>>
>> They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an
>> electron beam. You must be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have a
>> life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
>> light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than a
>> electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed.
>> If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
>> let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
>> earth's surface.
>>
>> The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
>>
>>> The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they
>>> have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
>>
>> They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
>>
>
> The Batavia/Baikal neutrinophone communicated directly through the
> Earth with neutrinos, in about zero time.
But we were talking about muons, not neutrinos.
> Muons are sort of like Cerenkov radiation or Brehmsstrahlung/braking
> radiation.
They elementary particles, not photons - Cerenkov and
Brehmsstrahlung/braking radiation is photons - quanta of electromagentic
radiation.
"Sort of like" isn't all that informative.
> So, one could convert "muons" to "neutrinos" and back.
"Muon decay always produces an electron (or positron) and two types of
neutrinos".
If you had the two different types of neutrino and the electron and
could contrive that all three collided you could - in theory - reverse
the decay and end up with a muon. With only one neutrino, you couldn't.
The usual source of muons is cosmic ray protons hitting atoms in the
upper atmosphere. It produces energetic - 6 GeV muons - which lose
energy on the way down ground level where the average energy is down to
about 4 GeV.
If you want make some, a laser-driven electron accelerator can offer a
compact and tolerably high intensity source, if not one that would let
you fake 9/11.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
