Heiwa article accepted at AsCE

[Panoply_Prefect]

Thought this (https://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=20366281&postcount=590) might be interesting:


> Message du 24/09/09 16:32
> De : "Rajashree Ranganathan"
> A : anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
> Copie à :
> Objet : EMENG-296R1: Production check is complete
>
>
> Date: 09-24-2009
> Manuscript #: EMENG-296R1
> Title: Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson,
> Authors: Anders Björkman, M.Sc.
> Publication: Journal of Engineering Mechanics
>
> Dear author,
>
> EMENG-296R1 has successfully passed the production check performed by a member of ASCE's Journals Production Department. Any formatting or style questions the Production Editor had about your submission have been resolved. It has been placed in the queue of manuscripts that can be assigned to an issue.
>
> Once your manuscript has been assigned to a specific issue, you will be contacted with information about the publication date. Then your manuscript will be moved forward for copyediting and typesetting. When your typeset proofs are ready, you will receive an e-mail that includes instructions on downloading the proofs, answering copyeditor queries, and submitting corrections.
>
> We look forward to publishing your manuscript.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rajashree Ranganathan
> Production Coordinator
> Journal of Engineering Mechanics
> ASCE Journals Production Department

[Pure Argent]

God help us all...

[DGM]

It will be interesting to see what he actually sent in for publication.

[Grizzly Bear]

okey dokey.... not sure what to say other than it looks to be a somewhat strange issue release.

[Scott Sommers]

I have to admit that I am surprised. JEM is an SCI-listed journal and is a top publication in the field. On the other hand, it does have a very accptance rate (55%)
http://www.olemiss.edu/sciencenet/fluids/minute99.html
It's possible that our friend Heiwa purged the paper of all the unusual ideas he's well known for on our forum, as well as suggestions that thermite or space based lasers were used.

If the paper is - as its title suggests - merely a summary of what previous scientific and engineering investigations have not addressed, I see no reason why it should not be published.

[Furcifer]

Isn't this from months ago? I thought he was talking about this before his ban. Well before. I also thought it was a letter to the editor, not an article.

[DGM]

Isn't this from months ago? I thought he was talking about this before his ban. Well before. I also thought it was a letter to the editor, not an article.
The quoted email is from September.

[twinstead]

For some reason I remember him bringing this up before he was banned

[Furcifer]

The quoted email is from September.

Yah, that's it. He submited his letter way back in March or April, then got the confirmation email just before being banished.

[bill smith]

I have to admit that I am surprised. JEM is an SCI-listed journal and is a top publication in the field. On the other hand, it does have a very accptance rate (55%)
http://www.olemiss.edu/sciencenet/fluids/minute99.html
It's possible that our friend Heiwa purged the paper of all the unusual ideas he's well known for on our forum, as well as suggestions that thermite or space based lasers were used.

If the paper is - as its title suggests - merely a summary of what previous scientific and engineering investigations have not addressed, I see no reason why it should not be published.

Yes I can well imagine that Heiwa's paper will essentally paraphrase what Bazant said. Perhaps there will be a few small differences. I agree that publication is a god idea, and very democratic.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure took him a while to post it then...

[bill smith]

Yah, that's it. He submited his letter way back in March or April, then got the confirmation email just before being banished.

I think he sent it in fecruary 09 and it was accepted for publication shortly after.I have seen the emails and may even have copies somewhere. Then for some reason nothing further happened.

Then months later, out of the blue the whole process seemed to start up all over again with Jennifer confirming receipt of the paper as if the previous acceptance had never taken place. And here we are today...

[Scott Sommers]

Yes I ca wellimagine that Heiwa's pper will essentally paraphrase what Bazant said. Perhaps there will be a few small differences. I agree that publication is a god idea, and very democratic.

I can't. I suppose you have no understanding of how scientific articles are published in respectable journals. Nor is it likely I will believe any claim that you do. I suggest we all wait until the paper appears before we go shooting our mouths off about what it does and does not contain.

[bill smith]

I can't. I suppose you have no understanding of how scientific articles are published in respectable journals. Nor is it likely I will believe any claim that you do. I suggest we all wait until the paper appears before we go shooting our mouths off about what it does and does not contain.

Why ? Don't you think it is a good idea to give these things a thorough airing ? sunlight as a disinfectant ? I mean it's not like in the war where 'Loose lips might sink ships ' is it ? Ships of State possibly tough. lol

[R.Mackey]

For the millionth time, this is not a paper. It is a "discussion," viz. a letter to the editor. It is not reviewed for scientific accuracy. The letter is merely a way for the Journal to field confusion about its published works, and to provide the original author (Dr. Bazant) a platform to respond.

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.

Heiwa already knows this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4778696#post4778696), but is either too dense or too dishonest to represent himself accurately.

Old news. Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.

[AJM8125]

Perhaps alerting this publisher to some of Hiewa's theories and experiments might be in order.

[R.Mackey]

Dr. Corotis is familiar with them. And Heiwa's empty headed letter speaks for itself. You'll see.

Personally I think some scientists occasionally enjoy the opportunity to demolish conspiracy-minded idiots in a public forum. I'd have simply rejected the letter as too stupid to be worth addressing, but it's their call.

[Mooseman]

It seems it will be interesting.

[Scott Sommers]

For the millionth time, this is not a paper. It is a "discussion," viz. a letter to the editor. It is not reviewed for scientific accuracy. The letter is merely a way for the Journal to field confusion about its published works, and to provide the original author (Dr. Bazant) a platform to respond.

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.

Heiwa already knows this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4778696#post4778696), but is either too dense or too dishonest to represent himself accurately.

Old news. Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.

Jesus Christ. Thank you for clarifying this point. This makes it an entirely different matter. Letters get published for no reason at all. Bill could publish a letter if he/she/it wanted to. This means nothing at all about the status of his claims.

Why is it even up here then? Except to make it appear as if Truth Gurus are able to publish their beliefs in genuine academic forums? 911 Truth remains the domain of high school kids and the mentally deranged.

I guess the real point of this is that genuine scientists still aren't interested in this crap heap of an idea. Are you surprised?

[R.Mackey]

It's up here because nobody ever does a search. Seriously, every idea the Truthers have is here, beat to death, and quivering. Try it, you'll find it.

[Mooseman]

Good thought, Bill write a letter.

[Cuddles]

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.

Ha, just read that via your link.
The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer
with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none
of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion
provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced
by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering...

Closing Comments
Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion
on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that,
to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the
WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the
relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics.

Ouch. I wonder if Heiwa would even notice the smackdown if Bazant could be bothered with another similar reply this time.

[bill smith]

Jesus Christ. Thank you for clarifying this point. This makes it an entirely different matter. Letters get published for no reason at all. Bill could publish a letter if he/she/it wanted to. This means nothing at all about the status of his claims.

Why is it even up here then? Except to make it appear as if Truth Gurus are able to publish their beliefs in genuine academic forums? 911 Truth remains the domain of high school kids and the mentally deranged.

I guess the real point of this is that genuine scientists still aren't interested in this crap heap of an idea. Are you surprised?
Going off the deep end Scott ? You should just call him Ryan, or Mr.Mackey. ' Jesus Christ ' seems ridiculously exggerated.

[tuc0]

Finally! I'm very much looking forward to the comedy. Fun times lie ahead :D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I mean it's not like in the war where 'Loose lips might sink ships ' is it ? Ships of State possibly tough. lol

More thinly veiled twoofer America-hatred Bill?

Preemptively jerking off on the corpse of the USA (while bizarrely claiming to be patriots) is the twoofers second favorite pastime after doing it on the graves of the victims of 9/11.

[bill smith]

Going off the deep end Scott ? You should just call him Ryan, or Mr.Mackey. ' Jesus Christ ' seems ridiculously exggerated.

Personally I am very much looking forward to Bazant's reply, if any. I think I know how strong Heiwa'a paper or ' discussion document ' will be. Here on the forum you guys were just able to cluster, bluster, deny and obfuscate but Bazant will not have that luxury or escape in the broad glare of the scientific community.

They will be looking with different eyes this time around so Bazant will be stretched very thin- like see-through thin. As you say 'fun times ahead'.

[dafydd]

I think I know how strong Heiwa'a paper or ' discussion document ' will be.

We know how strong it will be too,about as strong as a 30x dilution.

[alienentity]

You can find Heiwa's comments on the 'discussion paper' here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/asce-journal-of-engineering-mechanics-t219.html) as well.

The entire link is copied below. It's on the 911 forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/asce-journal-of-engineering-mechanics-t219.html

[Newtons Bit]

We know how strong it will be too,about as strong as a 30x dilution.

It'll probably qualify as Homeopathy.

[bill smith]

Not that the dismissal of Bazant makes much difference really. All it effectively does is remove the only existing fig leaf that the government has. Bazant was only ever a limiting case in the best of all possible worlds.

abut it is certainly better to let the emperor stand shivering with no clothes whatsoever rather than leave him even the thin rag offered by Bazant.

[carlitos]

You can find Heiwa's comments on the 'discussion paper' here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/asce-journal-of-engineering-mechanics-t219.html) as well.

The entire link is copied below. It's on the 911 forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/asce-journal-of-engineering-mechanics-t219.html

Lulz at the 3rd comment:
Re: ASCE - Journal of Engineering Mechanics
by stundie on Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:51 pm

Congratulations Hewia!

Lets hope it's assigned to an issue soon.

[bill smith]

Dr. Corotis is familiar with them. And Heiwa's empty headed letter speaks for itself. You'll see.

Personally I think some scientists occasionally enjoy the opportunity to demolish conspiracy-minded idiots in a public forum. I'd have simply rejected the letter as too stupid to be worth addressing, but it's their call.
If these discusssion papers are not reviewed for scientific validity orior to publication then on what grounds are they published ? I think you are telling porkie pies here Ryan.

[beachnut]

Not that the dismissal of Bazant makes much difference really. All it effectively does is remove the only existing fig leaf that the government has. Bazant was only ever a limiting case in the best of all possible worlds.

abut it is certainly better to let the emperor stand shivering with no clothes whatsoever rather than leave him even the thin rag offered by Bazant.
Stupid post like this expose and confirm truthers as the anti-intellectual cult members of a vapor movement. Nothing is too stupid or so nonsensical that is is not considered evidence by the fringe conspiracy theorist thriving on dirt dumb delusions. These insane statements are dishes of fresh brains for the zombies of the movent of delusional lies known as 911truth.

Bazant paper is a model truthers can't understand. 8 years of failed ideas and the best truthers can do is post delusional talk, no substance, just pure nonsense based on nothing.

Heiwa letter will be posted and there will be a rebuttal showing how dirt dumb Heiwa's ideas are, but couched in polite language that truthers and Heiwa will not understand the smack down. It happened before as posted above and it will happen again.

You can't say Bazant model is wrong you have to show it with calculations, something not possible in the delusional world of failed ideas all truthers live in. Got practical engineering skills, any rational thought? not in the truth movement, only 8 years of failure

[alienentity]

If these discusssion papers are not reviewed for scientific validity orior to publication then on what grounds are they published ? I think you are telling porkie pies here Ryan.

Ah, a quick peek reaffirms why I've got BS on ignore.

Since BS is apparently so intrigued with the process, perhaps he/she/it can follow Ryan's advice 'Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.'.....but that would spoil everything, by answering the question. We wouldn't want that, would we? :cool:

[alienentity]

More BS BS 'Bazant was only ever a limiting case in the best of all possible worlds.' LOL

He/She/It has no idea what that sentence means, apparently. I think you'd get more comprehension from a Parrot....'Squawk! 9/11 Was an Inside Job! 9/11 Was an Inside Job! Squawk!
'http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704b2932aec2adf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18490)

[Edx]

It's up here because nobody ever does a search. Seriously, every idea the Truthers have is here, beat to death, and quivering. Try it, you'll find it.

I think thats why someone needs to make a thread or website that contains subject headers with links to various discussion threads. It may have been discussed before but sometimes its very hard to find something specific.

[bill smith]

Ah, a quick peek reaffirms why I've got BS on ignore.

Since BS is apparently so intrigued with the process, perhaps he/she/it can follow Ryan's advice 'Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.'.....but that would spoil everything, by answering the question. We wouldn't want that, would we? :cool:

Yes I've noticed that quite a few of you guys have those faulty 'Ignore' buttons these days. Often ' situationally faulty ' it appears. But no matter.

Nah, Ryan says that they will publish without checking for scientific accuracy. So I would like to know what minimum criteria a scientific Journal like ''The Journal of Engineering Mechanics' might require to publish a technical discussion paper of some importance like this one of Heiwa's. Would good spelling be enough do you think ?

[bill smith]

More BS BS 'Bazant was only ever a limiting case in the best of all possible worlds.' LOL

He/She/It has no idea what that sentence means, apparently. I think you'd get more comprehension from a Parrot....'Squawk! 9/11 Was an Inside Job! 9/11 Was an Inside Job! Squawk!
'http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704b2932aec2adf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18490)

Calm down AE.

[Sabrina]

I think thats why someone needs to make a thread or website that contains subject headers with links to various discussion threads. It may have been discussed before but sometimes its very hard to find something specific.

Trouble with that is, those discussion threads can get quite long and can sometimes derail onto side subjects that are still related to the original post, but also cover other information that might be of interest to someone. Such a website would probably contain literally thousands of entries, and whomever maintains it would have to link to particular posts, not just the thread.

[alienentity]

BS Wanna Cracker? Squawk!http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704b2932aec2adf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18490)

[alienentity]

Even if one has a person on ignore, their posts can be (and often are) quoted by other forum members, thus making them visible anyway.
I do my best to avoid the BS drivel, but it's not 100%.

Tough luck for you. Keep squawking. ;)

[ElMondoHummus]

I think thats why someone needs to make a thread or website that contains subject headers with links to various discussion threads. It may have been discussed before but sometimes its very hard to find something specific.

Trouble with that is, those discussion threads can get quite long and can sometimes derail onto side subjects that are still related to the original post, but also cover other information that might be of interest to someone. Such a website would probably contain literally thousands of entries, and whomever maintains it would have to link to particular posts, not just the thread.

Gravy tried to make a "best of" list of posts and threads, and actually enlisted help from many of us here, but I think the task was too overwhelming. There have been a lot of posts done here, and topics have been redone time and time again. Occasionally I'll go digging for some subject and turn up one of my old posts where I covered something, and said things I just didn't remember. It's hard to keep track of things.

We also have to remember that the "tags" feature is already supposed to help with searches like this. Thing is, those are limited to what, 10 terms or something, and also are not consistently used. Heck, I forget to put them in all too often when I start a thread. So I'm as guilty as anyone else here of making things difficult to search.

But in principle, having an organized list of thread topics - or even a list that just highlights a "Best" thread on a give topic - would be an awesome thing to have. It's just that the amount of work that would have to go into that is probably beyond us hobbyists here. I had considered doing a linking thread limited to just some few topics I thought would be revisited - the Bentham paper and the microsphere argument behind it, any thread discussing the construction of the main towers (and as an ancillary topic, why that means the argument about the inertia of the lower sections arresting the falling floors is a canard), and one or two other minor ones I can't remember - but even that sort of intimidated me (although I am sort of a lazy bastard, I will admit). Organizing the info in this forum would be hellishly difficult; indexing even just "Best Of" threads would be a huge, huge task by itself, and who has the time?

Blech... anyway, man, I'd love to see some sort of index to everything that's been discussed here. But that task is so time consuming that it's beyond me right now. I shouldn't even put wish to text, seeing as how I'm too lazy to do this task myself, and it's hypocritical (not to mention the epitome of lazy) to hope someone else would do it.

[bill smith]

Even if one has a person on ignore, their posts can be (and often are) quoted by other forum members, thus making them visible anyway.
I do my best to avoid the BS drivel, but it's not 100%.

Tough luck for you. Keep squawking. ;)

There's no need to be so defensive AE. I'm sure everybody believes you.

[tfk]

We know how strong it will be too,about as strong as a 30x dilution.


Here is a terrific (& very recent) calibration of exactly how compelling his letter is going to be.

There is a thread over at 911forums that is discussing proper applications of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Heiwa's been dropping gems.

He attempted to do something over there that he virtually never did here: he tried to actually answer a question. Numerically.

A simple question. A trivial question. A high school level "conservation of momentum / conservation of energy" question.

You all can see for yourself exactly why he gave up attempting to give anwers ...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post6769.html#p6769

Hm, funny mass C of 1 kg and velocity 10 m/s collides with stationary funny mass A also of 1 kg and applies its energy 50 J to A. After collision (C is glued to A and accelerates A) both A and C has same velocity 7.07 m/s and move as one mass of 2 kg glued together with energy 50 J.

Now - before collision/glueing together) C had momentum 10 kgm/s. After collision A+C (now one mass of 2 kg) have momentum 14.14 kgm/s (and energy 50J).

Imagine that A+C (2 kg at 7.07 m/s) collides with stationary D (1kg) and forms A+C+D (3kg) proceeding at 5.77 m/s (and 50 J energy). But the momentum is 17.31 kgm/s

And so on. When 100 masses A, C, D ... are glued together they proceed at 1 m/s velocity (50 J energy is still there) and the momentum is 100 kgm/s.

What do we learn from above? Evidently that a mass A of 1 kg moving at 10 m/s has same kinetic energy as a mass X of 100 kg moving at 1 m/s, i.e. 50 J, but that A and X have different momentums; A:s is 10 kgm/s and X:s is 100 kgm/s. It is simple physics. And the glue! It slows things down but adds momentum.


"... the glue adds momentum ..."??!!!

[facepalm]
___

Here was my response to his nonsense:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7084.html#p7084

The pertinent point is at the bottom:


Conservation of momentum is a demonstrated law of the universe. It is NEVER violated. Ever. From subatomic particles, to photons, to Brownian motion, colliding billiard balls, to falling portions of buildings, to colliding galaxies.
...

Heiwa's conclusion that an inelastic collision between a 1 kg, 10 m/s object and a 1kg, 0 m/s object produces a 2 kg, 7.07 m/s object (in order to maintain CoE) gets an "F" grade in freshman physics. It is simply wrong.

Momentum IS conserved. The end result is that you have a 2 kg, 5 m/s object.


Hilarity ensues.
Heiwa came back with the following:


Hm, that was an elastic collision where objects continued at different angles (difference 90°) after collision, where CoM and CE are perfectly conserved. Please, use vectors and you'll understand.


Sure thing, Heiwa.

An "elastic collision"... where "After collision (C is glued to A and accelerates A) both A and C has same velocity 7.07 m/s and move as one mass of 2 kg glued together ..."

As I said above, if Heiwa were in a junior high school physics class, he'd get an "F" with this answer. Heiwa's understanding of this stuff is non-existent.

I don't expect anything different in his ASCE blatherings. It should be amusing.


Tom

PS. Heiwa's rudeness is as abundant as ever. As you can see in this post & the ones following it. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post6909.html#p6909

PPS. Anyone interested in a peek into the deeper origins of the laws of conservation of momentum & energy might find the rest of my post over there interesting. Here's the link again.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7084.html#p7084

PPPS. I can only imagine what BS is gonna say. Someone else explain to him what an "F" grade means, please. Attempting to explain conservation of momentum or energy, for the 100th time, would be a clear case of (literally) pearls before swine, of course.

[Panoply_Prefect]

For the millionth time, this is not a paper. It is a "discussion," viz. a letter to the editor. It is not reviewed for scientific accuracy. The letter is merely a way for the Journal to field confusion about its published works, and to provide the original author (Dr. Bazant) a platform to respond.

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.

Heiwa already knows this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4778696#post4778696), but is either too dense or too dishonest to represent himself accurately.

Old news. Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.

I did do a search, however without proper context it apparently didn't do me much good. It fits howeverwith how Heiwa has been published in regards to another conspiracy theory, that of the ferry Estonia. I wrote about it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4143701&postcount=481).

I thought this time he had actually written an article, not entered a discussion or sent in a letter to the editor. Apparently, and not surprisingly, its not so. I guess when its published it will be Bentham all over again.

[ElMondoHummus]

Here is a terrific (& very recent) calibration of exactly how compelling his letter is going to be.

There is a thread over at 911forums that is discussing proper applications of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Heiwa's been dropping gems.

He attempted to do something over there that he virtually never did here: he tried to actually answer a question. Numerically.

A simple question. A trivial question. A high school level "conservation of momentum / conservation of energy" question.

You all can see for yourself exactly why he gave up attempting to give anwers ...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post6769.html#p6769


"... the glue adds momentum ..."??!!!

[facepalm]
___

Here was my response to his nonsense:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7084.html#p7084

The pertinent point is at the bottom:



Hilarity ensues.
Heiwa came back with the following:



Sure thing, Heiwa.

An "elastic collision"... where "After collision (C is glued to A and accelerates A) both A and C has same velocity 7.07 m/s and move as one mass of 2 kg glued together ..."
(snip)

Why in God's name are they still going on about conservation of momentum of entire blocks? Don't these chowderheads realize that the only energy you need to input is the energy required to break floor connections, and then gravity does the rest? Is that too deep an explanation for them to fathom?

[dtugg]

I just want to let everybody know that back when the insane lying fraud Anders Bjorkman first submitted this letter several months ago, I emailed Dr. Corotis and let him know exactly how crazy Anders is (ie how he compares the WTC to pizza boxes, sponges, sushi, ect.) . He thanked me, and said he would pass it down to the assistant editor editor in charge. I have no doubt that if this letter is ever published that it will include an epic smack down by Bazant and/or others.

[Edx]

Trouble with that is, those discussion threads can get quite long and can sometimes derail onto side subjects that are still related to the original post, but also cover other information that might be of interest to someone. Such a website would probably contain literally thousands of entries, and whomever maintains it would have to link to particular posts, not just the thread.

But what it would mean is if, for example, Ryan gets tired of having to answer the same thing he could just make a post like this in such a thread:

Nano-Thermite:
<links> with short description for each

That way anyone coming for questions on nano thermite that someone like Ryan has already answered can just be directed to that post.

Eventually someone can collect them and just stick them together eventually you'd have loads of links and someone can put them on some kind of website. I just think instead of keep repeating that you have to keep repeating yourself and giving links to people each time they want to know where its been discussed you could just update such a thread. Much easier to keep track of. I mean you give them some links anyway so you obviously had to go look it up, so why not save yourself time next time?

[DGM]

But what it would mean is if, for example, Ryan gets tired of having to answer the same thing he could just make a post like this in such a thread:

Nano-Thermite:
<links> with short description for each

That way anyone coming for questions on nano thermite that someone like Ryan has already answered can just be directed to that post.

Eventually someone can collect them and just stick them together eventually you'd have loads of links and someone can put them on some kind of website. I just think instead of keep repeating that you have to keep repeating yourself and giving links to people each time they want to know where its been discussed you could just update such a thread.
Great Idea! What you waiting for?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes I've noticed that quite a few of you guys have those faulty 'Ignore' buttons these days. Often ' situationally faulty ' it appears.

There's no need to be so defensive AE. I'm sure everybody believes you.

Hypocrite much, Bill?

AlienEntity isn't the one who thinks we're all secretly watching him. You should take your own advice.

[alienentity]

tfk - any discussions with Femr2 about his lateral ejection theories?

[Sunray Breaker]

What the hell is Heiwa's real name? I mean he's obvisously not publishing under the name Heiwa...I barely know a thing about this guy (or girl). Can somebody help a noob out?

[alienentity]

What the hell is Heiwa's real name? I mean he's obvisously not publishing under the name Heiwa...I barely know a thing about this guy (or girl). Can somebody help a noob out?

Anders Bjorkman

[bill smith]

What the hell is Heiwa's real name? I mean he's obvisously not publishing under the name Heiwa...I barely know a thing about this guy (or girl). Can somebody help a noob out?

Anders Bjorkman. Swedish Naval Architect and structural damage analyst.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

PS .Check out the new paper.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anders Bjorkman. Swedish Naval Architect and structural damage analyst.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


He has no training or experience in the field of structural damage analysis, you are lying again, Bill.

But he is a a no-planer:

You have not read properly. As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph and stopped inside the tower on floor 82 within 0.3 seconds. So if jet fuel was burning in the tower, it must have been put there some other way, e.g. using the elevators beforehand transporting it up to floor 82. That's how I would have done it if I were a criminal terrorist carrying out 9/11.

Thanks for your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As you know by now I find it intriguing to speculate about how 9/11 was actually done and my present stand is CD - at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes.

[beachnut]

What the hell is Heiwa's real name? I mean he's obvisously not publishing under the name Heiwa...I barely know a thing about this guy (or girl). Can somebody help a noob out?
He acts like he is bonkers and states you could drop 10 percent of the WTC from 2 miles up and it would not crush the remaining tower. I suspect he lives in a stupor, in a bar, using alcohol to clean from his brain the concept of gravity.

Anders Bjorkman; kids jumping on beds, and lemons are some key analogies he used to support his delusions with only a fringe few anti-intellectual nut case idea believers cheering him on with to new heights of stupidity.

Final Jeopardy ---- A failed engineer who used models of kid jumping on beds, or lemons to back up his moronic WTC collapse theories. ... Who is Anders Bjorkman?

[bill smith]

He has no training or experience in the field of structural damage analysis, you are lying again, Bill.

But he is a a no-planer:

Yes lots of us Truth seekers are in and out of the no-planes camp. Lots of the evidence points that way as strange as it may seem. However we are in no way tied to that theory.

But Heiwa's main theory has to do with the mechanics of the ollapse in which no-planes plays no part. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other for the current argument...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes lots of us Truth seekers are in and out of the no-planes camp.

You lied again. Very few twoofers are in the "no planes" camp. And those that aren't HATE those that are. They think you are working for "them" and trying to make all twoofers look stupid.

Lots of the evidence points that way as strange as it may seem.

Except for that whole laws of physics thing and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.

But Heiwa's main theory has to do with the mechanics of the ollapse in which no-planes plays no part. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other for the current argument...

Except that Bjorkman has no qualifications to perform the work he has done on his "theory". He is like a small child trying to perform brain surgery. You lied when you said he was a "structural damage analyst".

[dafydd]

Yes lots of us Truth seekers are in and out of the no-planes camp. Lots of the evidence points that way as strange as it may seem. However we are in no way tied to that theory.

But Heiwa's main theory has to do with the mechanics of the ollapse in which no-planes plays no part. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other for the current argument...

What theory are you tied to Bill? You continue to troll and never answered my question about what you think happened on 9/11.All you do is yank people's chains.I don't believe that you mean a word of what you say.

[twinstead]

Yup. Regular truthers suspect that people like you, bill, are government plants to make truthers look like idiots. That's not very nice of them, is it?

[dafydd]

Yup. Regular truthers suspect that people like you, bill, are government plants to make truthers look like idiots. That's not very nice of them, is it?

I never thought of that,it makes sense,nobody could be as obtuse as Bill.

[bill smith]

I never thought of that,it makes sense,nobody could be as obtuse as Bill.

You should take that notion a few steps further daffyd....

[dafydd]

You should take that notion a few steps further daffyd....

What? You really will spout any old nonsense,won't you? I have no idea what you mean by that innuendo,nothing as usual I suspect.Still,you got a reaction from me which is what you were trolling for.Mission accomplished Bill,now you can sit back with a self-satisfied smile.

[dafydd]

It's dafydd,by the way.

[bill smith]

You lied again. Very few twoofers are in the "no planes" camp. And those that aren't HATE those that are. They think you are working for "them" and trying to make all twoofers look stupid.


Except for that whole laws of physics thing and the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses.



Except that Bjorkman has no qualifications to perform the work he has done on his "theory". He is like a small child trying to perform brain surgery. You lied when you said he was a "structural damage analyst".
Whether no-planes makes sense or not has little to do with the volume of evidence that points that way. I myself am reluctant to believe in no-planes but I cannot deny that some of the evidence is very persuasive . I could make the readers hair stand up with some of the evidence I can show. But that is for another time.

[bill smith]

It's dafydd,by the way.

Oops...sorry. I am feather-headed sometimes.

[dafydd]

Whether no-planes makes sense or not has little to do with the volume of evidence that points that way. I myself am reluctant to believe in no-planes but I cannot deny that some of the evidence is very persuasive . I could make the readers hair stand up with some of the evidence I can show. But that is for another time.

What a load of bollocks.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oops...sorry. I am feather-headed sometimes.

So much so, that you believe 9/11 was an inside job.

[dafydd]

So much so, that you believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Another reaction bill,another mission accomplished.

[bill smith]

So much so, that you believe 9/11 was an inside job.


Did you notice that Heiwa published his new discussion paper in full on his own website yesterday ? I think he lost patience with the delaying tactics of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics despite their written avowal that they would publish.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm Heiwa new paper
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm Heiwa website

[A W Smith]

Did you notice that Heiwa published his new discussion paper in full on his website yesterday ? I think he lost patience with the delaying tactics of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics despite their written avowal that they would publish.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

Perhaps he hopes Tripod (http://www.tripod.lycos.com/), a free personal web host, will review it for him.

[bardamu]

Yup. Regular truthers suspect that people like you, bill, are government plants to make truthers look like idiots. That's not very nice of them, is it?

Regular truthers woke up then fell back to sleep. No planers have stayed alert.

[dafydd]

Did you notice that Heiwa published his new discussion paper in full on his website yesterday ? I think he lost patience with the delaying tactics of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics despite their written avowal that they would publish.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

They must have read the paper then.There is no need to follow the link,we are all familiar with Heiwa's harebrained ideas.

[A W Smith]

Regular truthers woke up then fell back to sleep. No planers have stayed alert (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder).

I took the trouble to hyperlink how "alert (http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/delusional-disorder)" no planers are in your post.

[dafydd]

Regular truthers woke up then fell back to sleep. No planers have stayed alert insane.

Fixed.

[DGM]

In Heiwa's references

[2] The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January 14, 2009

***Shakes head*****

[bardamu]

Did you notice that Heiwa published his new discussion paper in full on his own website yesterday ? I think he lost patience with the delaying tactics of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics despite their written avowal that they would publish.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm Heiwa new paper
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm Heiwa website

It looks like the delay may have been caused by the original fraudsters:


The below Discussion to Paper was submitted to ASCE - Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and approved for publication 3 June 2009, apparently awaiting a reply by Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, that has not come forward 15 December 2009.The illustrations, figures 1-5, did not form part of the original submission to ASCE-JEM but are added here for easy verification of observations. As ASCE/JEM are delaying publication, I have decided to publish it here today, 15 December, 2009.

[DGM]

It looks like the delay may have been caused by the original fraudsters:
It's a discussion paper. What do you think that means? Judging from your post you again have no clue.

[T.A.M.]

oh noes they are taking time to reply to a kook about kookery.

How bad of them

TAM;)

[dafydd]

It's a discussion paper. What do you think that means? Judging from your post you again have no clue.

Bardamu has no clue! What a surprise!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It looks like the delay may have been caused by the original fraudsters:

Don't you think you should learn basic concepts like what a progressive collapse is before you go about accusing qualified, reputable engineers of fraud just because you don't have a clue what they are talking about?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

oh noes they are taking time to reply to a kook about kookery.

How bad of them

TAM;)

Actually... "You are a @#$%ing idiot, stop bothering me or I'll call the police." shouldn't take much time.

[bill smith]

Actually... "You are a @#$%ing idiot, stop bothering me or I'll call the police." shouldn't take much time.

I think TAM should report you for that.

[A W Smith]

They have to stop laughing before they respond.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think TAM should report you for that.

Why would TAM report me for calling someone who is not a JREF forum member a "@#$%ing idiot"?

[bill smith]

Why would TAM report me for calling someone who is not a JREF forum member a "@#$%ing idiot"?

You are calling TAM a bad name and saying that it will take no time to call the police if he continues bothering you....Clearly. Read it again yourself.

'' Actually... "You are a @#$%ing idiot, stop bothering me or I'll call the police." shouldn't take much time. ''

[Redtail]

You are calling TAM a bad name and saying that it will take no time to call the police if he continues bothering you....Clearly. Read it again yourself.

'' Actually... "You are a @#$%ing idiot, stop bothering me or I'll call the police." shouldn't take much time. ''
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

It's pretty sad when we have to explain things like this to people.

[dtugg]

No way bs is actually that dumb. Right?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No way bs is actually that dumb. Right?

I'll answer that question when Bill is no longer a JREF forum member. ;)

[Furcifer]

But he is a a no-planer:

As much as it pains me to say so, I'm pretty sure that's a typical Bjorkman-English translation error or simple typo. I think it should read "...and not planes"

Then again, without the constant schooling he got here, he's probably slipping further into delusion.

[tfk]

tfk - any discussions with Femr2 about his lateral ejection theories?

Not yet...

BY DEFINITION, that one's gonna be a pretty improbable event, based purely on "outlier statistics". Which most truthers don't accept anyway.

While most of the locations for the external columns can be laid at the feet of "immensely tall sheets peeling away & tilting outward" (perhaps aided, just a touch, by 400 - 600 mph winds. Ya think?), there is also no doubt that some pieces can not be explained by this. Truthers focus on the small percent that get hurled outward, and in a few cases, with a bit of upward initial velocity component.

But what they are automatically doing is focusing on the outliers. The ones that have separated themselves from the pack by virtue of their initial speed. Because those are the only ones that you can pick out to analyze.

The "average velocity" examples are all lost in the debris cloud.

The massive error is treating those outliers as tho they are typical.

This process is the result of pure random chance & statistical variation of a bunch of collisions. Truthers want a deterministic explanation, since they don't really believe in random events. Everything is planned & controlled.

So, they look at you and say "how likely is it that a beam WOULD HAVE BEEN thrown that far?" And I answer "very unlikely".

And they say, "AHA!"

And I say "So?"

And they say "AHA!"

And I say "So?"

And you sit there and stare at each other...

This really is identical to creationist who don't believe in random variation being able to explain evolution. "It HAD to be guided along, because it's so improbable."

Yep, it IS improbable. Yep, any deterministic explanation is going to rely on a highly unlikely sequence of events.

And, yup, take ANY bunch of statistically random events, and examine only the outliers, and you'll convince yourself that we live in a magical world with really weird properties.

Tom

[GlennB]

It looks like the delay may have been caused by the original fraudsters:

Seeing as how Heiwa can't perform the simplest of conservation-of-momentum calculations, perhaps they haven't stopped laughing long enough to reply?

[tfk]

Why in God's name are they still going on about conservation of momentum of entire blocks? Don't these chowderheads realize that the only energy you need to input is the energy required to break floor connections, and then gravity does the rest? Is that too deep an explanation for them to fathom?

Aren't you forgetting "dustification"? And "vaporizing" of giant steel beams? And heating everything up to "pyroclastic" temperatures? (But then cooling it down before it par-boils all of lower Manhattan.)

Plus, you've gotta consider all the energy it took to run those "smoke generators"...

:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, those guys are trying to learn the real stuff, and are trying to keep the WTC collapse out of it. Heiwa is the only one who keeps throwing in his "1/10th part C crushes 9/10th part A" Rainman Rap.

I've got zero problem with anyone trying to learn the real concepts. A little understanding might help them.

Unfortunately, we've all seen guys claim to do that before, only to return with their ignorance intact, but a spiffy new vocabulary to impress other neophytes.

Tom

[Dave Rogers]

You all can see for yourself exactly why he gave up attempting to give anwers ...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post6769.html#p6769

Hm, funny mass C of 1 kg and velocity 10 m/s collides with stationary funny mass A also of 1 kg and applies its energy 50 J to A. After collision (C is glued to A and accelerates A) both A and C has same velocity 7.07 m/s and move as one mass of 2 kg glued together with energy 50 J.

Now - before collision/glueing together) C had momentum 10 kgm/s. After collision A+C (now one mass of 2 kg) have momentum 14.14 kgm/s (and energy 50J).

Imagine that A+C (2 kg at 7.07 m/s) collides with stationary D (1kg) and forms A+C+D (3kg) proceeding at 5.77 m/s (and 50 J energy). But the momentum is 17.31 kgm/s

And so on. When 100 masses A, C, D ... are glued together they proceed at 1 m/s velocity (50 J energy is still there) and the momentum is 100 kgm/s.

What do we learn from above? Evidently that a mass A of 1 kg moving at 10 m/s has same kinetic energy as a mass X of 100 kg moving at 1 m/s, i.e. 50 J, but that A and X have different momentums; A:s is 10 kgm/s and X:s is 100 kgm/s. It is simple physics. And the glue! It slows things down but adds momentum.


"... the glue adds momentum ..."??!!!

[facepalm]


Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.

Dave

ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?

[bill smith]

Quiet isn't it ? No refutations of Heiwa's new paper... No first impressions or anything. It's like a bunch of rabid dogs ignoring a juicy bone. Why ? Is the bone too dangerous or something ?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

[GlennB]

His letter contains 23 "!"s. This alone shows him to be scientifically illiterate.

Oh, and his website is still illegal (as has been pointed out to him several times). What does this say about his attitude to "truth"?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Quiet isn't it ? No refutations of Heiwa's new paper... No first impressions or anything. It's like a bunch of rabid dogs ignoring a juicy bone. Why ? Is the bone too dangerous or something ?

Bjorkman is a @#$%ing idiot. If they respond to him, they'll have to respond to every moron who claims he has a perpetual motion machine or that the earth is flat.

[dafydd]

Quiet isn't it ? No refutations of Heiwa's new paper... No first impressions or anything. It's like a bunch of rabid dogs ignoring a juicy bone. Why ? Is the bone too dangerous or something ?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

Listen people,can you hear an irritating little tick in the background?

[bill smith]

Listen people,can you hear an irritating little tick in the background?

There you are dafydd, my favourite bad groupie. I wish RM would get on with his deconstruction of Heiwa's new work. Bazant could do with a few tips I think.

[Furcifer]

I wish RM would get on with his deconstruction of Heiwa's new work.

I don't. I hope he let's it stand for readers of AsCE to refute. I think we should all keep silent and wait for it to be published just so the scientific community sees how stark raving mad Anders is. Why should we get all the fun?

[bill smith]

I don't. I hope he let's it stand for readers of AsCE to refute. I think we should all keep silent and wait for it to be published just so the scientific community sees how stark raving mad Anders is. Why should we get all the fun?

Yes I suppose that would probably be the best thing for you guys to do [wink].

[Furcifer]

Yes I suppose that would probably be the best thing for you guys to do [wink].

Not just us "guys", there's women, small children, that monkey that knows sign language, cats, most breeds of dog, birds, dolphins, lab rats, turtles and a pair of fuzzy slippers I got last Christmas.

[dafydd]

There you are dafydd, my favourite bad groupie. I wish RM would get on with his deconstruction of Heiwa's new work. Bazant could do with a few tips I think.

Groupie lol,you should be so lucky.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There you are dafydd, my favourite bad groupie.

I think dafydd should report you for sexual harassment.

/sarc

[dafydd]

Don't worry,it's just bill talking though her ******** again just to provoke a reaction.

[bill smith]

Don't worry,it's just bill talking though her ******** again just to provoke a reaction.

8 stars ? Whatever part of my anatomy can dafydd be referring to ?

[A W Smith]

8 stars ? Whatever part of my anatomy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=man-gina) can dafydd be referring to ?


must be including the dash

[Newtons Bit]

Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.

Dave

ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?

Energy is conserved Dave. Just not kinetic energy. That's the mistake that Ross made. ;)

[rwguinn]

Don't worry,it's just bill talking though her ******** again just to provoke a reaction.
By the way, dafydd--is it true you are the best English bowman alive? (if your handle is from what I think it is, you will know the proper response)

[W.D.Clinger]

Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.
Yep. He thinks kinetic energy is preserved by an inelastic collision, but momentum is not.
ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?
Two respondents took him to task within 40 minutes of the post tfk quoted. Just over an hour after his original post, Heiwa shattered any remaining doubts about his cluelessness by writing:
Evidently my glue collisions are not elastic collisions and that's why the law of momentum conservation does not apply.
A few hours later, Heiwa declared (emphasis in the original):
Anyway - CoM is only applicable to elastic collisions between two masses C and A and the final result can never be that C and A have same velocity/direction afterwards. They always separate = velocities differ and kinetic energy and momentum are constant.
In an inelastic collision, whatever that can be (the objects are being destroyed or glued together?) CoM is not applicable and kinetic energy applied may be 'lost' as heat, etc.
He was still at it four days later:
Evidently C-O-M doesn't apply in inelastic collisions when both objects are arrested.
After reading all that, I had becomed sufficiently amused to skim through his "discussion" of the paper by Bazant et al, where I learned of his aversion to differential equations. From http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm :
There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations....
....Differential equations are not really required!....
You do not need differential equations to calculate this. Simple math suffices!
If JEM is publishing this, it's for the comic relief.

Will

[Horatius]

....they'll have to respond to every moron who claims he has a perpetual motion machine ...



That's actually part of my job! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner#Duties)

;)

[Slayhamlet]

That's actually part of my job! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner#Duties)

;)

Do you actually get those?

[Horatius]

Do you actually get those?



As an office we do. Personally, I mostly see people still trying to produce Cold Fusion, which is slightly less bonkers, but still pretty bonkers.

We also see a lot of "free energy" devices that try to get energy out of permanent magnets, which is a disguised form of perpetual motion.

[Slayhamlet]

As an office we do. Personally, I mostly see people still trying to produce Cold Fusion, which is slightly less bonkers, but still pretty bonkers.

We also see a lot of "free energy" devices that try to get energy out of permanent magnets, which is a disguised form of perpetual motion.

Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?

Are self-lubricating vibrators considered to have no real world applications?

[Horatius]

Out of all the patent applications you get, what percentage of them do you consider to be totally bonkers? As in there being no chance of a real world application of the device?


Actually, it's a very small percentage. But they're the ones that stand out!

There are also many ideas that would work, but which no one would ever let you do. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6342650)


Yes, that's one I examined, when it showed up in Canada.


Are self-lubricating vibrators considered to have no real world applications?


It would depend on the jurisdiction. Canada used to have a prohibition on patents to inventions that were of an "immoral" character, but that was eliminated with the New Act we operate under currently. Other countries might still have such* limits.




*Originally typoed as "suck". Make of that what you will! ;)

[alienentity]

Strangely the topic you've strayed to is equally relevant to the WTC collapses as anything Heiwa's written. The dust was probably created by excessive vibration, after all..

