Update on the PBS WTC Construction Video

[Mark S Bilk]

From a conversation with Chris Brown, 4/25/2013. See:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

Title: "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers"
Produced in 1987, broadcast in 1990.

Google the title to find discussions about it.

It was two one-hour segments, mostly about WTC1 and a little
about WTC2 at the end of the second segment.

Chris made inquiries in Web forums and got responses from about
6 people who saw it.

It was not part of a larger series, but excerpts may have been
shown later, and that version may have been part of a series.

Here's a one-hour web radio program in which Chris and Ron Larsen
discuss the video and related topics:

http://www.mediafire.com/?syi4xmtikmm

For more links into Chris's website, see:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/#CORES

[flatfish+++]

*Cuckoo Cuckoo!*

--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Snit]

On 4/25/13 10:50 PM, in article
81c9ea7f-4dc4-43c6...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Produced in 1987 and it had videos of what happened in 1969... LOL!

As noted, your story keeps changing. How did this video produced in 1987
show the workers welding the rebar? And the complaints? They complained in
1987 but no time before or after... even after 9-11.

Your story keeps changing. You have been making things up.


--
Proof Mark Bilk's http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/ is nothing but silly
fiction: <http://bit.ly/12GULa6>
Using Bilk's own "logic" he posts his lies because the Underground
Marshmallow People pay him to.

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 26, 8:12 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/13 10:50 PM, in article

> 81c9ea7f-4dc4-43c6-be92-47cc3276e...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com, "Mark S Bilk" <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > From a conversation with Chris Brown, 4/25/2013.  See:
> >http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
>
> > Title: "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers"
> > Produced in 1987, broadcast in 1990.
>
> > Google the title to find discussions about it.
>
> > It was two one-hour segments, mostly about WTC1 and a little
> > about WTC2 at the end of the second segment.
>
> > Chris made inquiries in Web forums and got responses from about
> > 6 people who saw it.
>
> > It was not part of a larger series, but excerpts may have been
> > shown later, and that version may have been part of a series.
>
> > Here's a one-hour web radio program in which Chris and Ron Larsen
> > discuss the video and related topics:
>
> >http://www.mediafire.com/?syi4xmtikmm
>
> > For more links into Chris's website, see:
>
> >http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/#CORES
>
> Produced in 1987 and it had videos of what happened in 1969... LOL!
>
> As noted, your story keeps changing. How did this video produced in 1987
> show the workers welding the rebar? And the complaints? They complained in
> 1987 but no time before or after... even after 9-11.
>
> Your story keeps changing. You have been making things up.
>

> Proof Mark Bilk'shttp://cosmicpenguin.com/911/is nothing but silly

> fiction: <http://bit.ly/12GULa6>
> Using Bilk's own "logic" he posts his lies because the Underground
> Marshmallow People pay him to.

There are two things that Snit Michael Glasser should do
in response to this information. The first is to fuck off.
I don't remember the second, but I'm sure it will come to me.

[Steve Carroll]

On Apr 26, 9:12 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/13 10:50 PM, in article

> 81c9ea7f-4dc4-43c6-be92-47cc3276e...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bilk" <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> > From a conversation with Chris Brown, 4/25/2013.  See:
> >http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
>
> > Title: "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers"
> > Produced in 1987, broadcast in 1990.
>
> > Google the title to find discussions about it.
>
> > It was two one-hour segments, mostly about WTC1 and a little
> > about WTC2 at the end of the second segment.
>
> > Chris made inquiries in Web forums and got responses from about
> > 6 people who saw it.
>
> > It was not part of a larger series, but excerpts may have been
> > shown later, and that version may have been part of a series.
>
> > Here's a one-hour web radio program in which Chris and Ron Larsen
> > discuss the video and related topics:
>
> >http://www.mediafire.com/?syi4xmtikmm
>
> > For more links into Chris's website, see:
>
> >http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/#CORES
>
> Produced in 1987 and it had videos of what happened in 1969... LOL!

The conspiracy crap aside... you're now suggeting that it's not
possible to produce a video that contains footage that was shot prior
to the production of the video? I know you take a LOT of drugs but
c'mon, Snit... this is wacky, even for you ;)

[Ezekiel]

"Mark S Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote in message
news:81c9ea7f-4dc4-43c6...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

> From a conversation with Chris Brown, 4/25/2013. See:
> http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
>
> Title: "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers"
> Produced in 1987, broadcast in 1990.
>
> Google the title to find discussions about it.
>
> It was two one-hour segments, mostly about WTC1 and a little
> about WTC2 at the end of the second segment.
>

Produced in 1987 - broadcast in 1990. If this had been broadcast in the
1960's when the towers were built then maybe, just maybe there was an
outside chance that these videos somehow all vanished.

But 1990 was essentially the *peak* of the VHS/VCR industry. More than 1/2
the homes in America had a VHS recorder in 1990 and yet by some miracle not
a single one of the 100's of millions of people with a VCR recorded this
program.

<quote>
In 1975 the birth of VCR mass market success boomed. The industry boomed in
the 1980s as more and more customers bought VCR's. By 1982, 10% of
households in the United Kingdom owned a VCR. That figure reached 30% in
1985 and by the end of the decade well over half of British homes owned a
VCR.

The videocassette recorder remained a staple in North American households
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, despite competing technologies such as
Laserdisc and Video CD. Before the advent of DVD in 1995....
</quote>
(Wikipedia)

Since your story now is that this was broadcast in 1990 then why isn't there
a single person or a single home anywhere that has a copy of this tape?
There were literally 100's of millions of VHS recorders out in the world yet
you expect people to believe that not one single person anywhere recorded
this show?

Here's a more likely scenario - this video that you keep babbling about
doesn't exist.

--
That particular video was removed from libraries by *government agents*
because it proved that explosives had been planted in the towers when they
were built.

The mentally ill "advocate" named Mark S. Bilk
Message-ID:
<4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

[flatfish+++]

They actually addressed the VCR craze on the currently running series
"The 1980's" on Nat Geo. Oddly enough, the porn industry was a major
reason why people bought VCRs. This way they didn't have to watch
that stuff in public theaters. And the reason VHS won over Beta was
because you could fit a full length movie on a single VHS tape but
not the Beta tape at the time. Beta is the better quality though.

Bilk's "proof" is laughable. He moves the goal posts all over the
place and like any good conspiracy theory nut, when one of his points
is debunked, he simply moves on to another one.

I can't believe that he doesn't see what a farce his "proof" is and
how completely and totally impossible it would have been for the
government to have pulled this off.

I don't think I have ever seen a conspiracy theory where not a single
piece of "evidence" is unable to stand on it's own accord. Bilk is
certainly a first in that regard.

Most conspiracy theories offer up some element of truth in order to
make the conspiracy seem plausible.

