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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172667

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/9/13 1:08 PM, in article
aed6e28b-9aa3-4043-9ccc-f66501031eea@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 9:56 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@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...
>> 
>> I doubt that welders with security clearances are brought in
>> to weld rebars coated with epoxy, but they were when the WTC
>> towers' rebars were welded.
> 
> There's "security clearances" and then there's "Security Clearances".
> 
> The Port Authority Commission of NY/NJ has had their own security
> requirements for decades, which is essentially an employee
> qualification requirement.  For example, here's a 2012 job
> announcement for the requirements to get a job working on the Freedom
> Tower:
> 
> http://www.miscojobs.com/employers/resumes/L_2/C_5/rsm_102384.htm
> 
> Please note that these are *not* Federal level (eg, DoD) Security
> Clearances, but local ones:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Worker_Identification_Credential
> 
> http://www.secureworker.com/
> 
> What you've not demonstrated is that any of these welders had DoD-
> level Security Clearances, let alone that this was in any way
> associated or tied into the handling of energetic compositions.

He has not even shown they had *any* security clearance... though it makes
sense that they might have. Remember, his only evidence is on a video that
was held for 21 years and then shown on a government owned network (why???)
only to be removed from every one of these stations (and there are a lot)
and to have secret government operatives remove every copy from every
library while some magic made any private VCR recording of this video
disappear.

Bilk's claims are completely insane.

>>  There are degrees of flammability.
>> High explosive is very flammable because it contains fuel and
>> oxidizer in the same molecule.  Does epoxy have the same degree
>> of flammability?
> 
> Virtually no modern explosives will blow up if you were to throw them
> into a fire.  Their ignition mechanism is shock - - which carries
> implications as to why the "explosives laden" buildings did not
> immediately explode when they were hit with a 757.

Excellent point! Bilk... you already described some unnamed force that
prevented the pancaking from ejecting the material (though you claimed I was
lying about this because you never named this unnamed force!)... now there
is another example of an unnamed force that prevented the explosives from
exploding from the force of the impact of the planes.

Are these two unnamed forces the same or are they different? Why don't you
actually say what these forces are (or single force is)?

Your story has many, many holes in it.

> Similarly, even if you want to claim that IHS (developed in the late
> 1970s) were used, that still doesn't neutralize the primary in the
> fuze train:  the blasting caps would have been cooking off within
> minutes of the fires having started.
> 
> Overall, if you were more familiar with the relevant technologies, you
> would have been able to have asked the right questions, not the one
> that you did.

His fictions would perhaps work in a James Bond or similar action flick
where logic flies out the window... but as a real story... not at all.

>>>> ... 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.
>> 
>> Because welders with security clearances were brought in to
>> weld the WTC rebars.
> 
> All of the welders on site were required to have the Port Authority
> "clearance".
> 
>>  The regular welders and their boss were
>> very annoyed at this, so its unlikely that this was standard
>> practice.
> 
> And this was never ever ever reported in the New York Times to be
> cited today?  Or the Post?  Or Daily News?  Or Newsday?  How amazingly
> convenient that thousands upon thousands of union workers were able to
> be silenced across multiple independent venues.  Golly, it is quite
> amazing that every single one of the eight million residents of New
> York just all coincidentally happens to be so extremely shy and
> introverted...what are the odds?

They were silenced by the same government agency that took all the videos
from all libraries in the world. :)

>>> Only as a response to disprove Bilk's claim that compressed
>>> air is never possible of launching masses at even 70mph
>>> (~100fps).
>> 
>> I'm sure I never made such a claim.  I never had a Daisy
>> Air Rifle, but I wanted one.
>> 
>>>>  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,
>> 
>> It's the U.S. government's standard lie about what caused the
>> Twin Towers to collapse.
> 
> Did you spent 29 cents to squash that banana yet?
> Apparently not.

LOL!

