"Environmentalism" And WTC

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Grrr
When did a plane hit the empire state building, can you give an article.

In the 1930's, IIRC.

[Lefty Scaevola]

It was a B-25 Mitchell, shortly after WW2.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


In the 1930's, IIRC.

Thanks!

Turns out to be July 28 1945.

[Berzerker]

Grr -

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.

Which is kind of the point. If the proper insulation had been used, the firefighters might have had the time to suppress the fires enough to prevent any collapse.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Yes, I think you just answered your own question.

I was "delusional" when you said married people have babies out-of-wedlock?

I have engaged in the personal parts of these threads and have never said I haven't.

No, you did not "engage" in the "personal parts" of these threads, you started them with insults. And it is HYPOCRISY for you to suggest I'm the one who has made this a personal issue when it is you who made it a personal issue, God you're DUMB.

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.

Now that's FUNNY! In our first debate, it was you who accused me of lying, YOU HYPOCRITE! Actually, you're the only person I accused of being dishonest, and I rarely call anyone a hypocrite. I can't help it if you're a dishonest hypocrite.

See, the difference here is that you are trying to make the two clauses mutually exclusive.

Nope. Just using the definition YOU provided. You're the one who is trying to dismiss the 2 definitions I cited because they refute your accusation.

You just took the last part, and that's it, and accusing me of only taking the first part and ignoring the second.

BS! I used both parts - personal insults RATHER than addressing an argument on it's merits. You were the one who used insults RATHER than reason or logic to attack the merits of my opening post. I used logic when showing why you're unqualified to make judgements about the intelligence of others.

That's not what I did.

You did "ignore" the second part.

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.

The second clause modifies the first, are you now ignorant of how sentences are structured?

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).

You didn't argue against my opening post on any merits, instead using an ad hominem. That left me with only the merits of your ad hominem to address - and I did by quoting your assinine statement about married people having babies out-of-wedlock. The purpose of my attack was to show you are incapable of judging which statements are intelligent or stupid, DUH!

So I've taken the whole thing into account.

Blah blah blah.

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.

In order for you to support your accusation of hypocrisy, you had to show I used an ad hominem in my attack on you AND that I was using an invalid definition of "ad hominem" when claiming I didn't. Since I used logic to attack the merits of your insults, I did not use an ad hominem - a personal insult RATHER than using logic to attack the merits of an opponents argument. Since you are claiming to take into account the entire "context" of the definition, how can you ignore that the definition specifically refers to personal insults RATHER than logic or reason? Because YOU ARE A MORON!

[Ted Striker]

In order for you to support your accusation of hypocrisy, you had to show I used an ad hominem in my attack on you

I'd pretty much point to this whole thread as reference for your ad hominem accounts, including the last post, which most of it regards the essense of things personal. Doesn't matter who was first, who was next, you have used and continue to use personal references.

But for a recap, let's take a look at only the last post:

1. And it is HYPOCRISY for you
2. God you're DUMB
3. YOU HYPOCRITE!
4. You're a dishonest hypocrite
5. Because YOU ARE A MORON!

Are there any dj's in the house? Because this would make some nice lyrics to a dance mix. "And..and..it is hypocrisy..hyp..hyp...hypocrisy." thump thump thump thump

I was "delusional"

Was, is, has been, will be, clinically diagnosed...

You know it's too bad I can't pull up a "history" thread that was written here last year. I remember reading your summary, in which it said, "called people liars, cheaters."

But hey if you want to continue to ruin your thread with all of the "ad hominem" asides, I'll be more than happy to play along. Just make sure you look up big words and actually understand what they mean before you use them next time.

[Berzerker]

Ted -

I'd pretty much point to this whole thread as reference for your ad hominem accounts, including the last post, which most of it regards the essense of things personal.

I support my insults, you didn't, that's the difference between me and you and your ad hominems. Just as the definition says - an ad hominem is a personal insult RATHER than a logical or reasoned rebuttal. You threw around insults RATHER than using logic or reason to address my opening post.

Doesn't matter who was first, who was next, you have used and continue to use personal references.

It does matter who started it, and it matters who backs them up with logic and who doesn't.

But for a recap, let's take a look at only the last post:

First, you separated those declarations of fact from the arguments supporting them. A rather important "omission" since the definition of ad hominem means unsupported insults in place of reasoned arguments. Btw, is calling someone who commits murder, "murderer", an ad hominem? No? Then calling you a hypocrite for being a hypocrite is not an ad hominem if it's backed up.

Are there any dj's in the house? Because this would make some nice lyrics to a dance mix. "And..and..it is hypocrisy..hyp..hyp...hypocrisy." thump thump thump thump

Umm...why is it hypocrisy to point out that you were making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing my opening post? Oops!

Was, is, has been, will be, clinically diagnosed...

You took words out of their context to perpetrate a lie and you complain about being accused of dishonesty? You're a dishonest person, Ted.

You know it's too bad I can't pull up a "history" thread that was written here last year. I remember reading your summary, in which it said, "called people liars, cheaters."

Yeah, isn't it just too bad you can't actually pull up this "history" from last year. Maybe you should try extending the thread search feature, that's what I do when the liberal I'm debating "forgets" what they've said.

But hey if you want to continue to ruin your thread with all of the "ad hominem" asides, I'll be more than happy to play along.

"With all the ad hominems aside"? Has this thread been ruined just like how the world will be ruined if people don't get their government handouts?

Just make sure you look up big words and actually understand what they mean before you use them next time.

This coming from the idiot who posted a definition of ad hominem that refuted his own accusation.

[Ted Striker]

Hitting the shelves this summer!

"You and Your ad Hominems"

Produced by Ted Striker
Lyrics by berzerker

You and your ad hominems.
Just as the definition says -
An ad hominem is
The definition of ad hominem means

"Murderer", an ad hominem?
Is not an ad hominem
You were making ad hominem

Then calling you a hypocrite
For being a hypocrite
Why is it hypocrisy...?

You took words out of their context to perpetrate a lie
You complain about being accused of dishonesty?
You're a dishonest person, Ted.

This coming from the idiot
Who posted a definition of ad hominem

[chequita guevara]

Is this personal battle necessary?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Is this personal battle necessary?

This is Apolyton.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is Apolyton.

Oh right, I forgot where I was for a moment.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know which alternative insulating material was used on the upper stories of the WTC? Such information might have a bearing on your argument.

[Berzerker]

Dr Strangelove - whatever the material was, Mr Levine, the man who invented the asbestos coating said it wasn't sufficient to protect the steel from fire.

[Dr Strangelove]

If we knew what it was we could make that judgement ourselves.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It doesn't matter if the jet fuel fire wasn't sustained, the initial moments of extreme heat and the shock of the impact would pretty much obliverate much of the asbestos. The tower's colapse may have been delayed, but only slightly. Asbestos isn't indestructalle.