[Bluesky]

If these discusssion papers are not reviewed for scientific validity orior to publication then on what grounds are they published ? I think you are telling porkie pies here Ryan.

If Bill had any idea about publishing technical papers she wouldnt make such statements.

Yet Bill is now the main proponent of Trutherian Logic on this whole forum.

[jaydeehess]

.............
And, yup, take ANY bunch of statistically random events, and examine only the outliers, and you'll convince yourself that we live in a magical world with really weird properties.

Tom

I was a tech on a weather station in the Arctic and one day the radio operator reported he had lost the use of a piece of equipment. A audio frequency signal went along a buried line to the transmitter building a few hundred feet away. I found that the static discharge block on that line, in the radio room, was burned out. We get a lot of static in the dry air there. I replaced it and it still did not work so I went out to the transmitter building and again there, the static discharge block on the signal line was also blown.

How can this occur? Statistically its nigh on impossible since once one of those blocks burned out the current should stop (the current certainly did not originate in the middle of the buried line) and the line should not be a sufficiently large capacitor to store enough charge to blow out the block at the other end.

[jaydeehess]

Good grief. I knew he was fairly stupid, but this surpasses everything. He thinks energy is conserved in an inelastic collision, and calls himself an expert. I simply don't have any words to describe how stupid and arrogant that is. If somebody hasn't Stundied this yet, I'm nominating it myself.

Dave

ETA: It's just sunk in that the thread this comes from is one on what claims to be a serious scientific forum, discussing whether and why momentum is conserved in an inelastic collision. Were the participants asleep in high school physics lessons?

mass C of 1 kg and velocity 10 m/s collides with stationary funny mass A also of 1 kg and applies its energy 50 J to A. After collision (C is glued to A and accelerates A) both A and C has same velocity 7.07 m/s and move as one mass of 2 kg glued together with energy 50 J.


WOW!!

Not according to every physics textbook I have ever seen(nor my grade 12 physics teacher)

Perhaps Issac Newton's ghost will speak to Heiwa this Christmas.

[dafydd]

By the way, dafydd--is it true you are the best English bowman alive? (if your handle is from what I think it is, you will know the proper response)

Oh,the Welsh were always the best bowmen.

[tfk]

dafy,

There you are dafydd, my favourite bad groupie.


This is billy's favorite game. Anyone who starts pummeling him about the head & shoulders get conscripted into his imaginary list of "bill's groupies".

He's got a very, uh, "fertile" imagination.


I wish RM would get on with his deconstruction of Heiwa's new work. Bazant could do with a few tips I think.


Bill, who cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide accurately...

Bill, who cannot distinguish a comical fraud (Heiwa) from a stellar engineer like Bazant ...

Let me help, bill.

By the numbers...
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/resume.pdf
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm


Achievement| Bazant | Bjorkman
Degree| PhD, Engineering Mechanics. Postgrad: Theoretical Physics| M.Sc. Naval Architecture
Profession| Professor, Chair, Civil Engineering, Northwestern University| Maritime insurance assessor
National Academy elections| 8| 0
Professional License| Registered structural engineer| None
Honorary Doctorates| 6| 0
Engineering Awards & Prizes| 21| 0
Public Policy Contributions|5| 0
Rank in "Most Cited Scientist"| Top 100|Never heard of him
Number of citations| (>9300)| 0
Textbooks| 6| 0
Books edited w/ chapters contributed| 20| 0
Articles and Research Review Articles| 51| 0
Research Articles in Refereed Journals and Book Chapters| 484| 0
Published Biographies and Volumes Dedications| 9| 0
Research Articles in Conference Proceedings| 208| 0
"Other" publications|unknown|"Many articles". 5 listed.
You really know how to pick 'em, billy.

Feel free to check with your idol, Heiwa. I wouldn't want to short change him if any of those "0"s really ought to be "1"s.

I mean, that would REALLY change things ...!

Bill - showing precisely the same amount of respect to a distinguished engineer & educator as he constantly shows to the victims of 9/11: "None".


Tom

PS. You may want to let Anders know that none of Word, Excel, Gifts, AutoCAD, or Corel Draw are "computer languages". Just a thought...

[dafydd]

dafy,This is billy's favorite game. Anyone who starts pummeling him about the head & shoulders get conscripted into his imaginary list of "bill's groupies".

I just think that bill is very funny in a pathetic,unintentional way.Don't take seriously anything dear bumbling bill says. ''You're so vain(bill),you probably think this song is about you......''

[bill smith]

I just think that bill is very funny in a pathetic,unintentional way.Don't take seriously anything dear bumbling bill says. ''You're so vain(bill),you probably think this song is about you......''

Tfk, as you may have gathered is also a bad groupie of mine. A very old one in more ways than one You'll have to sort out the ranking between yourselves.

'The way I see it if you are not groupies of mine then you will not spend so much time following me around and talking about me.

[bill smith]

dafy,



This is billy's favorite game. Anyone who starts pummeling him about the head & shoulders get conscripted into his imaginary list of "bill's groupies".

He's got a very, uh, "fertile" imagination.



Bill, who cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide accurately...

Bill, who cannot distinguish a comical fraud (Heiwa) from a stellar engineer like Bazant ...

Let me help, bill.

By the numbers...
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/resume.pdf
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm


Achievement| Bazant | Bjorkman
Degree| PhD, Engineering Mechanics. Postgrad: Theoretical Physics| M.Sc. Naval Architecture
Profession| Professor, Chair, Civil Engineering, Northwestern University| Maritime insurance assessor
National Academy elections| 8| 0
Professional License| Registered structural engineer| None
Honorary Doctorates| 6| 0
Engineering Awards & Prizes| 21| 0
Public Policy Contributions|5| 0
Rank in "Most Cited Scientist"| Top 100|Never heard of him
Number of citations| (>9300)| 0
Textbooks| 6| 0
Books edited w/ chapters contributed| 20| 0
Articles and Research Review Articles| 51| 0
Research Articles in Refereed Journals and Book Chapters| 484| 0
Published Biographies and Volumes Dedications| 9| 0
Research Articles in Conference Proceedings| 208| 0
"Other" publications|unknown|"Many articles". 5 listed.
You really know how to pick 'em, billy.

Feel free to check with your idol, Heiwa. I wouldn't want to short change him if any of those "0"s really ought to be "1"s.

I mean, that would REALLY change things ...!

Bill - showing precisely the same amount of respect to a distinguished engineer & educator as he constantly shows to the victims of 9/11: "None".


Tom

PS. You may want to let Anders know that none of Word, Excel, Gifts, AutoCAD, or Corel Draw are "computer languages". Just a thought...

What about tackling his new paper T. ? Especially the compaction part.I believe you had some strong views on that before that you did not fully explain despite repeated requests from Heiwa.

[beachnut]

.
Achievement| Bazant | Bjorkman
Degree| PhD, Engineering Mechanics. Postgrad: Theoretical Physics| M.Sc. Naval Architecture
Profession| Professor, Chair, Civil Engineering, Northwestern University| Maritime insurance assessor
National Academy elections| 8| 0
Professional License| Registered structural engineer| None
Honorary Doctorates| 6| 0
Engineering Awards & Prizes| 21| 0
Public Policy Contributions|5| 0
Rank in "Most Cited Scientist"| Top 100|Never heard of him
Number of citations| (>9300)| 0
Textbooks| 6| 0
Books edited w/ chapters contributed| 20| 0
Articles and Research Review Articles| 51| 0
Research Articles in Refereed Journals and Book Chapters| 484| 0
Published Biographies and Volumes Dedications| 9| 0
Research Articles in Conference Proceedings| 208| 0
"Other" publications|unknown|"Many articles". 5 listed.
...
Poor Heiwa's has his ideas posted on the Internet for all to see his incredible failure and delusions.

[dafydd]

Tfk, as you may have gathered is also a bad groupie of mine. A very old one in more ways than one You'll have to sort out the ranking between yourselves.

'The way I see it if you are not groupies of mine then you will not spend so much time following me around and talking about me.

There's a difference between laughing with you,and pissing ourselves laughing at you,but you are too obtuse to see that.

[BadBoy]

PS. You may want to let Anders know that none of Word, Excel, Gifts, AutoCAD, or Corel Draw are "computer languages". Just a thought...
This is funny. His CV stinks of being overinflated, and then he puts down his list of "computer languages". I'm not sure I'd want him doing health and safety on my ship...

This was interesting too:

Mr Björkman is one of the most outspoken critics of the Estonia accident investigation 1994-1997, which is still debated 2008.

Seems he's no stranger to contraversy. I love the way he talks about himself in the thrid person on his own CV.

I took a moment to check out his website. To me it appears the quality of the website design doesnt fit the high powered corporate image hes trying to establish. (looks like he knocked it out himself to be honest). I do wonder if Heiwa Co is actually a one man band.

[dafydd]

This is funny. His CV stinks of being overinflated, and then he puts down his list of "computer languages". I'm not sure I'd want him doing health and safety on my ship...

This was interesting too:



Seems he's no stranger to contraversy. I love the way he talks about himself in the thrid person on his own CV.

I took a moment to check out his website. To me it appears the quality of the website design doesnt fit the high powered corporate image hes trying to establish. (looks like he knocked it out himself to be honest). I do wonder if Heiwa Co is actually a one man band.

Operating from an internet cafe.

[GlennB]

I do wonder if Heiwa Co is actually a one man band.

Bjorkman is retired by his own admission.

His "Heiwa Co" address is a 2 or 3 bed apartment in a 2 or 3-storey residential block, in a dormitory town outside Monaco. His CV and other guff are published on a free hobbyist website. I'd bet that if you phoned his number it wouldn't be a secretary answering.

The EU have agreed that his use of the phrase "European Agency for ...." plus the EU emblem is illegal. I strongly suspect they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

I fear Bjorkman is just a sad but obsessive loser.

[Dave Rogers]

Energy is conserved Dave. Just not kinetic energy. That's the mistake that Ross made. ;)

Yes, my bad. My terminology gets a little loose when I'm confronted with staggering idiocy; put it down to shock. It seems, from some of Heiwa's other quotes, that he doesn't understand that conservation of kinetic energy and conservation of momentum are different things, and that he thinks that momentum is only conserved in an elastic collision. For somebody who claims to be an expert, very specifically, on inelastic collisions, that's unforgivable.

Dave

[BadBoy]

Bjorkman is retired by his own admission.

His "Heiwa Co" address is a 2 or 3 bed apartment in a 2 or 3-storey residential block, in a dormitory town outside Monaco. His CV and other guff are published on a free hobbyist website. I'd bet that if you phoned his number it wouldn't be a secretary answering.

The EU have agreed that his use of the phrase "European Agency for ...." plus the EU emblem is illegal. I strongly suspect they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

I fear Bjorkman is just a sad but obsessive loser.
Cripes, I nearly feel sorry for him.... though Im sure he wouldnt want me to.

