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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172712

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/9/13 2:38 PM, in article
ced374f4-ab03-4187-b78c-2cb81549f4e7@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

... 
>>>>> 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...
> 
> Bilk still hasn't touched this one.

It is quite clear that even Bilk knows his story has completely fallen
apart... not that it made sense from the beginning.

* A video showing coated rebar which he magically knows is
  an explosive.
* People in the video having a special security clearance
  from... ???... has he ever said? But you the regular
  welders were angry about this but only commented on it
  in this mythical video.
* This coating being protected from sparks by heat sinks.
* That video magically disappearing.
* Magical forces to stop a pancaking building from ejecting
  debris.
* Magical forces to stop concussion forces from setting off
  explosives.
* People installing detonators without anyone seeing them or
  being caught on any video.
* Magical forces preventing the fires from damaging the
  detonators.
* Detonations being set off to mimic pancaking which he
  claims proves there were explosives.
* Bilk's complete misunderstanding of pancaking, repeating
  his BS about it being about "compressed air"

And my favorite:

* Bilk's complete inability to show where the UMP idea is
  anything other than as probable as his claims or more.

On and on and in... Bilk's claims are utter nonsense and even he has begun
to see this, even if he will not admit it even to himself. His anger shows
it so well.

...
>>> 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.
>> 
>> According to the video, the welders of the WTC rebars had to
>> have some level of security clearance that was above whatever
>> level (if any) the welders of everything else in the WTC had
>> to have.
> 
> Sorry, not adequate.  Seek out primary sources, not terciary ones.

Tertiary ones which magically disappeared, no less.

...
>>> 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.
>> 
>> That would depend on the degree to which the primary explosive
>> was exposed to, or on the other hand insulated from, the fire.
> 
> Except that you forgot the part about shock.  Throw a chunk of C4 into
> a fire and it will merely burn - - not explode.

Another of his magical unnamed forces.

>> Since the detonators were installed a few weeks before 9-11,
>> the perpetrators would have known there would be a fire, and
>> designed the detonators with the appropriate protection from it.
> 
> And just how much thermal protection is required to prevent an
> immediate cook-off when it is hot enough to have liquid aluminum
> present (1220+F)?
> 
> And good luck for your battery/capacitor/radio to hold up too ...
> especially its antenna.  That's one of the bigger flaws with the
> premise that there were any controlled detonations an hour after the
> fires started.

The UMP make more sense!

>>> 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.
> 
> Oh, and Bilk dodges this one again.

Exactly. Just like his focus on the compressed air. He is in way, way over
his head.

...
>>> All of the welders on site were required to have the Port Authority
>>> "clearance".
>> 
>> The rebar welders were required to have _more_ clearance.
> 
> Merely claimed, not substantiated.

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

He does what he whines about others doing.

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> If they were told that the rebar coating was simply to prevent
>> corrosion, they would not have thought it worthy to complain
>> about to newspapers.
> 
> Wrong angle.  The angle would have been jobs that they should have had
> a right to, but were being denied.

Also: Bilk says they were offended enough to complain on the magically
disappearing video but *nowhere* else... not in any paper or interview
before or after 9-11. I mean, really, all these offended welders - not one
of them said, after 9-11, "Hey, that explains why we were denied that job!".

Not one.

Bilk, do you see now why the UMP story make more sense? It does!

...
>>>> 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?
>> 
>> Eyeballing it from Chandler's video.
> 
> So this is **your** personal assessment, and done purely by
> "eyeball".  Utterly inadequate and utterly unprofessional from any
> Engineering/Scientist perspective.

Ah, so now Bilk has named the force that prevented the pancaking from
ejecting the debris... it was the "eyeballing" force. But, apparently,
"eyeballing" forces can be defeated by explosives (just not tons upon tons
of falling debris).

Bilk, do you see now why the UMP story make more sense? It does!

>>  And he notes that no "piledriver" of an upper section of the tower can be
>> seen hammering the remaining structure to destroy it.
> 
> I saw exactly that, before the top of the structure was obscured by
> smoke, in the videos.

