"Environmentalism" And WTC

[Lefty Scaevola]

That would explain it.

[ixnay]

Up in Libby, MT, WR Grace co. had an abestos plant or mine or whatever. Apparently a lot of the people in the town are sick thanks to that. Our stupid governor (the self-proclaimed "lapdog of industry") refused to do anything about it until there was enough of an outcry that it was designated a Superfund site.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Maybe you've spent too much time in the aesbestos.

After spending entirely too much time reading your line by line psychotic replies, and aside from the obvious health risks, I think you make a good case for outlawing aesbestos, due to its advese effects on mental capacity and well being.

Ah, what would a thread be without Ted's ad hominems? Try supporting your insults for a change... Oh yeah, that would only expose your lack of intelligence for all to see, like when you claimed married people are having babies out-of-wedlock.

UR -

There are different kinds of fires, Berz.

I'm aware of this.

Clearly Mr Levine invented the procedure to protect against fires normally found in building fires, not jet fuel fire.

The jet fuel ignited the building, but most of it burned off upon impact with much of it burning outside the buildings. The fire that weakened the steel was no more powerful than any major fire consuming a skyscraper. How much jet fuel was still burning 5 or 10 minutes after the impacts?

Jet fuel burns at a much higher temperature than normal building fires and there's no evidence that the aformentioned procedure can protect against a sustained jet fuel fire.

It wasn't a "sustained" jet fuel fire, that suggests the continued introduction of jet fuel to keep the high temps going.

IIRC, the steel structures were protected by some kind of coating, but the crash and the explosion blasted that off. Would the abestos coating be able to withstand that?

How do you know the impact blasted any coating away?

His prediction was right, but the reasons were wrong.

His prediction was right because the steel was insulated with an inferior product. Do you think these skyscrapers were designed without considering the possibility of impacts from airliners?

[Ted Striker]

Let's see, you start with:

Ah, what would a thread be without Ted's ad hominems?

Then end with:

Oh yeah, that would only expose your lack of intelligence

Once again making you a hypocrite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Mayor Daley

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That would explain it.

ROFLMAO

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The jet fuel ignited the building, but most of it burned off upon impact with much of it burning outside the buildings. The fire that weakened the steel was no more powerful than any major fire consuming a skyscraper. How much jet fuel was still burning 5 or 10 minutes after the impacts?

Hard to say. There was a large quantity of it there.

Originally posted by Berzerker
It wasn't a "sustained" jet fuel fire, that suggests the continued introduction of jet fuel to keep the high temps going.

If there's some material the can act like a wick into a pool of fuel, you can get a sustained fire for hours with that amount of fuel there. Clearly, we have no idea what the acutal situation is now, so we're all just speculating.

Originally posted by Berzerker
How do you know the impact blasted any coating away?

Just a reasonable guess. The inital impact and explosion was tremedous. You think an asbestos coating's going to withstand that?

Originally posted by Berzerker
His prediction was right because the steel was insulated with an inferior product. Do you think these skyscrapers were designed without considering the possibility of impacts from airliners?

Yes. Nobody considered that. If that was a real consideration, there wouldn't be any skyscrappers, as there is no way of putting out a fire on the top levels, and no real way of saving the people there.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Let's see, you start with:

Then end with:

Once again making you a hypocrite.

Umm...Ted, I said you launched ad hominems, meaning unsupported insults. Unlike you, I supported my insult with this:

Try supporting your insults for a change... Oh yeah, that would only expose your lack of intelligence for all to see, like when you claimed married people are having babies out-of-wedlock.

Notice how I gave an example of your stupidity and didn't just accuse you of being stupid? DOH!

UR -

Hard to say. There was a large quantity of it there.

Yes, and most if not virtually all of it was burned off upon impact.

If there's some material the can act like a wick into a pool of fuel, you can get a sustained fire for hours with that amount of fuel there. Clearly, we have no idea what the acutal situation is now, so we're all just speculating.

But jet fuel doesn't act like whale oil for example. It doesn't burn slowly which is why it is so hot when it does burn.

Just a reasonable guess. The inital impact and explosion was tremedous. You think an asbestos coating's going to withstand that?

Yup, it was designed to withstand fire and the coating process undoubtedly was designed to withstand explosions which would accompany a massive fire within a skyscraper.

Yes. Nobody considered that. If that was a real consideration, there wouldn't be any skyscrappers, as there is no way of putting out a fire on the top levels, and no real way of saving the people there.

Of course skyscraper designers take into account the potential of aircraft crashing into their buildings.

[Ted Striker]

ad hominem attacks mean making personal attacks, not unsupported attacks. Your fetish with "proof" is out of context. Though I realize you have to apply it to every single thing you've ever spoken about in your entire life.

From Dictionary.com

ad hom·i·nem (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.


ad homi·nem adv.

Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

For example, I say berzerker is a hypocrite, that is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack. (And very accurate as well ).

It doesn't make you sound any smarter to use words like that though berzerker, just more desparate.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes. Nobody considered that (impact by airliner). If that was a real consideration, there wouldn't be any skyscrappers, as there is no way of putting out a fire on the top levels, and no real way of saving the people there.

Wrong, these towers were specificaly designed, including the origianal insulation of the steel, to survive the impact of a 707. The media spent a few hours discussing how much larger 767s were that the 707s.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

ad hominem attacks mean making personal attacks, not unsupported attacks.

No, unsupported insults instead of a rational or logical attack on an opponent's argument. See below, or better yet, read the definition you pulled from the dictionary

Your fetish with "proof" is out of context. Though I realize you have to apply it to every single thing you've ever spoken about in your entire life.

And you prefer no proof to proof? Yup, that's Ted.

Let's see what the definition says:

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case:

While this is what you clearly did, I did not. Unlike you, I supported my insult. Had you supported your insult with a logical critique of my opening post, you would not have been guilty of making an ad homimen. And since you offered no argument to oppose my opening post, just an ad hominem, I was left with only your ad hominem to address by attacking the "merits" of your ad hominem. And that is what I did by using a logical attack on your lack of credibility when making judgements about the intelligence of others.

Here was my indictment of your "credibility":

Try supporting your insults for a change... Oh yeah, that would only expose your lack of intelligence for all to see, like when you claimed married people are having babies out-of-wedlock

If I said you were stupid, that would be an ad hominem, but if I said you were stupid because married people don't have babies out-of-wedlock, that would not be an ad hominem because I used logic to show why your claim was stupid.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

For example, I say berzerker is a hypocrite, that is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack. (And very accurate as well).

Because it isn't supported, DOH! I suggest you re-read the definition of "ad hominem". Here is the part you should pay particularly close attention:

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

To claim your ad hominem is accurate while ignoring the logic or reason needed to support it is oxy-moronic.

It doesn't make you sound any smarter to use words like that though berzerker, just more desparate.

And your inability to understand definitions you post shows you're smart?

Berzerker 52 - Ted 0!

[Ted Striker]

I've never seen anyone in my entire life delude themselves the way you do.

The very first thing mentioned in all of those definitions is the personal attacks. Every single one starts out with mentioning personal attacks and therfore they put it first for a significant reason.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks,

The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack

Your little scorecard there at then end is only amplifying the personal and desparate nature of your posts, making them even more "ad hominem."

But hey if you lack confidence in your theories and what everybody else thinks about them, by all means you can try and delude yourself into thinking you've won some sort of personal (ad hominem) victory here.

Say no to drugs next time berzerker.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

I've never seen anyone in my entire life delude themselves the way you do.

Was I "deluding" myself when you claimed married people are having babies out-of-wedlock?

The very first thing mentioned in all of those definitions is the personal attacks. Every single one starts out with mentioning personal attacks and therfore they put it first for a significant reason.

And the definition ends with - "rather than to logic or reason". To argue that the first part is relevant while the end can be discarded without affecting the definition is "delusional". And I did expect you to ignore the end of the definition because it shoots down your hypocrisy charge. You're a dishonest person, Ted.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

See how the end modifies the beginning? Nooooo....Ted doesn't see. Why? Because Ted doesn't want to see, Ted is a dishonest person.

The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack

So I used two of the definitions and you used the "newer" and "looser" definition. So what? This doesn't prove your accusation, DOH!

Your little scorecard there at then end is only amplifying the personal and desparate nature of your posts, making them even more "ad hominem."

Just a record of all the times I've refuted your BS.

But hey if you lack confidence in your theories and what everybody else thinks about them, by all means you can try and delude yourself into thinking you've won some sort of personal (ad hominem) victory here.

Oh, you haven't made this personal? I don't enter your threads calling you all sorts of names, HYPOCRITE!

Say no to drugs next time berzerker.

Say no to liberalism next time, Ted. As the saying goes, if you're young and conservative you have no heart; if you're old and liberal, you have no brain. Which means liberals have no brains, young or old.

[Ted Striker]

Was I "deluding" myself when you claimed..

Yes, I think you just answered your own question.

Oh, you haven't made this personal?

I have engaged in the personal parts of these threads and have never said I haven't. But every thread you've ever started ALWAYS end with you calling somebody a: liar, hypocrite, or dishonest. I'll let your borderline personality track record speak for itself.

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

See, the difference here is that you are trying to make the two clauses mutually exclusive. You just took the last part, and that's it, and accusing me of only taking the first part and ignoring the second. That's not what I did. I looked at the whole context. Your whole argument is relying specifically on the second clause, not the whole definition, nor the HUGE context of the paragraph that follows it.

What the above (ad hominem) definition means is that, instead of arguing about the topic on its own merits, (the second clause) you start arguing about the character of the poster himself. (the first clause).

So I've taken the whole thing into account.

Even so, we have two more definitions that only specifically talk about the personal nature of ad hominem, further focusing specifically on the personal nature of the term. They don't even HAVE a "logic or reason" clause to clarify them. Reading the rest of the discussion about the term, they go on to mention the personal nature of the term as its focal point.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Wrong, these towers were specificaly designed, including the origianal insulation of the steel, to survive the impact of a 707. The media spent a few hours discussing how much larger 767s were that the 707s.

True, but much more than that not. The only real precautions I have seen is the prevention of SimCity skyraper next to airport problems. Anyway, it was designed to withstand the impact, and it did, for about an hour! If this had been two hours, most of the survivors could have been safely evacuated.

Originally posted by Asher
I count four, off the top of my head:
WTC (x2)
BOA building in Florida
Empire State Building

You forgot the PENTAGON!
When did a plane hit the empire state building, can you give an article.