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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172376

Re: Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims!

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/7/13 2:48 PM, in article kjspe3$i10$1@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
<zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote:

> "Mark S Bilk" <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote in message
> news:0d54ce56-5284-4c78-acb1-1605b518104f@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>> 
>>>> Snit is lying, as he does constantly.
>>> 
> 
> That's rich coming from Mark S. Bilk the proven liar who constantly claims
> that people are being "paid by Microsoft" to post here.
> 
> 
> 
>> You fabricate the most absurd garbage, and then say
> 
> LOL - when it comes to fabricating "absurd garbage" I suggest you take a
> good long look in the mirror at the laughable absurd garbage that you post
> here regarding 9-11 and the trash that you call "evidence."
> 
> You can begin with your retarded theory that explosives were built into the
> building in 1969 some 30+ years before the collapse. But nobody would
> possible rent such a building filled with explosives and the owners would be
> sued into the stone-age if anyone ever got hurt in a fire, etc because of
> the hidden explosives.
> 
> Needless to say - there's  *NEVER*  been another building built either
> before or after the WTC towers with hidden explosives in the concrete. But
> in the WTC it was a big secret so as to not scare people. Except that PBS
> broadcast a video that described the secret explosives that nobody knew
> about. But then later every single copy of this video vanished when
> "government agents" stole them to hide the secret explosives from everyone
> after PBS already broadcast the video that doesn't exist.
> 
> Oh yeah... good thing that /you/ don't fabricate the most absurd garbage. In
> fact - if you would start fabricating absurd garbage it would actually be a
> tremendous improvement over the idiotic nonsense that you currently post.

Bilk is mad at me because I quoted him attributing the forces from inside
the building to "compressed air". He claimed it was a lie to say he ever did
so. In minutes of searching I found these examples:

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

When faced with this he said "someone" else brought up the idea of
compressed air. Well, someone else did, here - from Popular Mechanics (which
was quoted to Bilk):

<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.
    -----

There was a lot of air that was compressed in the buildings, but that is not
what ejected most of the debris, certainly not the massive steel girders
being discussed.

So Bilk is left with a few options:

1) Acknowledge he cannot understand the facts he has been shown about
   the collapse of the towers.
2) Change his story to drop his claims about compressed air as the
   primary force that was ejecting materials.
3) Go on the attack and accuse me of all sorts of things with the
   goal to obfuscate his own ignorance and absurd claims.

Bilk went with #3.


-- 

"Snit's so f*cking stupid he thinks the sigma lines are drawn based on
distance from the mean, not area under the curve." - Brad cc Wiggins

Fact: the first sigma is defined by the distance from the mean to the
inflection points.

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

Thread

Re: The Truth About 9/11 Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-04-07 13:54 -0500
  Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 12:09 -0700
    Re: The Truth About 9/11 Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-07 12:26 -0700
      Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 12:53 -0700
      Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 13:03 -0700
        Re: Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims! Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-07 14:26 -0700
          Re: Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-07 17:48 -0400
            Re: Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 14:56 -0700
              Re: Bilk accuses Snit of lying because Snit references Bilk's own claims! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 15:02 -0700
          Bilk makes it clear not even he believes his claims! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 14:50 -0700
      Re: The Truth About 9/11 Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-04-07 17:33 -0500
        Re: The Truth About 9/11 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-08 00:48 +0200
          Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 18:25 -0700
            Re: The Truth About 9/11 Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-07 19:13 -0700
              Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 19:38 -0700
          Re: The Truth About 9/11 flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-07 22:34 -0400
            Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 19:47 -0700
        Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 18:24 -0700
        Re: The Truth About 9/11 "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-04-08 13:08 -0400
          Re: The Truth About 9/11 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 13:37 -0700
            Re: The Truth About 9/11 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:28 -0700

csiph-web