In Bilk's case, I don't see anything other than the fact that
governments are evil and nobody trusts them, that looks even remotely
reasonable. Yea Mark, none of us here trust the government. And most
of us realize covert operations happen all the time. Nobody is
denying that. However your Truther Movement is a real whopper of a
fairy tale.
You guys find some fringe scientist to agree with your theories and
then you quote bits and pieces of him and others and re-arrange them
forgetting the context to fit your agenda.

The film "Loose Change" does that to the max.
It's been debunked many times and by various legitimate
organizations.
So what's your answer to that?
Are all these groups who debunk your theories working in cahoots with
the US Government?

[Mark S Bilk]

Ezekiel and Flatfish are both lying propagandists that
have been attacking GNU/Linux and its creators and users
in this newsgroup for many years and many tens of
thousands of posts. They have made tens of thousands
of personal attacks, and they are doing the same in
this thread.

[Peter Köhlmann]

No matter what those cretins are doing usually, they are right about you.
You are (by far) the dumbest person I have ever encountered on usenet.

And it does not matter a tiny little bit of you are using linux or not.
You are *stupid* beyond any imagination

[flatfish+++]

Why not respond in the original thread Mark S. Bilk?
Oh, you don't want people to see how ludicrous your "evidence" is and
how you can't even answer simple questions.

So here is what I wrote.

********One post: **************

**********End One Post**********

*****Second Post********



*********Second Post********

*Cuckoo Cuckoo!*

********End Second Post*******

And I stand by my assessment of your post in that IMHO it *IS*

*Cuckoo Cuckoo!*.

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 26, 1:45 pm, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:

Now we know that Marti Van Lin is a hard-core Zionist,
which explains his characterizing 9-11 research as
"jihadism". I wonder if Peter Kohlmann is a Zionist
also. He's refused to give any reason for his absurd
and extreme personal attacks.

[flatfish+++]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark S Bilk wrote:

> On Apr 26, 1:45 pm, Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>

It doesn't matter what ideology someone follows because we can all
agree that your 9-11 "research" amounts to a pile of crap.

And once again, instead of addressing the points, you stand in a
corner and cry because people expose your fairly tale research for
what it is.

Total crap.

Again:

Why not respond in the original thread Mark S. Bilk?
Oh, you don't want people to see how ludicrous your "evidence" is and
how you can't even answer simple questions.

So here is what I wrote.

********One post: **************

**********End One Post**********

*****Second Post********



*********Second Post********

*Cuckoo Cuckoo!*

********End Second Post*******

And I stand by my assessment of your post in that IMHO it *IS*

*Cuckoo Cuckoo!*.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 9:08 AM, in article
b56c7f72-3a52-4f5e...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

According to Bilk, this video shown in 1990:
* Showed rebar coated with explosives which later could not be seen.
* Even though this rebar could not be seen, detonators were attached
to it in 2001. How could the detonators be attached to explosives
on rebar that was coated in cement and could not be seen? He never
has said!
* Was filmed in 1969 and produced in 1987 and shown once on a government
owned network of stations, only to have the same government
immediately remove it from all libraries, have it coincidentally be
removed from all affiliates, and magically disappear from all homes
* The vide showed the "regular welders and their manager" being "very
annoyed" by special welders taking their jobs, but there is no
evidence of them or their ever complaining about this before or after
the video was produced or before or after 9-11. The reality is if they
were really so annoyed some would have mentioned it elsewhere in 1969,
when the video was produced, and again after 9-11. The idea that they
would not is absurd and unexplained by Bilk.
* The video was "one of a numbered series ... but those in the series
before and after it are still there". Elsewhere he repeats this claim
and says "The other videos held no such proof, so they were not
removed" and still elsewhere "That video was one of a numbered series,
and the rest of them are still in libraries" and again elsewhere "It
was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is why it
was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never rebroadcast
like others in the series."
* After being asked many times what this "series" was, Bilk at first
attacked those who asked him and called them liars and psychopaths and
made up all sorts of insults and accusations and claimed the questions
were "stupid", only to finally completely change his story to say it
was actually produced in 1987 (not 1969 as he first suggested) and
that it was *not* a part of a series as he repeatedly had claimed it
was. When called on his changing stories, Bilk's response was those
who question his nonsense should "fuck off".

Bilk's story is full of massive holes, keeps changing, and is irrational -
but Bilk gets mad when I ask him questions about it.



--
Proof Mark Bilk's http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/ is nothing but silly

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 26, 2:14 pm, flatfish+++ <phlatph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> we can all
> agree that your 9-11 "research" amounts to a pile of crap.
> And once again, instead of addressing the points, you stand in a
> corner and cry because people expose your fairly tale research for
> what it is. Total crap.

> Oh, you don't want people to see how ludicrous your "evidence" is and

> Bilk's "proof" is laughable. He moves the goal posts all over the
> place and like any good conspiracy theory nut, when one of his points
> is debunked, he simply moves on to another one.
> I can't believe that he doesn't see what a farce his "proof" is and
> how completely and totally impossible it would have been for the

> I don't think I have ever seen a conspiracy theory where not a single
> piece of "evidence" is unable to stand on it's own accord. Bilk is
> certainly a first in that regard.

> You guys find some fringe scientist to agree with your theories and
> then you quote bits and pieces of him and others and re-arrange them
> forgetting the context to fit your agenda.

> *Cuckoo Cuckoo!*
> *Cuckoo Cuckoo!*.

> PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS

It would be a waste of time for me to respond to someone who
made those 17 personal attacks in a single post. It requires
honesty and clear, critical thinking to understand complex
matters like 9-11. Ezekiel and flatfish have been posting
tens of thousands of lying smear jobs to COLA for years.
They're used to it and it's all they can do. So they can
never understand complex aspects of reality.

[flatfish+++]

Translation:

You have no response so you run and hide.

--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 1:59 PM, in article
bd54f94b-aa2f-428a...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "Mark S
Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 1:45 pm, Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>

What about *your* absurd and extreme personal attacks?

Heck, in the recent case of my noting how you could not figure out what
"series" the video you speak of came from, even though you *repeatedly*
claimed it came from a series, you *finally* admitted I was right about you
completely making that up. In other words, I was right about - at the very
least - that part of your fiction. But instead of apologizing for your name
calling and insults and accusations you just keep spewing them.

And then is when you admit I am *at least* partially right about you flat
out making things up.

"one of a numbered series ... but those in the series before and
after it are still there".

"The other videos held no such proof, so they were not removed"

"That video was one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are
still in libraries"

"It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

You have admitted each of those claims about the video was something you
simply fabricated. Just as I said... and you attacked me for saying.

So where is your apology?

My guess: nowhere. You simply are not going to do the right thing.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 2:39 PM, in article
8a5aad70-8d72-4e3f...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

You have made all sorts of attacks against me for speaking of my view of the
Underground Marshmallow People, an idea of how the Twin Towers were brought
down that is just as reasonable as your claims. In fact, with your claims
you have now admitted that parts of your claims - parts I had noted made no
sense - were things you merely fabricated:

"one of a numbered series ... but those in the series before and
after it are still there".

