-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Repeating kinetic energy Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:26:31 +1100 From: Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This new science from Mark Bilk is truly fascinating. Mark, since the kinetic energy of *all* of the metal would be expended in the initial strike as claimed in your previous mail, can you tell us how it refreshes that kinetic energy periodically in order to keep on slicing away for another 70 ft of wing length ? Or are you claiming that it would only expend its kinetic energy once – in accordance with the law of conservation of energy -and the leading edge impact would somehow create a hole the size and shape of the wing which is currently pointing back away from the building at about 30 degrees, leaving a clear space for the wing to then glide through without resistance ? Sailing through the pre prepared hole even though it has already expended *all* of its kinetic energy ? Mark S Bilk wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > 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/