[dafydd]

Sometimes I feel a bit guilty about mocking the afflicted.

[Panoply_Prefect]

It appears that Bazant has replied to Heiwas original letter. Not sure when its scheduled for publication though.

[Dave Rogers]

It appears that Bazant has replied to Heiwas original letter. Not sure when its scheduled for publication though.

Now there's a letter I can't wait to read. From Bazant's prior record of replying to idiots, he's unlikely to pull any punches.

Dave

[Lennart Hyland]

It appears that Bazant has replied to Heiwas original letter. Not sure when its scheduled for publication though.

Oh yes finally! I cant wait to read it!

[Panoply_Prefect]

He has published it here:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

Apparently its scheduled for publishing in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM with a closure from Bazant.

[carlitos]

I just skimmed it. That 'closure' is going to be good I bet.

[BasqueArch]

He has published it here:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm

Apparently its scheduled for publishing in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM with a closure from Bazant.


After you remove Heiwa's 27 exclamation points, the upper part of the paper crushes the lower part.

"There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.

.....
Fig. 4 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth! If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply destroyed."

....... and so on.


Guess what! ... I gotta fevah! ... and the only prescription is more exclamationpoints!


==================================================

You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason him out of something he was not reasoned into - Nutso Swift

[WilliamSeger]

Not sure when its scheduled for publication though.

My guess: April 1.

[bill smith]

After you remove Heiwa's 27 exclamation points, the upper part of the paper crushes the lower part.

"There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.

.....
Fig. 4 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth! If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply destroyed."

....... and so on.


Guess what! ... I gotta fevah! ... and the only prescription is more exclamationpoints!


==================================================

You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason him out of something he was not reasoned into - Nutso Swift

I am genuinely curious to see Bazant's answer. I think Heiwa's paper is a good one. I can't imagine how Bazant can convincingly set it aside.

[DGM]

I am genuinely curious to see Bazant's answer. I think Heiwa's paper is a good one. I can't imagine how Bazant can convincingly set it aside.
You wouldn't. You don't understand the paper that Heiwa is criticizing.

One side effect of all of this is "the missing jolt" paper will now be scrutinized by the people that Tony's has avoided showing.

[Galileo]

Hardy, har, har.

The anti-science crowd at JREF is perturded!

[bill smith]

You wouldn't. You don't understand the paper that Heiwa is criticizing.

One side effect of all of this is "the missing jolt" paper will now be scrutinized by the people that Tony's has avoided showing.

As long as it results in constructive criticim so much the better. If a theory can be broken let it be decisively broken. It makes moving on easier all round.

But that's if....

[BasqueArch]

Posted by Heiwa
... It seems Bazant uses 1960's assumptions, as when he was designing bridges in CSSR, the latter collapsing around 1989/90 (and never very stable).

Bazant is now retired. Cannot the NWO clowns get some better brain to explain this one-way crush down of little C of big A? "

Posted by Basquearch 5-21-2009

Are you saying that Bazant designed bridges that collapsed?
Provide references. - No Answer


Heiwa Asks Bazant To Step Outside.

with his seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA3WxjplKzo

================================================== =

You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason him out of something he was not reasoned into - Nutso Swift

[tfk]

deleted (already answered).

[Telltale Tom]

Great,
I hope Heiwa brings lots of petitions. It would be a great place to get some engineers to sign up.

[Dave Rogers]

Great,
I hope Heiwa brings lots of petitions. It would be a great place to get some engineers to sign up.

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread? We're talking about a magazine article here. Try to keep up.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Personally I am hoping it is something like

ur not 3733t. U call that science? ROFLMAO. Pointing and laughing. Or maybe a screencapture of nelson from the simpsons going "ha ha."

But then again, Bazant is a real scientist, so I expect this to be an epic beatdown...

[Panoply_Prefect]

Heiwa also claims his "scientific paper" has been peer-reviewed. But as R.Mackey writes in the beginning of this thread:


For the millionth time, this is not a paper. It is a "discussion," viz. a letter to the editor. It is not reviewed for scientific accuracy. The letter is merely a way for the Journal to field confusion about its published works, and to provide the original author (Dr. Bazant) a platform to respond.

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.


I somehow doubt it.

[Panoply_Prefect]

For the millionth time, this is not a paper. It is a "discussion," viz. a letter to the editor. It is not reviewed for scientific accuracy. The letter is merely a way for the Journal to field confusion about its published works, and to provide the original author (Dr. Bazant) a platform to respond.

This is not the only time this has happened. See, for instance, the letter from Frank Gourley that ACSE "published," along with Dr. Bazant's rather scathing response.

Heiwa already knows this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4778696#post4778696), but is either too dense or too dishonest to represent himself accurately.

Old news. Anyone who wants to verify this for themselves, you should contact Dr. Corotis, the editor in question.


Since Heiwa recently claimed he has been asked to do peer-reviewing (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858760&postcount=39) for the ASCE, I actually wrote Dr Corotis. I got the following reply:


Mr. Bjorkman does not have a peer-reviewed paper being published by the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

He wrote a discussion of a paper that was published, and his discussion and
the author's closure will be published together. They are scheduled to
appear in the July issue. It is true that discussions and closure's are
sent to a reviewer to ensure that they do not contain offensive comments,
blatant commercialism or other inappropriate content.

I do not know of any peer reviewing that Mr. Bjorkman has been asked to do.

Ross Corotis, Editor
Journal of Engineering Mechanics

[grandmastershek]

meh...all it proves is that yet again a truther "scholar" is trying to make his ramblings appear valid in the legitimate academic community.

[BasqueArch]

dafy,

<snip>

Tom

PS. You may want to let Anders know that none of Word, Excel, Gifts, AutoCAD, or Corel Draw are "computer languages". Just a thought...

Thank you Tom.
Nor is “Heiwa’s Axiom” an axiom. An axiom (or postulate) in Physics , Logic or Mathematics is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident, and its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. In physics for example, one axiom is that the laws of physics apply equally and everywhere in the universe. (thank you Dr.Faust-high school physics teacher)

Euclidian geometry axioms/postulates :
“The Elements also include the following five "common notions":
1. Things that equal the same thing also equal one another.
2. If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.
3. If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.
4. Things that coincide with one another equal one another.
5. The whole is greater than the part.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_postulates#Axioms


Heiwa meant a “Law” such as Kepler's Laws. But it’s not a Law either, it’s a hypothesis. And since it has been disproved (Verinage demolition) it’s now a false hypothesis. This is evidence of a sloppy, uneducated mind in the pertinent field.

Therefore the proper term is “Heiwa’s Folly”.

[grandmastershek]

Tfk, as you may have gathered is also a bad groupie of mine. A very old one in more ways than one You'll have to sort out the ranking between yourselves.

'The way I see it if you are not groupies of mine then you will not spend so much time following me around and talking about me.

people also spend a lot of time talking about paris hilton. just something you may want to consider.

[The Almond]

Since Heiwa recently claimed he has been asked to do peer-reviewing (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858760&postcount=39) for the ASCE, I actually wrote Dr Corotis. I got the following reply:
Just as a side note, whenever you submit a paper to many (if not most) journals, you're asked if you wouldn't mind being a reviewer. If you meet an editor of a journal, as soon as you identify that you have even mildly relevant expertise, you're asked to be a reviewer. Finding good reviewers is hard, and getting them to review papers in a timely manner is even harder, but most editors take the "more is better" route with reviewers. I've actually been asked to review papers for journals for which my own publication was rejected.

Frankly, it would be more impressive if Heiwa were use his credentials in the Colgate Cavity Patrol.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Just as a side note, whenever you submit a paper to many (if not most) journals, you're asked if you wouldn't mind being a reviewer. If you meet an editor of a journal, as soon as you identify that you have even mildly relevant expertise, you're asked to be a reviewer. Finding good reviewers is hard, and getting them to review papers in a timely manner is even harder, but most editors take the "more is better" route with reviewers. I've actually been asked to review papers for journals for which my own publication was rejected.

Frankly, it would be more impressive if Heiwa were use his credentials in the Colgate Cavity Patrol.

Here is the request he got (he posted it himself):


From: "Journal of Engineering Mechanics" <Journal-Submissions1@asce.org>
To: <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: Decision on Manuscript MS EMENG-296


Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's
Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

In addition, our editors have requested that authors of accepted
manuscripts serve as reviewers for Journal of Engineering Mechanics. If
you are willing to serve as a reviewer, please reply to this email and let
me know.

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been
schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering
Mechanics.


Is literarely a standard reply, everyone getting a text published is asked, but when I pointed this out to Heiwa, he tried claim it wasn't since it was mailed to him personally, and thus a personal request, not a standard one.

[ElMondoHummus]

Here is the request he got (he posted it himself):



Is literarely a standard reply, everyone getting a text published is asked, but when I pointed this out to Heiwa, he tried claim it wasn't since it was mailed to him personally, and thus a personal request, not a standard one.

OMG... http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/Smiley-Facepalm.gif

[The Almond]

Here is the request he got (he posted it himself):



Is literarely a standard reply, everyone getting a text published is asked, but when I pointed this out to Heiwa, he tried claim it wasn't since it was mailed to him personally, and thus a personal request, not a standard one.

Indeed, one day I hope to meet Mr/Ms/Dr/Prof Journal-Submissions1. He/She sounds like a really personable person. I've heard his/her brother/sister Journal-Submissions2 is a real jerk, though.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Indeed, one day I hope to meet Mr/Ms/Dr/Prof Journal-Submissions1. He/She sounds like a really personable person. I've heard his/her brother/sister Journal-Submissions2 is a real jerk, though.

Well, to be fair, Mrs Parresol who had to put up with my mails, has been most helpful.

Does anyone have the magasine in question btw? Heiwas reply (or "scientific Discussion of Paper" as he calls it now) and Bazants closure is scheduled for the july issue.

I'd like to read it.

[bje]

Heiwa resurfaced yesterday as a new member of ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread561353/pg6#pid8670491

[LightinDarkness]

Heiwa resurfaced yesterday as a new member of ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread561353/pg6#pid8670491

Note that he is STILL calling it his 'article' giving it the impression that its peer reviewed, even though he knows its not. The ATS woos will eat it up though.

Thankfully, someone replied and stated it was just a letter to the editor (do we have any JREF members that post over there)?

[Audible Click]

Heiwa is a liar who so is anxious for anyone to take him seriously that he'll posit the most absurd theory about the collapse of the towers and argue it no matter what facts prove him wrong. The Twoofers are welcome to him and I hope Bazant eats his lunch.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/266624bd8b3f0a7c7e.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19831)

[Panoply_Prefect]

If anyone remember Heiwas 1M dollar offer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4520603#post4520603) (which he subsequently backed out of, claiming it was "a 1M chinese dollar bill from 1947"), now he's gone public with a €10,000 offer:


It is assumed by US authorities and institutes of learning of many kinds that a structure A will be crushed by gravity, if you drop a piece C (C = 1/10th of A) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it ... and win Euro 10 000:-!


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm

And yes, although he has left this building, he is still busy on others peddling the same "challenge", with the same dodging manoevers.

[The Almond]

Well, to be fair, Mrs Parresol who had to put up with my mails, has been most helpful.

Does anyone have the magasine in question btw? Heiwas reply (or "scientific Discussion of Paper" as he calls it now) and Bazants closure is scheduled for the july issue.

I'd like to read it.

ASCE Structures and ASCE Materials are very common, even in larger public libraries. You should at least be able to get a copy through inter library loan. You could also bring 75 c in change to a university library and just make a copy of the article.

My group has a subscription, but I don't think I can post copyrighted materials.

[Panoply_Prefect]

ASCE Structures and ASCE Materials are very common, even in larger public libraries. You should at least be able to get a copy through inter library loan. You could also bring 75 c in change to a university library and just make a copy of the article.

My group has a subscription, but I don't think I can post copyrighted materials.

I'll see if any library here in Sweden carries it. Pity they dont do online publishing. For free...

[The Almond]

I'll see if any library here in Sweden carries it. Pity they dont do online publishing. For free...

Ahh...Sorry about not reading your location. Your English is so good, I assumed you were a native speaker located in a native country. Your best bet is probably a university library. Since ASCE Structures is a highly respected, international publication, I still think it won't be too hard to find it.

[Seymour Butz]

Thankfully, someone replied and stated it was just a letter to the editor (do we have any JREF members that post over there)?

:D

[newton3376]

:D

lol

I have posted over there too a few times.....

It's difficult though because even just the name of the forum gives me heartburn....

"Above" top secret?

What is "above" top secret?

Sigh

[fitzgibbon]

:D

:D:D

I posted in their 9/11 forum but the stupid just got to be too much. Now I stick to debunking wackjobs who think I'm a closet Satanist

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Heiwa resurfaced yesterday as a new member of ATS:


He has also dipped more than his toe in the cesspit that is Argue With Everyone.

As a newbie I cannot yet post link, but he is to be found in the thread in the September 11th section, entitled "No structure can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down" ... around page 42 onwards.

How the mighty have fallen ... oh! dear, how sad, never mind ... ;)

[Panoply_Prefect]

This is supposedly the link to Bazant et al's closure:

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JENMDT000136000007000934000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal

I can't check, since you have to be a subscriber.

It's also listed here:

http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=136&Issue=7#MAJOR3

and here:

http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&smode=strresults&maxdisp=25&possible1=Le,+Jia-Liang&possible1zone=author&OUTLOG=NO&aqs=true&viewabs=JENMDT&key=DISPLAY&docID=1&page=0&chapter=0&aqs=true

EDIT: Apparently its available for $30. A bit to hefty for me.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bazant closure can be found here:

https://www.flashback.org/sp23801239

[Sam.I.Am]

Groundless, incorrect, prove nothing, absurd, erroneous, delusion, his point is meaningless and so on.

Bazant probably broke his Thesaurus software trying to not repeat the word "Wrong" over and over and over again.

[Panoply_Prefect]

And here is Heiwas continuation of the Closure...

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm

[Wolrab]

I am astonished, astonished I tell you, that Heiwa doesn't accept Bazant's arguments.:rolleyes:

[Mr.Herbert]

..no meaningful mechanics
..groundless
..absurd
..erroneous
..a delusion
.. unrealistic
..his point is meaningless



:dl:

[GlennB]

And here is Heiwas continuation of the Closure...

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm

I notice he's still breaking European law ;)

[Panoply_Prefect]

Its particularly interesting how he presents his text(s):


The below Closure has been published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, July 2010 as comments to the A Björkman discussion paper published at the same time.


He has several times tried to present his comment (which it in fact is) to the Bazant et al peer-reviewed paper, as a peer-reviewed paper itself.

Now he's trying to spin it so that Bazants closure looks like a comment to his own text.

Truthers.

[LightinDarkness]

It looks like he is intentionally using deception to disguise what his "paper" really is - not that anyone is surprised. And the truthers are eating it up - references to his "peer reviewed paper" will multiply now that its out in the truther community.

[Panoply_Prefect]

It looks like he is intentionally using deception to disguise what his "paper" really is - not that anyone is surprised. And the truthers are eating it up - references to his "peer reviewed paper" will multiply now that its out in the truther community.

If you feel like it, give them this:


Mr. Bjorkman does not have a peer-reviewed paper being published by the ASCE
Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

He wrote a discussion of a paper that was published, and his discussion and
the author's closure will be published together. They are scheduled to
appear in the July issue. It is true that discussions and closure's are
sent to a reviewer to ensure that they do not contain offensive comments,
blatant commercialism or other inappropriate content.

I do not know of any peer reviewing that Mr. Bjorkman has been asked to do.

Ross Corotis, Editor
Journal of Engineering Mechanics


I wrote JEM, just to make it dead clear. The last sentence was in regards to a claim Heiwa made that he had been asked to do peer-reviewing for JEM.

[apathoid]

I wrote JEM, just to make it dead clear. The last sentence was in regards to a claim Heiwa made that he had been asked to do peer-reviewing for JEM.


I'm sure he'll be their "go-to guy" for all papers dealing with the mechanics of sponge towers, lemon towers, sushi towers and pizza box towers.

[The Almond]

I was severely disappointed in Bjorkman's letter. Wait, is disappointed the right word to use when you fall over laughing at the assertion that "differential equations are not necessary"?

[jaydeehess]

I was severely disappointed in Bjorkman's letter. Wait, is disappointed the right word to use when you fall over laughing at the assertion that "differential equations are not necessary"?

Hmmm, the talking Barbie doll said "math is hard!" Perhaps that was Bjorkman's inspiration.

[Furcifer]

And here is Heiwas continuation of the Closure...

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm

Broken link! Don't tease me, this is too delicious.

[GlennB]

heiwaco's tripod.com website seems to have been suspended. Maybe the EU finally caught up with him?

[alex04]

I notice he's still breaking European law ;)

What's that all about?

[240-185]

What's that all about?
Heiwa was using the EU flag in order to present himself as an official European agency. In Europe, everything that shows such misleading thoughts is illegal. I bet the EU killed Heiwa's personal web pages with fire.

[Sam.I.Am]

Hmmm... I got there no problem. Maybe he maxed out his bandwidth for the day with tripod. The EU flag is still there as well.

[Furcifer]

It worked for me today. Very entertaining.

I love his confusing word jumble. kWh/kg is a new demolition term I think he invented. That page is salad, bring a fork.

[triforcharity]

That specific page does not show a European anymore. I wonder.....Does the NWO have an office there? :D

[GlennB]

Heiwa was using the EU flag in order to present himself as an official European agency. In Europe, everything that shows such misleading thoughts is illegal. I bet the EU killed Heiwa's personal web pages with fire.

Also using the title "European Agency for ...." is illegal unless you are operating under the auspices of the EU. But, in seriousness, I doubt that the EU can be bothered to pursue such small fry.

[alex04]

Heiwa was using the EU flag in order to present himself as an official European agency. In Europe, everything that shows such misleading thoughts is illegal. I bet the EU killed Heiwa's personal web pages with fire.

ah okay, cheers.

[PB2007]

EU flag still there on his Home page...

[tfk]

Here's my favorite line from Bazant's response:


Observation of the upper margin of the cloud of dust and smoke in the videos somehow makes the discusser conclude that the tower top motion is caused by "part C becoming shorter while part A remains intact." This is a delusion.


It is clear to me that Dr. Bazant is well fluent enough in English to understand the difference between "illusion" and "delusion".

It's also clear to me that he chose the correct term.

Tom

[tfk]

I don't know if anyone's posted a reply to Heiwa's response to Bazant's closure.

This is my quick take from a cursory reading.


The above Closure must be regarded as the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history!


Anders is desperately in need of two things:
1. Remedial engineering statics/dynamics class
2. Ego bypass procedure.


Actually no structure or building of any kind can progressively collapse from top down to ground by gravity...


Surprisingly, we have a statement by Heiwa that is almost true.
Unsurprisingly, it is totally irrelevant.

If the jets had collided with the 109th/110th story (i.e., the real "top"), it is likely they would not have collapsed. Since there would have been little dead weights above the weakened impact points.

Unfortunately, they were struck at high midpoints, with significant weights above the impact points.


Actually no structure or building of any kind can progressively collapse from top down ...


Yeah, "Rainmaning" one's (erroneous) conclusion is always a compelling argument... [roll eyes]
___

"But ... but ... but ..."


the discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd.


Absurd? So let's do an energy balance ...



Yes, Heiwa's claim is "absurd". Which is engineering-speak for "completely, utterly, laughably wrong".

Bazant did, in fact, consider the energy required to compress the rubble. Heiwa either didn't read his paper carefully or was unable to comprehend it.

Further, Heiwa seems to misunderstand the nature of his "communications" with Dr. Bazant. He had his shot. Your discussion turned out (unsurprisingly) to be careless and incompetent.

I don't pretend to speak for Dr. Bazant. But I would be EXTRAORDINARILY surprised to find out that he'd bother with any "Anders-come-lately" follow up discussion.

Especially (as we're about to see) since it is just as incompetent & laden with trivial errors as all the rest of his work.
___

Disappearing Equations of Motion...


If the discusser rejects the differential equation form of the equations of motion based on a smeared continuum approximation, he could be credible only if he formulated and solved discrete equations of motion.


OK, let's formulate and solve the equation of motion of top part C and the energies associated with it.



A big hint here, Anders.

People will laugh at Heiwa significantly less if, after saying something like the above, he actually bothered to, uh, you know, "state and solve the equations of motion of part C"...!!

Heiwa never states them.
Heiwa never solves them.

The only (unstated) equations that he does solve is for a generic weight falling in free fall.

Heiwa might take a lesson from that person that he disparages as "an old man" (i.e., Dr. Bazant) who DOES, in fact, state & solve the equations of motion for a carefully defined model of the collapsing towers.

[Pardon my bluntness, Anders, but it seems fairly evident at this point that you aren't capable of generating realistic (i.e., non-trivial) equations of motion for a collapse like this. And it is further evident that you've come to realize that every time you actually write something down, you get boxed about the ears for the litany of trivial errors.]

Hence his fondness for blathering prose & unsupported conclusions.
___

Energy for crushing


Top part C drops down about 31.38 meters in about 3.00 seconds as recorded from videos. ... The drop corresponds to a loss of 53 000 000 x 31.38 x 9.82 kg m m/s² = 16.33 GJ of potential energy.
... the actual velocity of C after 3.00 seconds is only about 20.74 m/s as observed from videos, which corresponds to 11.40 GJ of kinetic energy ...