And the smoke got into the "eyeballing" force. Makes sense! :)

...
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> I said before that the detonators were planted only a few weeks
>> before 9-11, not when the towers were built.
> 
> That was a change in the story, after this flaw was pointed out.

His story keeps changing... he is making things up as he goes.

>>> 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).
>> 
>> The antenna could have been exposed,  but the electronics protected.
> 
> It would have melted - - but before doing so, thermal conduction up
> the antenna lead would have trashed the "protected" electronics.

Maybe "eyeballing" forces also protect antennas? Or perhaps Bilk will invent
a new force.

>> Or the whole thing protected behind a non-conductive insulator
>> that would have let radio waves through.
> 
> Which isn't concrete.  So what was this material, and how many literal
> TONS of it were found in the debris?

The UMP carried it all off!
 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> The detonators were installed only a few weeks before 9-11.
> 
> And protected from thermal & shock ... how?

Another unexplained and unnamed and unnatural force.

Bilk needs a lot of these to explain his ideas... and he keeps inventing
more to try to deal with his cognitive dissonance.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> Bullshit.  It's simply how they did it because they wanted it
>> to work.  IOW, engineering.
> 
> If you've ever engineered anything half as complex as this would have
> been, you would know that the odds of it working even once (let alone
> twice) are half of zilch.  An aircraft crash is the epitomy of a
> chaotic system, where there's simply too many variables to have
> successfully been able to have controlled to the level of precision
> that would have had been required.  Mix in hundreds of human-dependent
> activities and the odds against success get another six or seven zeros
> stacked against them.
> 
> Translating:  SIMPLE works.  Complex does not.  Gravity + Fire =
> weakened structures = SIMPLE.

Love Bilk's explaination: why did it work, "because they wanted it to work".
Yes, that is really the best he can come up with.

>>>>>> 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).
>> 
>> I have the evidence of 30,000+ posts over multiple years from
>> some of the psychopaths, with very little motivation other than
>> getting paid.
> 
> Your assumption is that their only possible motivation is a cash
> payment [from MS].  Reexamine your assumptions again for validity.

His assumptions are based on *nothing* but his insane notions.
 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> But because of compartmentalization of knowledge, the chance
>> of a leak doing significant harm decreases drastically.
> 
> That only applies to a leak of the whole.   You have no breadcrumbs
> anywhere.

Well, he does... just those breadcrumbs magically disappear. And change as
he remembers them. Coatings on rebar were shown... but he *knows* it was
explosive. Huh?

What utter nonsense.

>> And PR companies are used to having good security to hide
>> their evil deeds, such as astroturfing.
> 
> Which might be proof that there's dishonest people in the world - -
> but there's no link here to any of your allegations.

Some people are tall... thus I must be 6 foot 10. Wow, Bilk "logic" is
amazingly powerful!

Hey, there are unknowns in the world. The Underground Marshmallow People are
unknown... thus this proves they exist!

We can do this all day long!

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Huntzinger is resorting to total bullshit at this point.
> 
> I'm simply revealing how utterly flawed your logic is.

One cannot reveal what is already so clear... :)

>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> But a biased person will point out possible flaws in a very
>> selective way to "prove" what he is biased toward.
> 
> Perhaps...but then the burden of proof would be on you to prove that
> there's a systematic bias - and what the source of that bias is.

But Bilk has made up this story... so it must be true.

Yes, that is what his "logic" is.

>>> 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.
>> 
>> I haven't made 30,000+ posts.
> 
> That still isn't proof of your allegations.

Right. I mean if he makes more posts does that disprove his claims? What is
he even talking about here?

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> I described the nature of psychopaths, and of the situation
>> in COLA.  The psychopaths are clearly organized, and they
>> would not have been doing so much work on behalf of Microsoft
>> if they weren't being paid to do it.  My opinion doesn't
>> come into it.
> 
> Your assumption is that their only possible motivation is a cash
> payment [from MS].  Reexamine.

He did not examine in the first place... he simply made up absurd stories.



-- 
Proof Brad cc Wiggins is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>

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