"The other videos held no such proof, so they were not removed"

"That video was one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are
still in libraries"

"It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

You fabricated each of those claims. Made them up. And attacked me when I
called you on it.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 3:27 PM, in article pttpemnskyi0$.1338emq76adnx$.d...@40tude.net,

And this is after Bilk has acknowledged I (and others) were right about him
fabricating parts of his fictional accounts of 9-11:

"one of a numbered series ... but those in the series before and
after it are still there".

"The other videos held no such proof, so they were not removed"

"That video was one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are
still in libraries"

"It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

Complete fabrications on his part... even by his own admission at this
point. There was no other video in the series which is still available. Not
even Bilk makes this claim any more.

Yet he refuses to apologize for the vicious attacks against me for merely
noting how absurd his claims are... even the ones he now admits he made up.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 2:14 PM, in article 96vb2rdxsve2.y...@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>> Now we know that Marti Van Lin is a hard-core Zionist,
>> which explains his characterizing 9-11 research as
>> "jihadism". I wonder if Peter Kohlmann is a Zionist
>> also. He's refused to give any reason for his absurd
>> and extreme personal attacks.
>
> It doesn't matter what ideology someone follows because we can all
> agree that your 9-11 "research" amounts to a pile of crap.

Even Bilk admits this about some of his claims:

"one of a numbered series ... but those in the series before and
after it are still there".

"The other videos held no such proof, so they were not removed"

"That video was one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are
still in libraries"

"It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

Complete nonsense. Just as you and I said. Just as was obvious.

Just as is so much of the rest of his BS. Yet he attacks people viciously
when they point out how absurd his claims are... for example, how absurd it
is for him to insist that the massive forces of one of the Towers pancaking
would not eject materials as *is seen on a video* happening. He insists it
takes some form of explosions to get around some unknown force that holds
things in from the force of the pancaking (he has never named this force and
refuses to talk about it). He also claims that explosives were put on rebar
which was completely covered in concrete and could not be seen but years
later people were able to *secretly* install detonators on these
concrete-encrusted explosives without anyone noticing. Huh? This makes no
sense at all. And these explosives were not set off by the extreme heat and
concussion force of planes smashing into the buildings... and the detonators
were not damaged by the concussion force or heat or fires... again, makes no
sense. And, back to the video, the people complaining in the videos who
never complained before or after the video aired or even after 9-11... nor
any of their families.

Bilk just runs when these things are brought up - these things which show
the holes in his claims are *huge*. And worse than that, he has not found
*any* holes in the competing and equally likely idea that the Underground
Marshmallow People brought the buildings down.

Bilk has *no* response to any of these points - so he obfuscates by
attacking and insulting and acting like a poor little victim.

> And once again, instead of addressing the points, you stand in a
> corner and cry because people expose your fairly tale research for
> what it is.
>
> Total crap.

Absolutely correct.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 6:49 AM, in article 1d1y9rn63l1bm.1ta7s23597dxt$.d...@40tude.net,

And a complete admission his past claims were utter fabrications:

"one of a numbered series ... but those in the series before and
after it are still there".

"The other videos held no such proof, so they were not removed"

"That video was one of a numbered series, and the rest of them are
still in libraries"

"It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

Not even Bilk claims his *own* words are true any more. He has admitted he
is fabricating his stories. Also note how the show moved from TruTV to PBS
at some point in his fabrications. He just is making things up as he goes.

As if it was not already obvious.

[Goblin]

On 27/04/13 00:44, Snit wrote:
> My guess: nowhere. You simply are not going to do the right thing.

I think the "right thing" would be to realize that there is a good
reason why both the Linux and Microsoft Advocates here mostly ignore him.

I could do a low blow here and say "Is it a trait of the Apple Advocate
to miss the bloody obvious when its staring them in the face?" ;)

**Please do not take that the wrong way, I am merely being flippant and
not suggesting anything, merely trying to lighten the mood....

So when he tells you that you have been brainwashed or work for the
black helicopter crew, just smile sweetly and move on.

Because lets face it, it makes perfect sense that a person with little
ability to communicate in a reasonable way who posts to a Linux Advocacy
group on Usenet - largely ignored by the mainstream public, would be in
possession of "facts" which would signify the largest conspiracy in
human history.

Anyway, Bilkies not so bad, he's kept the newsgroup alive with a little
of something different...

In other news - sort of relatedish.... I've been trying to find out the
truth (not the press version) of what Scientology really is..... I
signed up for the online course and I'm G+ing it as I go along.....

I've been disappointed so far, I expected motherships in orbit and space
aliens.....so far its really just been about problem solving in life
(something obvious to everyone) just badged with Scientology terms.


--
Basement Dwellers! - http://openbytes.wordpress.com
"From Warhammer to GNU/Linux and back again!"
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: bytes...@googlemail.com
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114824920343832764896/posts
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 5:39 PM, in article g7Fet.119231$ZX4....@fx08.fr7, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 27/04/13 00:44, Snit wrote:
>> My guess: nowhere. You simply are not going to do the right thing.
>
> I think the "right thing" would be to realize that there is a good
> reason why both the Linux and Microsoft Advocates here mostly ignore him.
>
> I could do a low blow here and say "Is it a trait of the Apple Advocate
> to miss the bloody obvious when its staring them in the face?" ;)
>
> **Please do not take that the wrong way, I am merely being flippant and
> not suggesting anything, merely trying to lighten the mood....

No offense taken.

> So when he tells you that you have been brainwashed or work for the
> black helicopter crew, just smile sweetly and move on.

Oh I could... and will likely grow bored with him soon. I might have already
had he not changed his story (by the way, I think I should get at least some
of the credit for pressuring him into being honest at least about that).

> Because lets face it, it makes perfect sense that a person with little
> ability to communicate in a reasonable way who posts to a Linux Advocacy
> group on Usenet - largely ignored by the mainstream public, would be in
> possession of "facts" which would signify the largest conspiracy in
> human history.

Of course. Then again, he knows nothing of the Underground Marshmallow
People... so little he thinks the whole idea is a silly joke. The facts are
still safe. :)

> Anyway, Bilkies not so bad, he's kept the newsgroup alive with a little
> of something different...

He has been a source of amusement... in much the way many of the "advocates"
are to me. As I have told you, I find psychology interesting - how people
can believe things with so little evidence and even so much
counter-evidence. With Bilk, at least in COLA, he stands alone. The
"advocates" interest me because of how heavily they overlap with such views.

> In other news - sort of relatedish.... I've been trying to find out the
> truth (not the press version) of what Scientology really is..... I
> signed up for the online course and I'm G+ing it as I go along.....