So where has the 16.33-11.40 = 4.93 GJ or 30.2% of the remaining available energy gone in this process?


Heiwa's energy balance equation is wrong.

He ignored the fact that the compacted mass dropped too. The top of that mass dropped 31.38 meters. The bottom of that compacted mass dropped zero. With a linear transition from top to bottom.

Seems to me that Heiwa has not accounted for about 0.5 * 9.81m/sec^2 * (41.84m * 1,000,000 kg/m) * 31.38 m = 6.5 GJ of energy input.

[Pssst, Anders. This sort of variation is exactly why Dr. Bazant used those pesky differential equations, of which you are so ... disparaging. (... or perhaps "frightened".)


You do not need a differential equation to calculate that!!


No, you don't. You don't even need one to make this trivial calculation correctly. You DO need a little bit of attention to detail, however.


"the compacted layer cannot be expected to be seen in the video record"


So we are simply asked to believe that top C in 3.00 seconds compresses 41.84 meters of upper section of bottom part A into a 10.46 meters rubble layer B that we cannot be expected to see! Are Bazant & Co serious?



Is Heiwa serious?

[Anders, please proved the video that allows you (alone in the world) to see thru the opaque cloud of dust & observe the dynamics of the crush layer interface 3 seconds into the collapse?]

Lacking that, we can see, unequivocally, that the top has moved down by 41 meters.
We see, unequivocally, that the tower below the cloud has not moved at all.


To compress one kilogram of intact WTC1 part A into rubble B has apparently required 118 J because 4.93 GJ/41 840 000 kg is 118 J/kg!


Oops. You forgot about that extra 6.5 GJ...

(4.93 + 6.5 GJ) / 42,000,000 kg = 272 J/kg.


To shred a 1 000 kg car into pieces may require 30 kWh energy or 108 000 Ws/kg


Meaningless, irrelevant, unsupported comment. It'd take a bit of a derivation to explain why. But I wouldn't want to deny Heiwa the chance (or rather, responsibility) to present his case.


Bazant & Co suggest that extremely little energy is required to pulverize and compact and accelerate steel/concrete part A into rubble B.


Anders is illiterate. Whether willfully so, or not, doesn't really matter.

His comment is 100% wrong, confused, conflated.

Bazant was extremely careful to create a detailed hierarchy of energy sinks. Heiwa is incompetent to simply restate it accurately. Even tho it is printed on his own website, on the very page, immediately above where he has posted his reply.

Bazant did not say that any one of those energy requirements was "extremely little". He said that they were small compared to the next larger one in the list. The largest sink being "the energy required to accelerate downward the accreted stationary mass at the crushing front".

A clear statement that Heiwa somehow interprets to mean "the energy required to accelerate steel/concrete [is] extremely little"...??!


Because to accelerate 1 kg of part A or rubble B to velocity 20.74 m/s in a gravity field requires 215 J or 40% more!


Amazingly incompetent...

First, that is the energy required to accelerate 1 kg (from zero) to 20.74 m/s [horizontally] in a gravity field. Which is precisely the same amount it takes to accelerate it from the same initial to same final speed in zero gravity.

[So, Anders, your comment "in a gravity field" is not only irrelevant. It is wrong.]

If you are ascending or descending in a gravity field, then additional energy will be required (ascending) or supplied (descending) by the potential energy of the system in order to reach the same speed.

[So, Heiwa, when discussing the WTC, is your archetypical 1 kg mass moving horizontally (like your ships) or vertically in the (big hint) falling down towers? Is it getting any energy input from the earth's gravitational field? If so, what is the source of this energy? How do you account for this energy input in your energy balance? Another big hint: If you ever bothered to try to write down the equations properly, your answers might not turn out to be so consistently wrong.]


To suggest that 118 J/kg can destroy any structure of steel/concrete is criminal.


118 J/kg (or, rather the right number, if one includes the 6.5 GJ that Heiwa forgot: 272 J/kg) can be insufficient, just enough or way more than necessary to cause collapse, fracture and/or crush of a steel & concrete structure ... DEPENDING on the details of the structure's assembly.

272 J = the energy acquired by a 1 kg weight dropped from a height of E/mg = 272 J/mg = 272 J / (1 kg)(9.91 m/sec^2) = 28 meters (= 2.2 lbs from 90 feet).

If one were to drop that weight from that height onto a 1 kg ingot of steel, then it is unlikely to cause any "failure".

If one were to drop that weight from that height onto the same 1 kg mass of steel shaped into long, delicate strands (such as a bird cage), then one can be certain that the delicate structure will be fractured & crushed.

Whaddaya think, Anders. Was the structure of the WTC towers more like a solid ingot of metal or like an assembly of long, thin delicate members?

Here's two big hints for ya:
1. The building was 90% air.
2. This image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354532d6d133ad0.jpg

Heiwa's blanket statement of this being impossible ain't criminal. It's just plain wrong.


Any such 'collapse' is always immediately arrested due to lack of energy. It cannot even start! Too much resistance to overcome!


Hundreds of videos presented to him, including the Verinage technique which starts the collapse in the middle & proceeds to the ground. Exactly what he is still claiming to be "impossible".

"Stupid AND obstinate is no way to go thru life, kid..."


If you think, like Bazant & Co, that 118 J applied by top part C can compress and/or accelerate 1 kg of intact WTC1 part A into rubble B and dust, you do not understand physics or structural damage analysis at all.


Sure thing, Anders.

And after you get done "correcting" Dr. Bazant's work, you're gonna take LeBron James down to your local gym & school him in 1 on 1 basketball. I'm sure that you could even get a few folks who know absolutely nothing about basketball to believe that you could. As for everyone with a little knowledge of the game...

Absolutely stunning.
In both arrogance and ineptitude.

Tom

[UNLoVedRebel]

Part C should have rested on Part A:dl: :dl:

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually no structure or building of any kind can progressively collapse from top down to ground by gravity...

Surprisingly, we have a statement by Heiwa that is almost true.
Unsurprisingly, it is totally irrelevant.

If the jets had collided with the 109th/110th story (i.e., the real "top"), it is likely they would not have collapsed. Since there would have been little dead weights above the weakened impact points.

Unfortunately, they were struck at high midpoints, with significant weights above the impact points.

Actually, if I'm understanding Anders' arguments properly, he's trying to argue that in each, every, and any possible case, lower supports must be removed first, period, regardless of what's happening on top. That, of course, is a ludicrous position, but Heiwa's a ludicrous sort of guy.

My opinion is of course subject to correction by those who understand both the actual collapses and his fictions better than I, but that's how I interpreted his goobly-gook.

[Grizzly Bear]

My opinion is of course subject to correction by those who understand both the actual collapses and his fictions better than I, but that's how I interpreted his goobly-gook.

His problem's actually worse than that. He believes collapse can't happen at all unless the size of the upper portion is more than half of the whole building, regardlless of any underlying conditions that would have an impact on building performance. If I had to guess this is essentially what the bulk of AE911's truth brigade believes, even the more "competent ones" based on the videos they post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6038922&postcount=457) to support their theories.

[Panoply_Prefect]

His problem's actually worse than that. He believes collapse can't happen at all unless the size of the upper portion is more than half of the whole building, regardlless of any underlying conditions that would have an impact on building performance.

Not only does he believe that to be true, he actually refers to this as beeing an "axiom", eg "Björkmans axiom". Its so self evident, it doesn't need to be proven.

[DGM]

Dr. Corotis is familiar with them. And Heiwa's empty headed letter speaks for itself. You'll see.

Personally I think some scientists occasionally enjoy the opportunity to demolish conspiracy-minded idiots in a public forum. I'd have simply rejected the letter as too stupid to be worth addressing, but it's their call.
I've got to agree with this. I have been looking for ANY response from the engineering community as to this discussion and have seen nothing. If Heiwa's letter struck any cord at all something would have broke by now.

This is just another fail in the long list.

[patchbunny]

Here's two big hints for ya:
1. The building was 90% air.
2. This image:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/118354532d6d133ad0.jpg

Oooh... that's a beautiful photo. It's like a massive X-ray.

[tfk]

Howdy patch,

Oooh... that's a beautiful photo. It's like a massive X-ray.

Yeah, pretty, ain't it.

And instructive.

The image represents about ~90% of the structural support system of the buildings. The last ~10% being the (not insignificant) membrane stiffness added by the aluminum components of the outer wall panels. Note: not the glass portions, as those were necessarily isolated from the bending or shear loads.

Everything else was load, not support.

Without the aluminum fascia & glass panels, you also enormously reduce one of the two largest loads (wind) on the structure.

This image lets you see how good engineers are at getting enormous structural bang for minimal material buck. In one sense, the essence of mechanical design of many components, machines & structures is "paring back material to the absolute minimum required to do its job".

Here, the driving aspect of the design was "maximize tenant space by minimizing structural support space. Oh yeah, and the building collapsing would be a very bad thing..."

To get a sense of how astonishingly good they were in this case, go out onto a football field some day. Stand on the sidelines at the 30 yard line. Look towards the end zone. No, not that end zone. The far one on the other side of the 50 yard line. That (70 yards) is the length of one side of a WTC tower. The far side of it overhangs the far sideline by about 20 yards. Now hold up one hand, with your thumb & forefinger about 4" apart. THAT was the thickness of the solid part of the concrete floor, stretching from your location to the far corner of the building. (About 5.5" thick if you include the grooved trapezoidal segments.) Those concrete floors were wafers.

Trust me that actually going out onto a football field and creating these dimensions with the scale reference provided by the field will be far more impressive than imagining it while reading this post.

I hope that this image helped make my obvious point (that I'm belaboring here): that the load required to produce a failure in a solid mass (or ingot) of metal is vastly greater than that required to produce a failure in a long, thin member of the same material.

For a number of basic mechanical reasons. Few of which (I believe) Heiwa is likely to be able to provide.

And that these basic mechanical reasons are at the very heart of why Heiwa's so-called analysis is so woefully flawed.


Tom

[Panoply_Prefect]

Listen to Anders Björkman in an audio interview:

http://theswillbucket.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Anders-Bjorkman-2.mp3

Funny thing is that he, a swede, pronounces his own name wrong, Bjååårkman. It sounds like the swedish chef, "bork, bork".

[grandmastershek]

I think nature.com put it nicely

"We also know the difference between a peer-reviewed primary paper or review, and an unreviewed letter to the editor or opinion piece. In other words, we understand the peer-review system, and use it as a filter to sort the wheat from the chaff."

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05009.html

of course this will likely spur excuses why peer review isn't necessary after repeated touting of jones's superduperthermite peer review paper