Well, you see, Heiwa's comments are part of a discussion. The original authors are permitted to reply.
Heiwa has been torn to shreds by real engineers on this forum. You are incapable of noticing. Maybe he'll do better in the ASCE journal.
Heh-heh.
The Heiwa Challenge
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
Well, you see, Heiwa's comments are part of a discussion. The original authors are permitted to reply.
Heiwa has been torn to shreds by real engineers on this forum. You are incapable of noticing. Maybe he'll do better in the ASCE journal.
Heh-heh.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Still feel this way Bill ? Or is the feeling that once again you are being conned, creeping in?
NIST explained the collapses in great depth. No engineers or physicists anywhere in the world have pointed out errors of science in the NIST reports. You showed nothing about the Purdue simulation. Who are you to "show" anything about Purdue's researchers?-- a crazy, uneducated guy who loves Islamist terrorists.
The Berkeley simulations were conducted by Professor Astaneh's team. When they used a model reflecting exactly how the towers were built, what do you know--the towers collapsed exactly as they did in real life.
Yeah, every real scientist and engineer in the world is "done." America-hating idiots and liars have won.
Dream on.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Well, you see, Heiwa's comments are part of a discussion. The original authors are permitted to reply.
Heiwa has been torn to shreds by real engineers on this forum. You are incapable of noticing. Maybe he'll do better in the ASCE journal.
Heh-heh.
And we look forward to Bazant replying....If he does not, or is unconvincing we will draw your attention to that.
If Bazant does not reply the implications are inescapable.
Last edited:
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=71#more-71 Purdue debunked by Kevin Ryan
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/2...irect-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent
..As promised..
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/2...irect-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ The 'Independence'' of Purdue
And when your Big H is destroyed again, nary a peep, as you run like hell, as always twoofer!
Pose, Pause ................................................FAIL -Again.
Bill - you suffer from a severe case of foot in mouth.
Engage brain before putting it in Bill. You will look far less like a complete failure that way. Classic stuff from a failed twoofer who idolises fools.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
No, they reject Heiwa's version, we accept ASCE's version of 9/11.
"ASCE/FEMA WTC Team Presents Findings to Congress
Towers Weakened By Planes; Brought Down By Fire
Recommended areas for study may lead to future building code changes
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented May 1 at a hearing of the House Science Committee. "
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache.../11&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Last edited:
Can he?
I think once Ultima1 gets his 'declassified' (heavily black marker penned document/ two lines of nothing) FOIA Critic and Heiwa's tripod/challenge/bazant rebutal is/is not published then the internet will just be discussing two more clowns for another 8 years. 911 TM will be remembered (by 50 ish viewers) for its circus failure.
Uh, what if Bazant thinks that Heiwa is far too stupid to waste time on, and instead other engineers destroy your giggly guru?
You see, here's how it works. Heiwa has been thoroughly discredited by real engineers who post on this forum. Other real engineers will notice the same egregious errors he makes, his conceptual short-circuits, and his total inability to produce even the simplest calculations. So, if various engineers take your blockheaded guru apart, but Bazant refuses to pay any attention to him, what conclusions are inescapable, other than the one you are too blind to see?
Last edited:
Kevin Ryan is a fraud. Don't waste our time linking to crackpot sites that cater to idiots. Tell us what the Purdue team got wrong.
Neither bill nor Heiwa gets it.
Bill thinks that it is critical that Bazant support the NIST conclusions. Bill, it is not.
It would not matter if Bazant, or a dozen structural engineers, called a press conference tomorrow and announced that they were throwing their professional credibility behind Gage & ae911t. In fact there are several precedences for older scientists doing exactly this sort of strange thing.
If Bazant were to do something that foolish, then community would do two things. First, because of his history & credibility, they would listen carefully to what he had to say. Then his ideas would get critiqued just as rigorously as anyone else's. Bazant himself, because of his age, his lifetime of service, would be treated kindly. As one would with any respected figure who is losing his faculties. And the community would mourn the loss of a great figure. And move on.
The point is that engineering & science are cults of IDEAS, bill. Not cults of personalities.
It does not matter that Bazant's ideas came from Bazant. It's the IDEA that stands or falls on its own.
Bazant's degree only gets his ideas a wide spread audience. It was the community, NOT Bazant, that judged his theories valid.
And these are the parts that Heiwa doesn't get.
He thinks, like you do, that his degree, or his history, are the sources of validity for his nonsense. They are not. He thinks that he, on his own, can judge his ideas correct. He can NOT.
In ALL cases, the consensus of the community emerges from open, rigorous, CHALLENGING debate. It's a painful, blood-letting process for those who get in the arena.
Here is Anders' failing. He is afraid to get into the arena. He refuses to acknowledge, discuss and to respond to challenges to his whacky theories. And without that, there is no opportunity to correct them.
He gets beat up, early & often, then takes his ball & goes home.
What Anders does not realize, but is about to find out, is that you & Kreel are his saboteurs, bill. And that Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, architect, Myriad & his other local "tormentors" are his best friends. Because anyone who points out your errors to you before you go public & embarrass yourself is, in fact, your best friend. It's just the strange nature of this business.
___
Of course, Bazant's background, training, and discipline make it HIGHLY likely that he is not going to commit egregious errors in his analysis. I would wager that he did, in fact, make a bunch of errors in the first drafts. Errors that were caught and corrected precisely because of the collaborative nature of the process.
So, Bill, there is nothing that would prevent a patent clerk, or even a marine architect, from coming up with an idea that turns the field on its head. But those revolutions do not come out of thin air. And it is ALWAYS best to "bet the house" in these cases.
Because the odds are incredibly long. Even if I'd never laid eyes on Heiwa's work, I'd lay 1000 to 1 odds against him. Because, bill, for ever single crackpot who turned out to be an Einstein, there were 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots.
Having seen his work, and his process, it is patently clear that the odds in his favor have plummeted to zero.
tom
PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.
Bill thinks that it is critical that Bazant support the NIST conclusions. Bill, it is not.
It would not matter if Bazant, or a dozen structural engineers, called a press conference tomorrow and announced that they were throwing their professional credibility behind Gage & ae911t. In fact there are several precedences for older scientists doing exactly this sort of strange thing.
If Bazant were to do something that foolish, then community would do two things. First, because of his history & credibility, they would listen carefully to what he had to say. Then his ideas would get critiqued just as rigorously as anyone else's. Bazant himself, because of his age, his lifetime of service, would be treated kindly. As one would with any respected figure who is losing his faculties. And the community would mourn the loss of a great figure. And move on.
The point is that engineering & science are cults of IDEAS, bill. Not cults of personalities.
It does not matter that Bazant's ideas came from Bazant. It's the IDEA that stands or falls on its own.
Bazant's degree only gets his ideas a wide spread audience. It was the community, NOT Bazant, that judged his theories valid.
And these are the parts that Heiwa doesn't get.
He thinks, like you do, that his degree, or his history, are the sources of validity for his nonsense. They are not. He thinks that he, on his own, can judge his ideas correct. He can NOT.
In ALL cases, the consensus of the community emerges from open, rigorous, CHALLENGING debate. It's a painful, blood-letting process for those who get in the arena.
Here is Anders' failing. He is afraid to get into the arena. He refuses to acknowledge, discuss and to respond to challenges to his whacky theories. And without that, there is no opportunity to correct them.
He gets beat up, early & often, then takes his ball & goes home.
What Anders does not realize, but is about to find out, is that you & Kreel are his saboteurs, bill. And that Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, architect, Myriad & his other local "tormentors" are his best friends. Because anyone who points out your errors to you before you go public & embarrass yourself is, in fact, your best friend. It's just the strange nature of this business.
___
Of course, Bazant's background, training, and discipline make it HIGHLY likely that he is not going to commit egregious errors in his analysis. I would wager that he did, in fact, make a bunch of errors in the first drafts. Errors that were caught and corrected precisely because of the collaborative nature of the process.
So, Bill, there is nothing that would prevent a patent clerk, or even a marine architect, from coming up with an idea that turns the field on its head. But those revolutions do not come out of thin air. And it is ALWAYS best to "bet the house" in these cases.
Because the odds are incredibly long. Even if I'd never laid eyes on Heiwa's work, I'd lay 1000 to 1 odds against him. Because, bill, for ever single crackpot who turned out to be an Einstein, there were 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots.
Having seen his work, and his process, it is patently clear that the odds in his favor have plummeted to zero.
tom
PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.
Last edited:
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
All papers that are accepted for publication are discussion papers T. They have been judged by Heiwa's engineering peers to be worthy of discussion. You are free to go the same route and try for publication though i don't think we should hold our breaths.
NIST have no collapse conclusions for Bazant to support . They only took their analysis up to the point of glabal collapse and no further.
For the rest yuur post is long and rambling as usual and has nohing remarkable to answer.
Last edited:
Why, because you lack engineering skills to understand his post? Explain each point you failed to understand which you call long and rambling.
"yuur" skills are limited to cut and paste, and posting dirt dumb truther videos. You got "nohing"; or do you have nothing?
What engineering school did you go to?
Tfk provided a well-written explanation of how science works. It's one thing to point to your lack of education and conclude that the reason you can't understand anything you read is that you've never been taught how to think. That criticism misses the mark. Ultimately, all education is self-education. Sure, there are obvious benefits to attending an excellent university. Being exposed to fine minds is stimulating. Nothing will help, however, if you resist learning.
Like all "truthers," you are compelled to dismiss without comprehending NIST's decision to stop at the point where global collapse became inevitable. It has been explained to you many, many times that it is not really feasible to model such a complex event. NIST showed why the collapses could not be arrested, and that is sufficient.
Again, the questions you run from are important ones. Why have no scientists or engineers in countries unfriendly to the U.S. found errors of science in the NIST reports? That question is more than inconvenient to your foolish myths; it is devastating.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
FineWine, tfk
Excellent posts.
But hey
Pearls before swine
Excellent posts.
But hey
Pearls before swine
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Having done so, I do not need to again. I am asking you a direct question. Please have the courtesy to directly reply.
No it has not. Not in the least. Not in the slightest.
Again, no. If you, yourself believe that, you are mistaken.
A meaningless challenge insofar as the broader topic of 9/11 is concerned. Perhaps instead of the Conspiracy subforum you should place your challenge in the Science section.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
The idea of controlled demolition being the cause for the destruction of the Twin Towers is 100% impossible. Not only didn't it happen, it was not possible.
Want to know why?
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
How casually you play your little game.
Please understand, your ficticious imaginings are just that: make believe. 9/11 was no more an inside job than Yogi Bear is a living, breathing, tie-wearing, picnic-basket-devouring, English-speaking, bear.
This "inside job" insanity has not been true, is not true, and won't be true in one-hundred years. Why do people like you persist? What's your agenda?
- Status