In collage I used to go to some of their meetings. They were very interested
in how to become a "clear" - and spoke of how horrible psychoactive drugs
were and how they stopped you from becoming a "clear". They had this meeting
while *every one* of the Scientologists was either smoking, drinking
something with caffeine, or eating something with a lot of sugar. At the
time I just happened to be taking a health psychology class and were
discussing how these substances are psychoactive (even if not as much as the
substances they were thinking of). I talked about this and was able to give
specific researchers names and names of studies - even had notes in my class
note book about details I could not remember. They also went on about how
their anti-smoking and anti-drug programs were proved to be so much better
than others... but the reality is *all* others (accept AA) count success
based on the number of people who *start* their program and then are still
"clean" after so many months. Only the Scientologist and AA count success
based on the number of people who *complete* their programs and then look at
some number of months (six maybe... I do not recall... this was back in the
1990s - I could have some details wrong). In any case they did not like how
I was able to toss this info in.

I had also recently read the book "The Big Book of Big Secrets"
<http://amzn.to/11L2Nw9> and its sequel - and they go into details of the
views of Scientology you are not supposed to know.

Later, sadly, I had a roommate who got caught up in their BS and ended up
paying them *lots* of money... and then when he wanted to leave they had him
pay even more to get his "soul" back or some other nonsense. It was insane
stuff.

If you really want to see fun stuff about Scientology, try this site:
<http://www.xenu.net/>

> I've been disappointed so far, I expected motherships in orbit and space
> aliens.....so far its really just been about problem solving in life
> (something obvious to everyone) just badged with Scientology terms.

Ben a long time since I was looking up this info, but do some Googling on
Xenu, Thetans and how humans evolved from clams.

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 26, 5:39 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the "right thing" would be to realize that there is a good
> reason why both the Linux and Microsoft Advocates here mostly ignore him.

There is a reason. It's the same reason why almost no Americans
care about the two _million_ innocent people that the U.S.
government murdered in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2001. Do you
know the reason?

Here are just a few of the victims. Watch it fullscreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIqOyvQ3kAA

> So when he tells you that you have been brainwashed ...

> just smile sweetly and move on.

No, Timmie, you don't know the reason. I wonder if you ever will.

> Because lets face it, it makes perfect sense that a person

> with little ability to communicate in a reasonable way would

> be in possession of "facts" which would signify the largest
> conspiracy in human history.

There are hundreds of 9-11 truth websites, and tens or hundreds
of _millions_ of people who are familiar with the facts.

But you're trying to make it seem that the information is some
kind of personal delusion of mine.

And what reason do you have, Timmie, for saying that I have
"little ability to communicate" ?

Call me on skype, Timmie. See if I can communicate.

> In other news - sort of relatedish.... I've been trying to find out the
> truth (not the press version) of what Scientology really is..... I
> signed up for the online course and I'm G+ing it as I go along.....

Around 1995, Scientology sued Netcom, my ISP at the time, for
allowing people to post its "sacred documents" online. Netcom's
lawyer didn't know what he was getting into, and I had been
reading alt.religion.scientology, so I put him into contact with
ex-Scientologists, some formerly high up in the organization,
who could tell him about it.

You might want to read the 8 sites linked here:

http://cosmicpenguin.com/#SCIENTOL

> I've been disappointed so far, I expected motherships in
> orbit and space aliens.....so far its really just been about
> problem solving in life (something obvious to everyone)
> just badged with Scientology terms.

We can just call you E.Z.Pickens from now on!

If memory serves, they used to get about $125,000 from a victim
to declare him "clear". But that was about 18 years ago. Could
be twice as much now.

[Snit]

On 4/26/13 7:29 PM, in article
d91171b4-fa7c-4859...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Apr 26, 5:39 pm, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the "right thing" would be to realize that there is a good
>> reason why both the Linux and Microsoft Advocates here mostly ignore him.
>
> There is a reason.

Yes: your ideas are internally inconsistent, require all sorts of "magical"
BS to make any sense, change at your whim, and are self-refuting... and
while I and a few other find you amusing most people have just grown bored
with your nonsense.

Remember, your claims are completely absurd.

* Bilk claims that there was a video showing rebar coated with something
which is assumed to be explosives (but Bilk does not say how anyone
knows this). The only "evidence" he offers is the welders had to have
some sort of special security clearance - but how would even this be
seen on a video? He never explains that either - nor what the
clearance was or who authorized it. Anyway, Bilk says the video was
held for 21 years, then shown on a government owned TV network only to
magically disappear from *all* stations and he says secret government
agents visited all libraries and remove them from there while,
coincidently coincidentally, not a single known person happened to
record the show on their VCR. [1] [2] [6] Additionally, Bilk has not
shown a single one of the regular welders he claims complained on the
video saying anything about the incident either before or even after
9-11.

* Bilk claims people with special security clearances managed the
welding of rebar which was coated with highly flammable explosives.
[2] When questioned about why the sparks would not ignite the highly
flammable explosives coating the rebar, Bulk invented, on the fly,
stories about copper clamps or wet cloths (yes, really, wet cloths!)
[3]. He later said these things were merely "heat-sinking" and failed
to explain how flying sparks managed to not hit any of these highly
flammable explosives. [6] Later he said the sparks were blocked by
"heavy cardboard with aluminum foil" which he had not thought of
before [12] because he finally admitted he had not even seen this
fictional video. [13] Bilk could have just invented a story about how
the explosives were added *after* the rebar was all welded together
(and before concrete was added). That would make a lot more sense than
his fairy tales!

* Later Bilk said the video was produced in 1987. [14] This completely
contradicts many of his claims from the two above bullet points.

* Bilk claims other were saying it was compressed air that ejected tons
of steel from the Twin Towers, a completely bogus story Bilk
fabricated. At first he denied he even made this claim until I showed
him the many posts where he did - and quoted his own words back to
him. [4] His comments show he does not understand even the basics of
what knowledgeable people say actually happened to the Towers.

* Bilk has no evidence of some unknown force which would have prevented
steel from being ejected from the pancaking towers without the added
force of explosives. Nor can he explain how explosives would break
this unknown force where tons upon tons of falling building would not.
No such force has ever been described by physics. Yet Bilk continues
to insist only explosives could explain the forces needed to eject the
material seen in videos. [5] Bilk claims this is a lie because he has
never named the unnamed force [6], which *supports* the comments he is
trying to refute. Very funny!

* Bilk changes his story *in the same post* and claims that the
flammable material on the rebar exploded on 9-11 but also says he does
not recall if he was told it did or did not.[11] Bilk is clearly just
making things up as he goes! When faced with this Bilk claimed he was
talking about different rebar, but only the rebar from that post was
being discussed.

* Bilk claims detonators were brought into the Towers shortly before the
attack, but he fails to account for how this would be possible with
the heightened security, why nobody saw this, or why there is no video
of this. He also does not explain how these detonators survived the
fires and other extremes after the planes hit the towers, nor does he
explain why the detonators were able to set off the explosives but the
concussion force from the planes ramming into the building did not set
them off. All sorts of unnamed forces must be assumed for his story to
make any sense at all.

* Bilk has not refuted the alternate and equally reasonable idea that
the buildings were brought down by Underground Marshmallow People. He
responds to this claim worse than others respond to his claims - yet
whines others are not being respectful to his claims. He proves he is
a hypocrite. [7]

* Bilk claims that to merely quote Stallman is to "attack" him make no
sense. [8] Stallman's comments are an attack on decency and against
children.

* Bilk claims that to quote him is to lie about him [9] - a claim that is
clearly dishonest. He cannot explain why that would be so, but he
hates how his own words have shown his ignorance so he just lashes out
with some of the most vile attacks to ever be posted to COLA.

* Bilk claims that I and others are paid to post to COLA [10] - a claim
that is utter nonsense... and even Bilk admitted he would need
financial records to fully support his fairy tails and admits he has
no such records. He "evidence" is that people disagree with him and
the "advocates" and find amusement in watching them try to back their
cult-like BS and other nonsense.

The following is in no way a complete list... just examples of the things I
note, above. And, remember, Bilk has not refuted a single one of the above
bulleted points:

[1] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
94c7e1ee-41a3-4811...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

[2] d8eb487c-f16c-48cf...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com
11639315-fa13-4152...@lg15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
c2d7c52b-b7aa-4184...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
97ca9d19-5155-44b0...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
6e25123f-ce1f-4322...@5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com
fcbdeca5-a699-493a...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
db4cf4d4-f5b2-40bd...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
ef56ff12-06a6-4684...@w2g2000pbw.googlegroups.com

[3] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

[4] b2e65490-015f-469b...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
8cd48407-4288-4f28...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
67ce8cf4-58e1-47c2...@r13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
b3d5b78c-4b57-43b4...@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

[5] 7ebe3e0d-8efd-4a69...@fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
23195fcb-7e1c-4d66...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
5e7a5f07-9dc9-4a95...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com

[6] c59ad337-2ef9-46ef...@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com

[7] e15defa6-96a6-4d30...@vc1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
88857097-401d-4c2d...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com
23195fcb-7e1c-4d66...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
11678110-4597-470b...@n7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com

[8] 6a6b62ab-51bc-41cf...@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com
23195fcb-7e1c-4d66...@kx16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

[9] 4e3bf76f-1961-47c9...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

[10] 6a6b62ab-51bc-41cf...@j1g2000pbq.googlegroups.com

[11] 69d1db67-471f-4e5a...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

[12] 37fca37f-81b8-4a48...@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

[13] b78d91b2-b053-49bb...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

[14] 81c9ea7f-4dc4-43c6...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com

> It's the same reason why almost no Americans care about the two _million_
> innocent people that the U.S. government murdered in Afghanistan and Iraq
> after 2001. Do you know the reason?

How dare you even try to compare your whacked our conspiracy theory as to
the *reason* for deaths at the Twin Towers vs. the facts of others dying.

Completely reprehensible of you.
...

[Ezekiel]

"Mark S Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote in message

news:78c33fc9-de5c-4f99...@vq7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Blah-blah-blah. My post said absolutely nothing about Linux or it's
creators or users. It's just one simple question:

If this video was broadcast in 1990 then how come there isn't a single copy
of it anywhere in the world? In 1990 there were literally several 100's of
millions of VCRs in the world. And yet not a single person anywhere in the
world recorded this show that you claim exists.

See... no personal attacks. Just one very simple question. How come a
informative show like this was never recorded by one single person when in
1990 there were several 100's of millions of VCRs out there capable of
recording it?

If this were broadcast in the 1960's, then it wouldn't be possible because
consumer VCRs didn't exist yet. But 1990 was practically the peak popularity
of VCRs and they were found in just about every single home in the country.
It seems like this video is nothing but pure fiction.

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 27, 5:31 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>
> If this video was broadcast in 1990 then how come there isn't
> a single copy of it anywhere in the world? In 1990 there were
> literally several 100's of millions of VCRs in the world.
> And yet not a single person anywhere in the world recorded
> this show that you claim exists.

Maybe a few people did, but very few of those saw Chris Brown's
request for a copy.

At the time the video was broadcast, no one knew of its
significance. Not many people are interested in engineering
and fewer interested enough to record the show.

Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
explosive, only that it was very flammable. And the
description in the TV schedule didn't even mention that.
So even if that scene interested somebody who was watching
the video, it was too late for them to find a tape and
turn on the recorder. It was only broadcast once.

[-hh]

On Apr 27, 10:49 am, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
> explosive, only that it was very flammable.

That would describe the epoxy coating nominally used on rebar.

so then WHO was it that claimed that it was "special", and with what
substantiation?


> ... It was only broadcast once.

I doubt that, since It was reportedly a PBS production ... Perhaps you
could do some independent fact-finding, rather than to lazily just
believe the claims of others?

-hh

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 27, 9:01 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:49 am, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
> > explosive, only that it was very flammable.
>
> That would describe the epoxy coating nominally used on rebar.

I doubt that welders with security clearances are routinely
required for butt-welding rebars with epoxy coating.
But the video said they were in this case.

> so then WHO was it that claimed that it was "special",
> and with what substantiation?

The producers of the video. Their research (or filming)
showed the team of special welders, and the annoyed regular
welders.

> > ... It was only broadcast once.
>
> I doubt that, since It was reportedly a PBS production
> ... Perhaps you could do some independent fact-finding,
> rather than to lazily just believe the claims of others?

Chris Brown is a friend of mine and I know he is honest and
Conscious. Which is more than I can say of you, "-hh".

Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.

Inquiries with PBS were not successful.

[Goblin]

On 27/04/13 17:27, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
> and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.

Maybe the government (after all the video tapes were collected) went
around to all the newsagents and changed the listing from that vid of
yours to an episode of Friends.

I seem to remember a few years back my stack of magazines that was in
the loft fell onto the floor, maybe that was the Black helicopter crew
going through my magazine collection to ensure I had no TV listings from
the US.

Its rather easy to unpick the staples from a TV guide, remove the
"offending" page and then push it all back together again, new page
included.

Well I'm pleased thats now all sorted out...

> Inquiries with PBS were not successful.

Inquiries with reality were not successful is more likely.

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 27, 10:10 am, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27/04/13 17:27, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>
> > Inquiries with PBS were not successful.
>
> Inquiries with reality were not successful is more likely.

Have fun with Scientology, Timmie. Really get into it.

Maybe they'll murder you in a hotel room like they did
Lisa McPherson.

[Cola Zealot]

Dummkopf Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Mark S Bilk wrote:
>
>> Ezekiel and Flatfish are both lying propagandists that
>> have been attacking GNU/Linux and its creators and users
>> in this newsgroup for many years and many tens of
>> thousands of posts. They have made tens of thousands
>> of personal attacks, and they are doing the same in
>> this thread.
>
> No matter what those cretins are doing usually, they are right about
> you. You are (by far) the dumbest person I have ever encountered on
> usenet.

