• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Peer Review of 9/11 papers

Redford

Banned
R
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
65
Panoply_Prefect said:
Moving video:


Click to expand...

Man, this Heiwa dude is smart. He just made a serial debunker to explain the WTC collapse by comparing it to controlled demolition, an this just by making an promise only a drunk or child would take seriously. I don't know if he did it on purpose but I am sure having a good time reading this here. Thanks to every participant of this thread !

Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redford said:
Man, this Heiwa dude is smart.
Click to expand...

That says more about you than about Heiwa. Did you read the bit where he intelligently claimed that the WTC towers wouldn't have collapsed if the upper blocks had been dropped on them from two miles high?

Still, I agree that only a drunk or a child would take him seriously.

Dave
 
stateofgrace said:
He knows this, it as been pointed out countless times by countless members. It is simply ignored and to be honest so is the insanity he babbles.
Click to expand...

Haha, another great one, posting this after 4 pages of everyone speaking to or about the guy. Regardless of what he says and if it's right or wrong, saying that he's ignored instantly demonstrate a severe issue with dealing with reality - which can be extended to everyone not noticing how obviously false is such a statement :P
 
Redford said:
Haha, another great one, posting this after 4 pages of everyone speaking to or about the guy. Regardless of what he says and if it's right or wrong, saying that he's ignored instantly demonstrate a severe issue with dealing with reality - which can be extended to everyone not noticing how obviously false is such a statement :P
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the highlighted word means?
31st March 2009, 06:20 AM #362
Heiwa
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
That says more about you than about Heiwa. Did you read the bit where he intelligently claimed that the WTC towers wouldn't have collapsed if the upper blocks had been dropped on them from two miles high?
Click to expand...

Not yet. That being said, I wouldn't find such a claim shocking. I dont see how you can argue that the damage wouldn't impact the falling part, and if that's part is the weakiest, destroy it first. Then obviously what's left of the strongest part wouldn't suffer from it anymore (not saying that a chain reaction resulting in a global collapse is out of the question, although I would expect something slower and more progressive than what has been taken on video). Still, I guess that's your explanation : C makes damage and is destroyed while A suffers a kind of pan cakes collapse. I find it believable as well, but I wouldn't conclude anything either on his affirmation or yours. I find sufficiently telling that fire collapse is based on the assumption that structural resistance of steel lowers progressively while temperature rise - so if that's what happened, video should show a trace of the weaken part progressively compressing itself. I don't see how you could get rid of that condition, so while it's not here, there goes the loss of structural resistance due to fire theory.
 
I came here from a link from another forum. Now if the idea is to shut down the whole thread, I suggest to actually shut it down or at least close it. If not, it's considered open, because it actually is.

And it's not completely useless to bump it because some people in the thread are mocking Heiwa about being unscientific and unable to get a peer reviewed publication on the matter. Guess what, he had one in the meantime :

http://ascelibrary.org/emo/resource/1/jenmdt/v136/i7/p933_s1?isAuthorized=no

I know Moorea did too in a french niche publication, but that's all. People speaking here with no other argument than "I don't believe neither understand what the guy says so he must be an idiot" have now the obligation to actually discuss the point if they can, which most of them obviously can't anyway.
 
Redford said:
I came here from a link from another forum. Now if the idea is to shut down the whole thread, I suggest to actually shut it down or at least close it. If not, it's considered open, because it actually is.

And it's not completely useless to bump it because some people in the thread are mocking Heiwa about being unscientific and unable to get a peer reviewed publication on the matter. Guess what, he had one in the meantime :
.
Click to expand...
No. Some people were mocking Heiwa in 2009. Did you miss the dates?
 
Redford said:
That being said, I wouldn't find such a claim shocking. I dont see how you can argue that the damage wouldn't impact the falling part, and if that's part is the weakiest, destroy it first. Then obviously what's left of the strongest part wouldn't suffer from it anymore.
Click to expand...

I can see why you might think Heiwa was clever. He doesn't understand momentum or conservation of mass either.

Dave

ETA: Or, for that matter, what "peer review" means.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
No. Some people were mocking Heiwa in 2009. Did you miss the dates?
Click to expand...

Nope (not a native english speaker BTW - I know at least in french I could use present in that context). That being said, what's your point ?
 
Dave Rogers said:
I can see why you might think Heiwa was clever. He doesn't understand momentum or conservation of mass either.

Dave

ETA: Or, for that matter, what "peer review" means.
Click to expand...

Peer review also applies to discussion, you know that. So he did get a peer reviewed publications, which allows us to safely assume he knows what it is, and that your claim that he doesn't know what "peer review" means (or that I don't) doens't help you to look convincing. Of course, if you don't even ever have published anything in a peer reviewed publication, it would be even worse than that but I can't imagine you would be fool enough to pretend that someone who passed a test you didn't knows less than you about this test. Because that would be really surprisingly stupid :)
 
Redford,

What is your primary goal in posting here on the JREF forum? Perhaps you could focus the discussion by starting a new topic that addresses this goal? If it specifically relates to "WTC safety factors," perhaps you could more clearly state your objective here in this thread?
 
Redford said:
Peer review also applies to discussion, you know that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The discussion of a paper is part of the peer review of the original paper, in which the author responds to comments from people not on the original peer review team.

Redford said:
So he did get a peer reviewed publications, which allows us to safely assume he knows what it is, and that your claim that he doesn't know what "peer review" means (or that I don't) doens't help you to look convincing.
Click to expand...

Well, let's pretend you were right and Heiwa's questions were peer-reviewed. Bazant's responses, therefore, would also have to be peer-reviewed, which means that the peer reviewers completely accepted Bazant's responses. Therefore, we can point out that there is a peer-reviewed paper that states that Heiwa is an idiot who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. What a victory for the truth movement.

Redford said:
Of course, if you don't even ever have published anything in a peer reviewed publication, it would be even worse than that but I can't imagine you would be fool enough to pretend that someone who passed a test you didn't knows less than you about this test. Because that would be really surprisingly stupid :)
Click to expand...

Say again please, but this time in English.

Dave
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
Not really:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5419473&postcount=15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162328
Click to expand...

Well, you know jack about publications, do you ? Discussion are also peer reviewed - would it only be by the redaction, who -guess what- consist entirely of expert of the discipline *. Else you would have every Jref (or let's be fair, prison planet) idiot sending there rants. The discussion is technical and that is what is checked by reviewer. If they find the kind of mistake that people here are pointing, they either ask for correction if it's not central or refuse the article. The process may be quicker than for an article, but what this means is that some people who are acknowledged as competent of the matter considers his article to be worth publishing. This also tells us in retrospect that a lot of people here who dismissed it with argument they were thinking to be good either are not half as competent on the matter as what they think or really should try to reply to his discussion in another peer reviewed publication (which will allow them to test the peer review and themselves as a bonus).

I find it hard to believe R. Mackey to ignore this, considering his resume. This really makes me wonder if he's honnest.

* : also you can read on the page I linked "Submitted 3 February 2009; accepted 18 September 2009; published online 15 June 2010". Pretty explicit, don't you think ?
 
carlitos said:
Redford,

What is your primary goal in posting here on the JREF forum? Perhaps you could focus the discussion by starting a new topic that addresses this goal? If it specifically relates to "WTC safety factors," perhaps you could more clearly state your objective here in this thread?
Click to expand...

As I already stated, I found the entire thread to gain a new perspective since he actually published his saying. At least JREFer should all know that if they want to counter his points, usual flame in the forum will not do it : someone here should do what he did and publish a discussion of his points - assuming of course some one here is able to do that, which remains to be seen.

Now I already told that so quite obviously I am just answering people from now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom