-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Mark Bilk's face turns crimson
Date:     Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:08:06 +1100
From:     Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Bilk now claims that the statement below was not an assertion that the wings
are at 90 degrees.

[[Also, the wings were many feet long from front to back, and  the kinetic
energy of all of that metal impinged on the mere 1/4 inch of steel.]]

Here is the slither.

[[What it says is that behind each leading edge of the moving object
(plane or hand) there is a lot of additional mass (located "front
to back" behind the leading edge) whose kinetic energy also ends up
impinging on the same target area that the leading edge hits. ]]

Hee heee ! If this was the argument, then the total kinetic energy would
punch an initial hole as the roots strike. This of course would not make a
shape exactly (or anywhere near) matching the shape and length of the wings.
As Bilk himself admits.

[[With a hand, spear, or arrow, the kinetic energy of the middle and
rearward mass is communicated
to the target via the leading edge. ]]

Does a spear or an arrow, when striking, make an impact the shape and size
of the entire length of the weapon ? No it punches a small hole.

Now, since a wing was just likened to  spear or arrow, why does it not even
remotely match the shape and size of impact hole of a spear or arrow.? Heh !
If you throw a 5 inc knife at someone and hit with the point, they'll finish
up with a a 5 inch horizontal slash ? And if you stab them with the point of
3 foot sword, then they'll finish up with a 3 ft horizontal slash ? Moving
right along...

In that first moment of impact, the leading edge somehow creates a
horizontal slash the size and shape of the non connecting mass which is
behind the leading object. Oh yeah ! If That is now Bilk's argument, he is
welcome to specify it as such.

Moving right along...

So how else might Bilk try to slither out of this, if he has the good sense
not to claim the above.

"well no... all that kinetic energy is expended punching a small hole,
matching the roots."

 So then what energy makes the next 10 ft of the wing shape ? Ah I see, the
entire mass of the remaining 60 ft of wing after having just expended all of
its kinetic energy in punching the leading edge through the object, somehow
finds a fresh source of kinetic energy and expends all of it to put behind
the new leading edge - and widen the hole. And how does the next 10 ft get
done ? Well... the remaining 50 ft of wing after expending all of its
kinetic energy for the second time, miraculously refreshes it's kinetic
energy once more, and puts  all of that behind the new leading edge to punch
the next 10 ft. And so on. When we're down to the last 10 ft of flimsy
wingtip, its somehow still refreshing its kinetic energy and putting it all
behind the leading edge.

And Bilk did say that *all* of the kinetic energy is behind the initial
strike of the root area.

[[the wings were many feet long ...the kinetic energy of all of that
metal... behind each leading edge of the moving object
(plane or hand) there is a lot of additional mass (located "front
to back" behind the leading edge) whose kinetic energy also ends up
impinging on the same target area that the leading edge hits. ]]

"On the same target area that the leading edge hits. Over and over again, it
would seem ! I wonder if Mark has ever heard of a little thing called the
law of conservation of energy ?

Out of the frying pan into the fire. After hilariously claiming that the
swept back wings strike flush , now in the act of furiously trying to
backpedal from it, Bilk is claiming that the kinetic energy of *all* of the
wing is transmitted through the leading edge. Over and over and over again.




-----Original Message-----
From: Rosalee Grable [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2006 2:07 PM
To: Gerard Holmgren
Subject: [Fwd: [mememachine] Webfairy and Holmgren Tell The Same Lie
Eighteen Times]



-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     [mememachine] Webfairy and Holmgren Tell The Same Lie
Eighteen
Times
Date:     Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:18:01 -0800
From:     Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization:     http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911
To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
political-research@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com



See comments below.

On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 03:31:00PM -0600, Webfairy wrote:
 >-------- Original Message --------
 >Subject:     Mark Bilk's red face
 >Date:     Thu, 9 Mar 2006 08:19:16 +1100
 >From:     Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 >
 >The last time, we debated this, Mark Bilk in supporting the Bush regimes
 >planes fantasy, claimed as a crucial part of his forensic evidence, that
767
 >wings are set at 90 degrees across the plane.
 >
 >Of course, they are swept back at about 30 degrees. Bilk has been in 
hiding
 >ever since this hilarious gaffe, trying to wash the red off his face. He's
 >finally ventured out again, perhaps hoping that people will have 
forgotten.
 >
 >It's still there Mark.
 >
 >90 degree angle wings ! Heee heee! Haaa haaa ! What comic book did you get
 >that out of Mark ? Perhaps it was one of those joke books which 
squirts red
 >ink on to your face when you open it.

On Jan 21 2006, I posted the last (see below) of a series of
messages debunking the 9/11 disinformation coming from Webfairy
(Rosalee Grable), Gerard Holmgren, and Nico Haupt.  They claim
that no large airplanes hit the WTC towers, that the government
faked all the videos of those hits, and that all the witnesses
to the hits were either lying or deluded.  In one of the
paragraphs of that message, as part of the explanation of how
the aircraft were able to penetrate the towers, I wrote:

] Also, the wings were many feet long from front to back, and
] the kinetic energy of all of that metal impinged on the mere
] 1/4 inch of steel.  Like a karate chop with the edge of the
] hand.  Soft flesh breaking a brick or cinder block.

Nowhere does that say that the wings of a 767 aren't swept back.
What it says is that behind each leading edge of the moving object
(plane or hand) there is a lot of additional mass (located "front
to back" behind the leading edge) whose kinetic energy also ends up
impinging on the same target area that the leading edge hits. 
This additional energy continues to add stress to the target, and
can cause it to break, when it would not have broken from the
energy of the leading edge alone.  With a hand, spear, or arrow,
the kinetic energy of the middle and rearward mass is communicated
to the target via the leading edge.  With a 767 that's largely
disintegrating as it strikes the WTC peripheral siding, girders,
spandrel plates, etc., the kinetic energy of the parts of the plane
behind each leading edge is likely communicated to the girders, etc.,
by direct contact.

I never said that all of the leading areas of the wings struck
the building at the same time.  But Webfairy and Holmgren claimed
that I had, and proceeded to post at least 18 messages to that
effect, using the following lying Subject lines:

  Mark Bilk's brain spaz
  Now that Mark Bilk's broken hand has recovered...
  Webfairy-Holmgren try to save the farking world from Armeggadon
Cheerleader
  Mark Bilk Proves No Big Plane Hit the WTC
  The Webfairy-Holmgren Common Sense Drive
  Self motorised wing tips- and another lie from Bilk
  The loony show continues
  Severley embarrassed and very angry plane huggers
  Mark Bilk's red face

In the days leading up to this, I had refuted many of Webfairy's
and Holmgren's central lies, e.g., that the image in the Naudet
video doesn't look like a plane (it looks exactly like a 767 seen
through that out-of-focus camera), and that a soft aluminum plane
can't break through steel (the planes were hard, tough aluminum
alloy, and had 100 times as much kinetic energy per pound as the
metal in a 57 mph automobile).  So they fell back on lies and
personal attacks, which were so transparently false that I ignored
them.

My original message:

] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
]     political-research@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
]     [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
] From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
] Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:40:12 -0800
] Subject: [planehuggers] Re: The Webfairy-Holmgren Cult
]
] On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 05:41:05PM -0800, Scott Loughrey wrote:
] >Mark Bilk wrote:
] >>These people (and a handful more) have thoroughly convinced
] >>one another, somewhat in the manner of a cult.  Unfortunately
] >>none of them understands image resolution, nor KE = 1/2 mv^2
] >>and conservation of momentum, which is why the planes
] >>penetrated the towers.
] >
] >I admit to being a member of the church of Holmgren-Webfairy.
] >I started out as a Moonie working airports.  However,
] >eventually I realized this particular cult was a better way
] >to meet chicks.
]
] Don't drink the Koolaid.
]
] >however, could someone explain how KE=1/2 mv^2 explains why
] >aluminum planes enter steel buildings with no pieces breaking
] >off?
]
] The planes were made of very strong aluminum *alloy*, not thin
] weak aluminum as in Holmgren's lies.  Buy some at a hardware
] store (cheaper and weaker than airliner alloy) and try to
] bend it.  The wings of a 757 each have two huge spars at least
] an inch thick running the length and height of the wings. 
] 767 spars must be even bigger.
]
] The exterior box columns were only 1/4 inch thick at the level
] where the planes hit.  Each pound of airplane metal travelling
] 500 mph had 100 times the kinetic energy of a pound of automoboie
] going 50 mph.  Watch one of those "Blood on the Asphalt"
] Driver Ed movies and look at the broken, twisted steel.  Then
] multiply the energy *per pound* of metal by a hundred times.
] It's more than enough to tear through the 1/4" steel.  Remember,
] the metal of the WTC towers, like that of the 767s, had to be
] built as light weight and thin as possible, to enable it to be
] kept up in the air -- not by engines, but by the layers of
] metal below it.
]
] Also, the wings were many feet long from front to back, and
] the kinetic energy of all of that metal impinged on the mere
] 1/4 inch of steel.  Like a karate chop with the edge of the
] hand.  Soft flesh breaking a brick or cinder block.
]
] Conservation of momentum kept the pieces of plane and columns
] moving inward.  This was not like the Sandia experiment in
] which a much smaller, lighter and weaker fighter plane was
] slammed into an absolutely impenetrable and immovable block
] of concrete, causing the plane fragments to bounce back.
] In the towers, the box columns gave way, and the very energetic
] plane fragments kept going.
]
] No doubt much of the planes structure disintegrated as it tore
] through the columns, but still left a plane-shaped hole.  The
] rest of it disintegrated as it hit the internal building walls
] and the tower core, so little came out the other side.
]
] Holmgren has a big webpage of bullshit about whether the planes
] did or didn't disintegrate, and how that relates to the
] plane-shaped hole.  The counter argument to it is very simple:
] a circular spread of shotgun pellets can tear a circular hole
] in something even though the pellets were *never* a single
] solid object.
]
]   Mark
]



Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/

Please let us stay on topic and be civil. 

OM
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to