<usually followed by:>
"and you have strong competition in that regard from
snot-larry-hadron-quack-toilet-clog" ;-)

*yawn*

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 10:35 AM, in article
c137a5fb-0fe1-416b...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

You whine when people note the glaringly obvious inconsistencies and
irrationally to your claims, and here *you* are wishing for someone to be
*murdered*!

You really have no sense of morality.

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 9:27 AM, in article
a47194a4-c43a-4bbc...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 9:01 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 10:49 am, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
>>> explosive, only that it was very flammable.
>>
>> That would describe the epoxy coating nominally used on rebar.
>
> I doubt that welders with security clearances are routinely
> required for butt-welding rebars with epoxy coating.
> But the video said they were in this case.

The video you admitted you did not see... and used to claim was a part of a
series that was still available but then changed your story about that...
and the video you claim was produced years after the Towers were built and
then shown on a government owned network of stations.

This is a strange set of claims you make - in addition to others! Leads to
some important questions!

1) When was the video shown? You have given the name of it now but cannot be
found in the TV guides of 1990, the year you said it was shown.

2) You have claimed welders complained in the video but you cannot explain
why none of these people or their families complained anywhere else - either
during the construction, after the show aired, or even after 9-11.

3) You cannot explain how the materials on the video were deemed to be
explosives - in fact, you have admitted they were merely said to be
flammable.

4) You cannot explain how detonators would be attached to these explosives
once they were encased in cement. If there were openings to the
explosives-coated rebar why would it not be seen in the decades of time the
buildings stood.

5) You have not been able to say *who* produced this video. You just refer
to them as "the producers". But who are they? And why have *they* not spoken
up about their work being banned?

>> so then WHO was it that claimed that it was "special",
>> and with what substantiation?
>
> The producers of the video. Their research (or filming)
> showed the team of special welders, and the annoyed regular
> welders.
>
>>> ... It was only broadcast once.
>>
>> I doubt that, since It was reportedly a PBS production
>> ... Perhaps you could do some independent fact-finding,
>> rather than to lazily just believe the claims of others?
>
> Chris Brown is a friend of mine and I know he is honest and
> Conscious. Which is more than I can say of you, "-hh".
>
> Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
> and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.

Of course you cannot find a listing to a video that does not exist. Why
would one expect to?

> Inquiries with PBS were not successful.

Mine were: they assured me no such video ever existed and that whoever
speaks of such nonsense is making things up.

They did not include the fact that you would do so only because the
Underground Marshmallow People pay you.

But we all know they do.

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 8:49 AM, in article
96d8a1b8-cef1-4c7b...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Bilk" <ma...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 5:31 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this video was broadcast in 1990 then how come there isn't
>> a single copy of it anywhere in the world? In 1990 there were
>> literally several 100's of millions of VCRs in the world.
>> And yet not a single person anywhere in the world recorded
>> this show that you claim exists.
>
> Maybe a few people did, but very few of those saw Chris Brown's
> request for a copy.

No known copies exist.
No listing of it can be found in any TV guide.
No produces can be named.
No complaining welders can be found speaking up.
No people related to these welders can be found speaking up.
No explanation for why you changed your story about it's "series"
You have admitted not even you saw this video.

And yet you expect people to take your word that it existed and showed what
you said. This is, of course, absurd.

> At the time the video was broadcast, no one knew of its
> significance. Not many people are interested in engineering
> and fewer interested enough to record the show.

Millions of people had VCRs. Would only take a tiny, tiny fraction to record
it for their to be many, many copies.

> Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
> explosive, only that it was very flammable.

Elsewhere you said the video proved the material was explosive. In just a
couple minutes of looking, some quotes from you:

Mark Bilk:
------
The video that Chris Brown and others saw in 1990 proves that
explosives were built into the massive concrete core of each tower
when they were constructed, around 1969.
-----
welders with security clearances were called in to do the work. ...
That's the proof that the coatings on the rebars were an explosive,
not something used to prevent corrosion.
-----
Multiple people saw the PBS video in 1990 that showed the explosive
on the rebars and the welders with security clearance.
-----
The video was shown on TV in 1990, at which time youtube and other
online video sites did not exist. That particular video was removed
from libraries by government agents because it proved that
explosives had been planted in the towers when they were built.
-----

But here you are changing your story and saying the videos only showed
support that the material was flammable... and, of course, not all flammable
material is explosive.

Your story has changed again.

Also, while looking up those I found this from you, speaking about why the
workers did not complain:
-----
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.
-----

So the workers complained on the video because they were kicked off the job,
but did *not* complain in 1969 because they were told the coating was simply
to prevent corrosion. This makes *no* sense for multiple reasons:

1) If they were told it was merely to prevent corrosion this would give them
*more* reason to complain - the reasoning is absurd!

2) If they were not going to complain elsewhere because of this absurd
reason, why would they complain on the video? That is absurd!

3) If they complained on the video, why did none of them or their families
complain after the video was shown (at a time nobody can find in any TV
guide, which is absurd), nor after 9-11? It is absurd to think that none of
them or their families would speak up about this after 9-11!

Your claims are absurd on many, many levels. Clearly you are being paid by
the Underground Marshmallow People to spread such lies!

> And the
> description in the TV schedule didn't even mention that.
> So even if that scene interested somebody who was watching
> the video, it was too late for them to find a tape and
> turn on the recorder. It was only broadcast once.
>

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 9:01 AM, in article
ff5089af-3880-4894...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

He is being paid by the Underground Marshmallow People to spread his lies.

It is the only thing that makes sense.

[Goblin]

On 27/04/13 18:35, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> Have fun with Scientology, Timmie. Really get into it.

Well I'm certainly finding it interesting (if not somewhat a statement
in the obvious)

>
> Maybe they'll murder you in a hotel room like they did
> Lisa McPherson.

Personal attacks? Like the one's you claim against you? - Or is this
another conspiracy you have?

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 5:31 AM, in article klgg9g$q7o$3...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"

Bilk is paid by the Underground Marshmallow People to spread his lies about
9-11.

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 10:10 AM, in article qETet.92915$0W4....@fx10.fr7, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 27/04/13 17:27, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>> Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
>> and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.
>
> Maybe the government (after all the video tapes were collected) went
> around to all the newsagents and changed the listing from that vid of
> yours to an episode of Friends.
>
> I seem to remember a few years back my stack of magazines that was in
> the loft fell onto the floor, maybe that was the Black helicopter crew
> going through my magazine collection to ensure I had no TV listings from
> the US.
>
> Its rather easy to unpick the staples from a TV guide, remove the
> "offending" page and then push it all back together again, new page
> included.
>
> Well I'm pleased thats now all sorted out...
>
>> Inquiries with PBS were not successful.
>
> Inquiries with reality were not successful is more likely.

Easier explaination: Bilk is paid by the Underground Marshmallow People to

[Mark S Bilk]

On Apr 27, 11:38 am, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27/04/13 18:35, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>
> > Have fun with Scientology, Timmie. Really get into it.
>
> Well I'm certainly finding it interesting (if not somewhat a statement
> in the obvious)
>
> > Maybe they'll murder you in a hotel room like they did
> > Lisa McPherson.
>
> Personal attacks? Like the one's you claim against you? - Or is this
> another conspiracy you have?

Timmie omitted what he wrote that motivated my remark about
Scientology:

On Apr 27, 10:10 am, Goblin <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27/04/13 17:27, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>
> > Inquiries with PBS were not successful.
>
> Inquiries with reality were not successful is more likely.

In other words, he said that I was lying about the video
even existing.

[Peter Köhlmann]

And he is right about that. You are a worse liar than Hadron Larry or Snit
Michael Glasser. You are, quite simply, scum

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 11:55 AM, in article
fcdddfe9-9290-458b...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Things you have said about this claimed video:

* No known copies exist in any library.
* No known copies exist in any PBS station.
* No known VCR copies exist.
* No listing of it can be found in any 1990 TV guide.
* No produces can be named.
* No known welder comments in 1969 as the towers were made.
* No known welder comments when the show was broadcast in 1990.
* No known welder comments after 9-11.
* No people related to these welders can be found speaking up.
* No explanation for why you changed your story about it's "series"
* No comment in the video about explosives you say it proves.
* No agency has been named which authorized special clearances.
* No name of any producer has been given.
* No name of anyone working on this video has been given.
* You have admitted not even you saw this video.

And yet you expect people to take your word that it existed and proved there
were explosives!

You do realize this is one of the most amazing set of claims ever posted to
COLA. It is clear what is happening: the Underground Marshmallow People are
paying you to lie about what brought down the Twin Towers.

[Goblin]

On 27/04/13 19:55, Mark S Bilk wrote:
> In other words, he said that I was lying about the video
> even existing.

No I didn't I was helping you explain why the listing couldn't be found....

Hardly a lie, infact I helped.

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 12:16 PM, in article luVet.130003$5w6.1...@fx05.fr7, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 27/04/13 19:55, Mark S Bilk wrote:
>> In other words, he said that I was lying about the video
>> even existing.
>
> No I didn't I was helping you explain why the listing couldn't be found....
>
> Hardly a lie, infact I helped.

Just as I helped him by giving him a more realistic story about how
explosives could be added to the rebar - do not do it before the welding
*but* after. This way he would not have to fabricate stories about welders
needing special clearance and heat sinks and spark shields... just say they
welded the rebar, then added the coating, then covered it in concrete. A
*much* better story. Since he has been changing his story anyway it is not
like this change would make his claims any less believable.

One this this better version would not handle - that is not also handled by
his version - is how detonators could be attached to explosives completely
encases in concrete. And since the ends where the concrete meet do not have
these explosives, and since he has said there were detonators on each floor,
you would need to have a tube or something protruding from the concrete
pillars on every floor - easy enough to access so that the detonators could
be put there discretely with a completely full building and increased
security. This is problematic to his claims because he said the original
plan was simply to help destroy the buildings at the end of their life...
and that would mean taking them down in a more traditional way where people
are *not* in the building as things are set up. Additionally, these tubes or
whatever would have to go unnoticed by all workers and anyone doing any
renovations to the towers from 1969 to the time they were brought down.
Maybe the tubes were capped - this would make sense to help prevent them
from catching on fire!

To recap, my suggestions to Bilk:
1) Claim the coatings were added after the welding but before the encasement
in concrete. This makes a lot more sense than your current story.
2) Add some comments about how the encased explosives were accessible. I
suggest capped tubes that would not be easily opened but could be opened
quietly. They still would have to be very discreet or someone would have
mentioned them. You will need to work out the details of this on your own.

If you do that then you can drop the clearly absurd claim that their were
welders complaining on the video. Given how neither they nor their families
can be found making any such comments before or after the production of the
video, the showing of the video, or even 9-11 this would help cover this
massive gaping hole in your claims.

Looking the oddities to your claims it would help to explain the ones marked
with plus signs:

* No known copies exist in any library.
* No known copies exist in any PBS station.
* No known VCR copies exist.
* No listing of it can be found in any 1990 TV guide.
* No produces can be named.

+ No known welder comments in 1969 as the towers were made.
+ No known welder comments when the show was broadcast in 1990.
+ No known welder comments after 9-11.
+ No people related to these welders can be found speaking up.

* No explanation for why you changed your story about it's "series"
* No comment in the video about explosives you say it proves.
* No agency has been named which authorized special clearances.
* No name of any producer has been given.
* No name of anyone working on this video has been given.

+ No reason given why explosives were not added after the welding

* You have admitted not even you saw this video.

As you can see, it still leaves a lot of nonsense to your story, but it does
cover some of it. If you were to make these changes I am sure it would
please those who are paying you to post these claims, namely the Underground
Marshmallow People.

See: I am just trying to help you. No insults or accusations or name calling
from me. Just simple steps to help you.

[-hh]

On Apr 27, 12:27 pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:01 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

Right here, Bilk has already contradicted himself.

> > On Apr 27, 10:49 am, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>
> > > Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
> > > explosive, only that it was very flammable.
>
> > That would describe the epoxy coating nominally used on rebar.
>
> I doubt that welders with security clearances are routinely
> required for butt-welding rebars with epoxy coating.
> But the video said they were in this case.

And this butt-welded rebar was in the columns? And are these
"clearances" the ones mentioned before as normal Port Authority ones?
Or are there new/different claims than before?

> > so then WHO was it that claimed that it was "special",
> > and with what substantiation?
>
> The producers of the video.

The WTC construction film produced by John Tillman? Or the 'mystery'
one that only some guy says exists?

> Their research (or filming)
> showed the team of special welders, and the annoyed regular
> welders.

Ah yes, those **shy** iron workers who never once ever said a peep to
any of the NYC newspapers in the period. Should we assume that they
were all bought off and living in the Cayman Islands?

> > > ... It was only broadcast once.
>
> > I doubt that, since It was reportedly a PBS production
> > ... Perhaps you could do some independent fact-finding,
> > rather than to lazily just believe the claims of others?
>
> Chris Brown is a friend of mine and I know he is honest and
> Conscious.  Which is more than I can say of you, "-hh".

Ad Hom insult attempt - you just trashed your credibility, Bilk.

> Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
> and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.

Try looking under Episodes of "American Experience".

> Inquiries with PBS were not successful.

If they existed. The next time that I have breakfast with Bill Baker,
I'll try to remember to ask him.


-hh

[Snit]

On 4/27/13 7:08 PM, in article
b88dd57b-5968-4ace...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Apr 27, 12:27�pm, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 9:01 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> Right here, Bilk has already contradicted himself.

He has multiple times, even just about the video.

* It is a part of a series and the rest is still available... until it
was not.

* It made it clear that the rebar was coated with explosives until it
only stated the coating was flammable.

* The regular workers were complaining until they were not because it
was not that big of a deal.

* The rebar was completely coated in concrete until it was not and people
people were able to later add detonators to it.

* It was broadcast in 1990 on a a cable network until that was changed to
PBS.

* The video was broadcast in 1990 but does not show up in any TV Guide
from that year.

On and on and on. His story changes. He just spews nonsense because the
Underground Marshmallow People are paying him to do so.

>>> On Apr 27, 10:49 am, Mark S Bilk <m...@cosmicpenguin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Remember: the video didn't say the rebar coating was an
>>>> explosive, only that it was very flammable.
>>
>>> That would describe the epoxy coating nominally used on rebar.
>>
>> I doubt that welders with security clearances are routinely
>> required for butt-welding rebars with epoxy coating.
>> But the video said they were in this case.
>
> And this butt-welded rebar was in the columns? And are these
> "clearances" the ones mentioned before as normal Port Authority ones?
> Or are there new/different claims than before?

Also funny how the only place I can find any reference to their being any
"butt welding" is on whacked out conspiracy sites. No reputable site even
uses the term in the context of the Twin Towers or their construction.

>>> so then WHO was it that claimed that it was "special",
>>> and with what substantiation?
>>
>> The producers of the video.
>
> The WTC construction film produced by John Tillman? Or the 'mystery'
> one that only some guy says exists?

As far as I know Bilk has never named these producers... nor any of the
interviewed workers... nor anyone else involved.

>> �Their research (or filming) showed the team of special welders, and the

>> annoyed regular welders.
>
> Ah yes, those **shy** iron workers who never once ever said a peep to
> any of the NYC newspapers in the period. Should we assume that they
> were all bought off and living in the Cayman Islands?

Not only did they and their families not say anything in 1969, nor when the
video was produced in the 1980s, nor when it was shown in 1990, they did not
even do so after 9-11. Not one of them that he can point to.

When asked about this he said they were not really that upset... so why did
they complain on the video? Again his story changes.

>>>> ... It was only broadcast once.
>>
>>> I doubt that, since It was reportedly a PBS production
>>> ... Perhaps you could do some independent fact-finding,
>>> rather than to lazily just believe the claims of others?
>>
>> Chris Brown is a friend of mine and I know he is honest and
>> Conscious. �Which is more than I can say of you, "-hh".
>
> Ad Hom insult attempt - you just trashed your credibility, Bilk.

Bilk cries like a baby when he is not trusted with his completely wild and
ever-changing stories... but he then insults others, tosses around
accusations and lies about others. It is massively hypocritical of him.

>> Kee Dewdney bought several years of old TV Guides, but he
>> and Chris were unable to find a listing for the video.
>
> Try looking under Episodes of "American Experience".

Why would they have to buy several years worth of TV guides to find a show
they saw in 1990. Bilk has been very specific about the year. But now they
need to by "several years" worth... and they still cannot find it.

Another place where his story is self-refuting.

The UMP are paying him to spew lies. It is the only thing that makes sense!

>> Inquiries with PBS were not successful.
>
> If they existed. The next time that I have breakfast with Bill Baker,
> I'll try to remember to ask him.

Of course PBS is not going to know about shows they never showed... esp.
ones Bilk first claimed were shown on a cable station:

Mark Bilk:
-----

It was banned by the government from rebroadcast on TV. Which is
why it was shown only once on the TruTV cable channel, and never
rebroadcast like others in the series."

-----

Yes... it started off being shown on the TruTV cable channel but that
morphed into being shown on PBS at some point.

Bilk changes his story more often than most people change their underwear.

[-hh]

On Apr 27, 11:26 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

Was that before, or after, someone pointed out to Bilk that TruTV
didn't exist until 2008?

-hh

[Mark S Bilk]

In his single-minded pursuit of making me and 9-11
research "wrong", Snit has confused (purposely or not)
the 1990 PBS video about WTC construction, with the
episode of Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show
about concentration camps and other police state
preparations in the U.S., broadcast on TruTV a couple
of years ago. "-hh" is assisting Snit in this endeavor.

[Snit]

On 4/28/13 5:30 AM, in article
cfea405a-ea6e-4af3...@oj8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, "Mark S

Hey, my mistake. See, when I am in error I admit to it. Yes, looking at your
comments about TruTV I see I had the wrong part of your conspiracy nonsense.
That leaves *still* without being able to explain this about the Twin Towers
video you claim exists but, well, there is *no* reason to think it does,
esp. as you describe it:

* No known copies exist in any library.
* No known copies exist in any PBS station.
* No known VCR copies exist.
* No listing of it can be found in any 1990 TV guide.

* No known welder comments in 1969 as the towers were made.
* No known welder comments when the show was broadcast in 1990.
* No known welder comments after 9-11.
* No people related to these welders can be found speaking up.

* No explanation for why you changed your story about it's "series"
* No comment in the video about explosives you say it proves.
* No agency has been named which authorized special clearances.
* No name of any producer has been given.
* No name of anyone working on this video has been given.

* No reason given why explosives were not added after the welding

* You have admitted not even you saw this video.

So good for you, Bilk, you found flaw with *one* of the points I said about
your nonsense about this fictional video. I commend you for that.

This shows when you find me being wrong you point it out. That leaves us
with the knowledge that you *cannot* find flaw with my above points... if
you could you would be screaming it from the hill tops.

No such video ever existed anywhere, Bilk. You and your conspiracy whacko
friends claim it did because you are paid by the Underground Marshmallow
People to spread lies about 9-11. It is the only thing that makes sense.
This is how your "logic" works when you accuse me and others of being paid
by Microsoft, so no fair for you to insist this is not true.

Based on your own claims the UMP *must* be paying you to spread your lies
about 9-11.

[Snit]

Things Bilk *still* cannot explain about his claims dealing with the Twin
Towers construction video he claimed exists but, well, there is *no* reason
to think it does, esp. as Bilk describe it:

* No known copies exist in any library.
* No known copies exist in any PBS station.
* No known VCR copies exist.
* No listing of it can be found in any 1990 TV guide.
* No known welder comments in 1969 as the towers were made.
* No known welder comments when the show was broadcast in 1990.
* No known welder comments after 9-11.
* No people related to these welders can be found speaking up.
* No explanation for why you changed your story about it's "series"
* No comment in the video about explosives you say it proves.
* No agency has been named which authorized special clearances.
* No name of any producer has been given.
* No name of anyone working on this video has been given.
* No reason given why explosives were not added after the welding
* You have admitted not even you saw this video.

Bottom line: No such video ever existed anywhere and even Bilk knows this.
He and his conspiracy whacko friends claim it did because you are paid by
the Underground Marshmallow People to spread lies about 9-11. It is the only
thing that makes sense. This is how his "logic" works when Bilk accuses me
and others of being paid by Microsoft, so no fair for Bilk to insist this is
not true.

Based on your Bilk's claims the UMP *must* be paying him to spread your lies
about 9-11 and about people in COLA being paid by MS.

[Snit]

[Snit]