• 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

BasqueArch said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Last edited:
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? "
Click to expand...

Posted by Basquearch 5-21-2009

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


Heiwa Asks Bazant To Step Outside.​
​


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

You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason him out of something he was not reasoned into - Nutso Swift
 
Last edited:
Great,
I hope Heiwa brings lots of petitions. It would be a great place to get some engineers to sign up.
 
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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

I somehow doubt it.
 
Last edited:
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...


Since Heiwa recently claimed he has been asked to do peer-reviewing 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
Click to expand...
 
meh...all it proves is that yet again a truther "scholar" is trying to make his ramblings appear valid in the legitimate academic community.
 
tfk said:
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...
Click to expand...

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's_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”.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

people also spend a lot of time talking about paris hilton. just something you may want to consider.
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
Since Heiwa recently claimed he has been asked to do peer-reviewing for the ASCE, I actually wrote Dr Corotis. I got the following reply:
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Almond said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Panoply_Prefect said:
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.
Click to expand...

OMG...
Smiley-Facepalm.gif
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Almond said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom