Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172664

Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/9/13 9:56 AM, in article
e6472e86-acad-4a9c-a9b4-d55de3fa0a47@l5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 12:16 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>  The video showed rebars arriving at the
>> WTC construction site already coated with a very flammable
>> material...
> 
> Rebar has been coated with an epoxy for a couple of decades now.  The
> epoxy is to isolate the iron from the concrete and reduce corrosion
> and oxidation.  The formation of iron oxide ("rust") causes th
> material to dimensionally increase in size, which can put concrete
> into a tension failure.  To see contemporary examples of this, check
> out your local older bridges and look for where concrete has incurreed
> a spalling failure, exposing rebar.
> 
> Because the epoxy can be burned off with a torch, there's retouch
> spray available:
> 
> http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/Epoxy-Coating-protects-rebar-from-rust-and
> -corrosion-30742
> 
> 
>> ... I said the video showed the rebars,
>> not the explosives, being welded.
> 
> It is curious as to how one was able to discern - - on a video - -
> that the rebar was coated with an 'explosive', as opposed to a coating
> that has been a standard industry practice.

I had those exact thoughts. My bullet point in reference to this claim of
his:

* Bilk claims that there was a video showing rebar coated with something
  which is assumed to be explosives (but Bilk does not say how anyone
  knows this). The only "evidence" he offers is the welders had to have
  some sort of special security clearance - but how would even this be
  seen on a video? He never explains that either. Anyway, the video was
  held for 21 years, then shown on a government owned TV network only to
  magically disappear from *all* stations and he says secret government
  agents visited all libraries and remove them from there while,
  coincidently, not a single known person happened to record the show on
  their VCR. [1] [2] [6]

Bilk has now given enough detail where he makes it clear that this magically
disappearing video merely showed coated rebar... which does not in any way
imply it was an explosive material! He also never explains how you can tell
from a video of people welding what level of security clearance they have or
who authorized anything.

He will have to make up those details later. And I am sure he will... though
as he does so he will almost surely contradict himself. So fun to watch!

>>> * Bilk claims other were saying it was compressed air that
>>> ejected tons of steel from the Twin Towers, a completely
>>> bogus story Bilk fabricated. At first he denied he even made
>>> this claim until I showed him the many posts where he did -
>>> and quoted his own words back to him.
>> 
>> I said that in the pancake theory, the force from the air
>> compressed between the floors was not enough to account
>> for the massive girders being blown sideways at 70mph.
>> "-hh" (Hugh Huntzinger) for example, had posted in the 911
>> thread about a military compressed-air gun that shoots slugs
>> many times faster than rifle bullets.
> 
> Only as a response to disprove Bilk's claim that compressed air is
> never possible of launching masses at even 70mph (~100fps).

And Bilk is directly lying here. The comments about compressed air I am
talking about (and give the message ID to) are about this quote:

<http://bit.ly/Z70nWB>
    -----
    ... all that air along with the concrete and other debris pulverized
    by the force of the collapse was ejected with enormous energy.
    -----

Bilk had this direct response:

b2e65490-015f-469b-b872-2dbde837d565@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
    -----
    Compressed air can't shoot clouds of girders sideways.
    ------

And in the same conversation, with *me*, not you, and about his claims
there, he made the same claims over and over:

4e3bf76f-1961-47c9-9e6d-22135667cb07@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
    -----
    It could not have been compressed air because the girders weighed
    many tons and air could not possibly have applied the requisite
    force, especially without being enclosed in a gun barrel.
    -----
    
8cd48407-4288-4f28-8394-81a8ff3c3d83@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
    -----
    Determine the total force, averaged over the one second or so that
    it is applied, of the compressed air upon the tail end of the
    girder.  Divide that by the mass of the girder to get the average
    acceleration.  Multiply that by the time duration of the force to
    obtain the increase in speed.  If the resulting speed is anything
    like 70 miles per hour, then you're right.  Otherwise you're wrong.
    -----
    
67ce8cf4-58e1-47c2-bcad-1dca81e15aca@r13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
    -----
    No, the pressure of the air times the cross-sectional areas of the
    girders does not give enough force to accelerate them to 70 mph.
    -----
    
b3d5b78c-4b57-43b4-87ee-ecd1c851f7dc@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
    -----
    1. The force from the compressed air was far too small
    -----

Bilk is trying to recon history. He had no idea what was being discussed.

>> I noted that this wouldn't exert nearly enough force on the girders without
>> a gun barrel to keep the air from dissipating.  I also mentioned that F=ma is
>> quantitative, so to get much acceleration of tons of mass, you need an
>> enormous force, much more than the compressed air would exert.
> 
> Personally, I've not read this so-called "Pancake Theory" from whoever, but
> regardless, I wouldn't have bothered to try to attribute any horizontal motion
> of steel beams from the structure due to "escaping air", because to do so
> would be to utterly ignore much larger forces and mechanisms that were quite
> obviously present. Specifically, all that it takes to transform a gravity
> vector to be in some other dimension is a lever and a fulcrum.

Right: the forces of solid material of the collapsing floors (the pancaking)
would be many, many times more than the compressed air!

>> Chandler noted that the wave of explosions traveled down the
>> towers at the same speed as the falling debris nearby.  This
>> was because the explosives were detonated at that speed.  It
>> has nothing to do with gravity.  The detonators could have
>> been fired faster or slower than the speed of a free-falling
>> object.  Presumably they were fired at the same speed to make
>> the collapse appear to be due to "pancaking".
> 
> And of course, the questions of just how this highly robust control
> system was able to be in place, even after all of the pre-collapse
> damage, go utterly unaswered.

Not to mention how Bilk just made it clear the "explosives" were set off to
make it look just like pancaking... so the video that showed the
"explosives" can be explained just as well by the pancaking! If his made up
story was that the explosives were set off in a way contrary to what one
would expect from pancaking he would not have just refuted his own claims!

>> Taken together, this is good evidence that Microsoft pays
>> the psychopaths that infest COLA.
> 
> Amazing how this too has been supposedly been going on for decades,
> without even a single photocopy of a contract, agreement ... or better
> yet, a payment check.  Another amazingly convenient example of where
> hundreds (if not more) people have been able to maintain perfect
> security for decades, despite trash-pickers, identity theft, etc.
> 
> Even as a professed cynic, I'm not buying it.
> 
> -hh


-- 
Personally, [Stallman's] "weirdness" does not bother me (as long as I
don't have to be near him) but his extremist positions do bother me.
-- Lusotec

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 09:16 -0700
  Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 09:56 -0700
    Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 11:19 -0700
      Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 15:46 -0400
        Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 12:58 -0700
          Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:12 -0400
          Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:42 -0700
          Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 18:29 -0400
            Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:31 -0700
        Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:40 -0700
      Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 13:08 -0700
        Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:31 -0700
        Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 14:07 -0700
          Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 14:35 -0700
          Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2013-04-09 14:38 -0700
            Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:43 -0700
            I will no longer respond to -hh Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 15:11 -0700
              Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-10 00:14 +0200
              Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 15:16 -0700
                Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-09 15:26 -0700
                Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:10 -0700
                Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:41 -0700
              Re: I will no longer respond to -hh flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 20:22 -0400
                Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:25 -0700
                I will pay to join a SAG Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 08:39 -0700
                Re: I will no longer respond to -hh Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 18:57 -0700
            Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 16:28 -0700
      Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:38 -0700
    Re: Complete Refutation of Snit Michael Glasser's List Of Lies About Me Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:18 -0700
  Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:01 -0400
    Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-09 20:25 +0200
      Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-09 15:47 -0400
      Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-09 16:09 -0400
        Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-09 22:22 +0200
          Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-09 16:46 -0400
            Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-10 09:29 +0100
              Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-10 10:41 -0400
        Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-10 07:05 -0500
          Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-10 17:06 +0000
    Re: Complete Idiocy and nonsense from Mark S. Bilk Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:49 -0700
  Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-09 13:02 -0700
    Re: Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 13:08 -0700
      Re: Bilk spews more nonsense and shows he is a hypocrite. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 14:18 -0700

csiph-web