• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa article accepted at AsCE

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. ;)
 
Edx said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sabrina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
alienentity said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

There's no need to be so defensive AE. I'm sure everybody believes you.
 
dafydd said:
We know how strong it will be too,about as strong as a 30x dilution.
Click to expand...

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
Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

"... 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:

TomK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hilarity ensues.
Heiwa came back with the following:

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
R.Mackey said:
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, 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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
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)
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Sabrina said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great Idea! What you waiting for?
 
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?
 
bill smith said:
Anders Bjorkman. Swedish Naval Architect and structural damage analyst.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm
Click to expand...


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:

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sunray Breaker said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
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:
Click to expand...

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...
 
bill smith said:
Yes lots of us Truth seekers are in and out of the no-planes camp.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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".
 
bill smith said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom