• 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 has a journal article?

Alferd_Packer

Philosopher
Alferd_Packer
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
8,746
so he claims.

> Date: 03-16-2010
> Manuscript #: EMENG-296R1
> Re: 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.
>
> Dear Mr Anders Björkman,
>
> Your article EMENG-296R1 entitled, "Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson" by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. has been through a final check and is now scheduled for publication in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
>
> We are very pleased to be publishing your paper, and we look forward to receiving manuscripts from you in the future.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ASCE Journals Department
> Jennifer Parresol
> Editorial Coordinator
> ASCE
> 1801 Alexander Bell Drive
> Reston, VA 20191
> journal-submissions1@asce.org
 
Hokulele said:
It is basically a formal version of a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I can't wait to see Bazant's response to this. :)
Click to expand...

In another thread, someone (I think it was Ryan Mackey; correct me if I'm wrong) noted that it looked to be coming out maybe in July. I don't recall if Bazant responded or not, but I'm really hoping he did myself.
 
Bazant does have a reply to it, and last I heard it was not scheduled until at least July.
 
Hokulele said:
It is basically a formal version of a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I can't wait to see Bazant's response to this. :)
Click to expand...

That's my understanding of it - it's not a paper, but a letter.
 
Hokulele said:
Not that it will make a lick of difference to Heiwa and his delusions...
Click to expand...

True, but it tells them that legit academic inquiry doesn't sit still in the face of foolishness. It also tells them that this is the only way they'll get recognition of any kind by the academic/scientific/engineering community: By actually trying to discuss things in legitimate journals. Sure, the recognition in just about every case will be a smack down, but that'll serve them notice that honest inquiry means being able to enunciate a real thesis, with real factual support, not merely provide a recitation of myths with a litany of factual distortions.

Good, intellectually honest truthers will go the way of Gregory Ulrich, and understand that distortions is no way to go about presenting their beliefs. The other 99.999999% of them will simply continue to be marginalized further, since they won't be able to comprehend how to honestly participate in legitimate academic inquiry. And they'll just continue to cargo-cult away on their self-imposed islands.

Or in a zoo provided for them to roam in. Such as this subforum. :D
 
Edx said:
So is Gregory no longer a truther or what?
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd go that far, but I also don't know that that has an easy answer:
GregoryUrich said:
I have started writing a personal statement to "Patriots" but I am not finished yet. I do indeed distance my self from the claim of ample evidence, but unfortunately one can not unsign a petition.

I still think a new "real" investigation would uncover gross negligence and obstruction of justice. In that context, I support the call for a new investigation. Nonetheless, the truth movement so misguided that I no longer support it.
Click to expand...
He doesn't support the "Truth Movement" any longer, but as to his opinion about "gross negligence and obstruction of justice"... well, the question is, is that being a truther? I can say "Yes", because he thinks a new investigation is still called for, albeit one regarding responsibility and not some witchhunt for demolitions (whether it would lend itself to turning into a witchhunt for something else I don't presume to predict). At the same time, I can say "No", because he himself says he has rejected the "truth movement", not merely one of the groups it consists of.

The link that post was taken from is this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133494

Anyway, there's his post and a small summation of his belief. I'd shade towards considering him to still be a truther, albeit a very rare one who understands that demolitions at the Twin Towers were impossible. And I'd do this simply on the basis of his belief that there's still something to be investigated, just not something regarding the collapses of the towers. But I can't ignore his last sentence in that post. So anyway, you all tell me whether he's one or not; I can call it either way based on what he himself has said.
 
Edx said:
hahaa its so great that AE911 gives such attention to someone as crazy as Heiwa considering so many truthers have told me no planers are disinfo.
Click to expand...
The problem is you don't demonstrate proper "cherry picking" technique and you look at everything he has to say. How do you expect to find the "truth" that way? :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
The problem is you don't demonstrate proper "cherry picking" technique and you look at everything he has to say. How do you expect to find the "truth" that way? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well we know they aren't interested in truth, but Heiwa is such a crazy case its great that I have such a good example of AE911 not caring who is saying it or what they are saying so long as it sort of agrees with them.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Well we know they aren't interested in truth, but Heiwa is such a crazy case its great that I have such a good example of AE911 not caring who is saying it or what they are saying so long as it sort of agrees with them.
Click to expand...

It's called desperation :)

McHrozni
 
Edx said:
hahaa its so great that AE911 gives such attention to someone as crazy as Heiwa considering so many truthers have told me no planers are disinfo.
Click to expand...
In reality most of their theories are about the same as Heiwa's, just covered better through techy terminology. They don't do well hiding that though when discussing with others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom