Maybe Holmgren and Webfairy are friends of Noam Chomsky. He
denies physics too with regard to the Kennedy assassination. Who knows
may they have offices just down the hall at M.I.T. from Noam and John
Deutch, former CIA director and member of the Trilateral Commission
and likely member of the CFR.
I had published three editions of top secret history BEFORE 9/11 occurred,
so even though I don't understand physics completely, I DO understand
the government.
If you want to read quality history instead of baloney, read my work. In
the edition immediately after 9/11 occurred, I published 31 articles about
9/11, but I am still publishing about 9/11 and have in every edition since
it happened.
Armeggedan will happen, however, because too few listen to me. A man
named Tom Mooney, who used to post articles on this listserv, listened to me,
but he can't read my work any longer because he went blind from macular
degeneration. He had subscribed for three years because he valued me so much.
And, no, he didn't get macular degeneration from reading my work because
reading doesn't cause that disease.
Peace,
Arlene Johnson
Publisher/Author
Click on Magazine.
Password for 2006: message
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 9, 2006 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], political-research@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: [planehuggers] More Intentional Misinterpretations From Webfairy/Holmgren
Holmgren and Webfairy can go on forever purposely misinterpreting
what I wrote and thus trying to get me to waste my time. They
just make stuff up, and then say that that's what I meant. Each
time I show that I didn't say that, e.g., that nowhere in what I
wrote iniitially did I say that a 767's wings aren't swept back,
they just ignore it and post a new misinterpretation.
If anyone else on these lists, not a member of the Webfairy/Holmgren
disinformation group, doesn't understand what I wrote, please say
so, and I'll try to explain it more clearly.
I recommend that people learn something about elementary physics --
energy, work, force, momentum, etc. Once you understand these
phenomena and see them in the world around you, you'll be better
able to visualize what happens when a 570 mile/hour swept-wing
aluminum-alloy airplane hits an array of 1/4 inch thick steel box
girders.
But Webfairy and Holmgren will never be able to understand this
stuff, because they don't want to learn any physics. Here's what
Webfairy believes to be wisdom -- a string of five text characters
that she thinks looks like a human face. It's an infantile mode
of thinking:
http://thewebfairy.com/fnord/index.htm
I'm not going to respond to any more bullshit from those two on
this subject. They can post as many smear messages as they want,
and I'll save them and maybe put them on a website at some point,
to show everyone what assholes they are.
Note that I posted concise refutations of seven of the major
Webfairy/Holmgren lies earlier today and they ignored all of them,
and instead started in again on this crap claiming that I said the
wings of a 767 aren't swept back. Judge for yourself whether I
said that by my original post, way below.
They're just trying to distract you all from the fact that their
lies have been exposed. They did exactly the same thing around
January 22 when I refuted their lies in greater detail. At that
time also they ignored the refutations and resorted to various
smears -- 18 times under various titles.
Mark
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:14:42PM -0600, Webfairy wrote:
>
>-------- 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
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 9, 2006 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], political-research@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: [planehuggers] More Intentional Misinterpretations From Webfairy/Holmgren
what I wrote and thus trying to get me to waste my time. They
just make stuff up, and then say that that's what I meant. Each
time I show that I didn't say that, e.g., that nowhere in what I
wrote iniitially did I say that a 767's wings aren't swept back,
they just ignore it and post a new misinterpretation.
If anyone else on these lists, not a member of the Webfairy/Holmgren
disinformation group, doesn't understand what I wrote, please say
so, and I'll try to explain it more clearly.
I recommend that people learn something about elementary physics --
energy, work, force, momentum, etc. Once you understand these
phenomena and see them in the world around you, you'll be better
able to visualize what happens when a 570 mile/hour swept-wing
aluminum-alloy airplane hits an array of 1/4 inch thick steel box
girders.
But Webfairy and Holmgren will never be able to understand this
stuff, because they don't want to learn any physics. Here's what
Webfairy believes to be wisdom -- a string of five text characters
that she thinks looks like a human face. It's an infantile mode
of thinking:
http://thewebfairy.com/fnord/index.htm
I'm not going to respond to any more bullshit from those two on
this subject. They can post as many smear messages as they want,
and I'll save them and maybe put them on a website at some point,
to show everyone what assholes they are.
Note that I posted concise refutations of seven of the major
Webfairy/Holmgren lies earlier today and they ignored all of them,
and instead started in again on this crap claiming that I said the
wings of a 767 aren't swept back. Judge for yourself whether I
said that by my original post, way below.
They're just trying to distract you all from the fact that their
lies have been exposed. They did exactly the same thing around
January 22 when I refuted their lies in greater detail. At that
time also they ignored the refutations and resorted to various
smears -- 18 times under various titles.
Mark
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:14:42PM -0600, Webfairy wrote:
>
>-------- 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
SPONSORED LINKS
| United state bankruptcy court western district of texas | United state life insurance | United state patent |
| United state patent search | United states patent office | United state flag |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
OM
SPONSORED LINKS
| United state bankruptcy court western district of texas | United state life insurance | United state patent |
| United state patent search | United states patent office | United state flag |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