As far as Bilk's claim about the "government lie", let us quote his own
words back to him:

    -----
    Three times repetition of bald assertion, with no proof.
    -----

Except he has made these claims *far* more than three times... but with no
proof.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> However, such a large fraction of the towers' structural parts
>> were shot outward so forcefully that the fulcrum scenario
>> could not be responsible.
> 
> What percentage was it?  And determined by who?

By his own invisible experts who sit on his shoulders and whisper secrets to
him.

Mind you: that is just a guess. But I bet he cannot name anyone else.

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Those questions were not asked.
> 
> I asked them iof you previously; the record is in the archives.
> 
> 
>>  The detonators were small,
>> and could be radio-controlled, each with its own unique code,
>> and battery powered.
> 
> Batteries which lasted for ... how many decades?   Oh right: that was
> also pointed out previously.

Batteries from the 1960s were used! I missed that bit of nonsense from him!

> In any case, if a device was sufficiently exposed to receive radio
> signals (or be recently emplaced), the primary explosive in the fuze
> train would have cooked off within minutes of being exposed to the
> fire - - do keep in mind that this fire was hot enough to melt
> aluminum (1221 F).

And we have *another* unnamed force that prevented the heat from doing this.

Or is it the same unnamed forces he makes up, above? Oh so many questions!

>>  So unless they were directly damaged,
>> they would function just fine. They also could have built-in
>> high-accuracy electronic timers instead of radio receivers.
> 
> Both of the WTC's completed constructed by 1971 ... and solid state
> quartz clocks (for a "high accuracy electronic timer") didn't become
> available until the 1980s, so you're only off by a bit more than a
> decade.
> 
> In any case, this is yet another "could have", which puts your
> speculation into the same unproven bin as Snit's Marshmellow People.
> Sure, it is arguably slightly more plausible, but it still does not
> constitute objective proof.

Slightly more plausible. Maybe.

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Very few of those "hundreds" of janitors, trash-pickers, and
>> identity thieves would know the significance of any papers
>> that they found, or would care enough to expose the scheme
>> if they did.
> 
> Doesn't matter:  it still only takes one (which you don't have).

Nor will he *ever*.

But we know why: the UMP collected all the materials!

Snicker.

>>  And of course the money would go through a
>> third party like a PR company, which would eliminate any
>> chance of discovery and exposure.
> 
> Except that stastically, the more steps in the process, the likelihood
> of a failure (information leak) to occur increases, not decreases.

Bilk is adding fiction upon fiction as his story crumbles. Or, really,
crumbles more.

>> California Superior Court judges have been getting bribed
>> for years by lawyers and others in a conservatorship racket,
>> in which the conservators sometimes even murdered the
>> conservatees by withholding medical care, and/or giving them
>> fatal infections, in order to get their money.  It was only
>> recently that an investigative journalist discovered...
> 
> Which is proof that there's dishonest people in the world - - but
> there's no link here to any of your allegations.  By the same logic
> that you're trying to use, because Oliver North lied to Congress,
> you're a liar.

Well, that is true. :)

>>> Even as a professed cynic, I'm not buying it.
>> 
>> Whenever I've seen Huntzinger take sides in the MS-vs-Linux
>> conflict, he's always pro-MS.
> 
> Your sampling is vastly incomplete.  Plus it is flawed, because asking
> for proof and pointing out logical fallacies is truth-seeking,
> regardless of who might be the benefactor.
> 
> For example, your claim was made here that MS is bribing a whole bunch
> of people - - but no evidence was provided.   Using your own logical
> fallacies applied to yourself, your actions are "PROOF" that you're a
> paid shill of Samsung and Google... oh, and North Korea too.

As true as Bilk's claims. And the claims of the UMP.

No doubt.

>>  So I don't think his unsupported
>> opinion in this matter should be given much weight.
> 
> Merely your unsupported opinion, which as usual, is utterly
> lacking.
> 
> 
> -hh



-- 
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

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