18-01-2002 14:09									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ted -

quote: Pretty good try berzerker, but you've just demonstrated nothing more than your own lack of depth.

I can't wait to see you prove this one. Oh yeah, the only thing you prove is what a moron you are.

quote: What YOU didn't realize was that there are MORE THAN TWO TYPES of marital status.

And this means out-of-wedlock births can increase for married people?

quote: You are thinking married and unmarried.

I was? Okay.

quote: There are: married divorced widowed separated single 4 out of 5 of those types can have a child out of wedlock.

And all 5 are either married or unmarried, DOH!

quote: Any questions?

Yes, when will you learn to cut your losses and slink away with your tail between your legs?

	18-01-2002 14:10									#32
	Remove this text

You should have more confidence in your theories berzerker, maybe then you wouldn't have to resort to trying to prove to yourself how great you are.

	18-01-2002 14:10									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ted -

quote: You should have more confidence in your theories berzerker, maybe then you wouldn't have to resort to trying to prove to yourself how great you are.

What worries me is you apparently have confidence in yours.

	18-01-2002 14:22									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hey Chief,

Can we get that one more time? Little excited there?

But I can understand now that you feel like that's the only thing left you have to stand on.

At least you got it in the right thread this time.

Though it took you 3 tries.

Last edited by Ted Striker on 18-01-2002 at 14:30

	18-01-2002 14:33									#35
	Remove this text

Ted -

quote: Hey Chief, Can we get that one more time? Little excited there?

But this is too much fun.

quote: But I can understand now that you feel like that's the only thing left you have to stand on.

Actually I'm rolling on the floor laughing my a$$ off at your posts.

quote: At least you got it in the right thread this time.

That was quite an achievement with all the threads to make fun of you.

	18-01-2002 14:53									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

Last edited by Ted Striker on 18-01-2002 at 14:59

	18-01-2002 15:42									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker That doesn't prove the article fallacious. The asbestos coating was invented to prevent the steel from weakening from fire. The buildings did not collapse from the impacts and the fireballs, but after long exposure to fire. Levine predicted they would collapse if a fire broke out and they did collapse. Had a fire broke out at the 65th floor, there was PLENTY of material to fuel a fire big enough to weaken the steel above if not properly insulated.

There are different kinds of fires, Berz. Clearly Mr Levine invented the procedure to protect against fires normally found in building fires, not jet fuel fire. 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.

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?

His prediction was right, but the reasons were wrong.

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker And you know the towers would have collapsed even if the steel superstructure was properly insulated? Given the fact they left the asbestos coating the first 64 floors, don't you think it wise to finish the job with an insulator known to work instead of finishing the job haphazardly or re-doing the whole thing? "Clumsy sophistry"? I"ll bet the correct insulation would have allowed those firefighters to get up there in enough time to combat the fire...

See above. Is the any evidence that they didn't coat the steel supprt frames?

	18-01-2002 22:34									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I wasn't commenting on Berz's article, Case. So, you can spare me the histrionics. I was commenting on this, The stuff is POISON.

It is poison, DinoDoc. If you'd like, I can try to dig through my respiratory course notes to find the statistics for you. Suffice it to say, if you ever put down asbestos, you are at a hugely increased risk for multiple types of lung cancer. And being around any exposed asbestos (which happens quite often, as it was often used near air ducts) also increases your risk.

	18-01-2002 22:53									#39
	Remove this text

dinodoc, Asbesto is poison, if you get it in your system. If it's lying around doing nothing, like most other poisons, it won't bve very dangerous. However, when it is being applied or removed, it becomes airborne, breathable, and deadly. The WTC wasn't meant to last forever.

Berserker the reason they didn't go back and fix the previous 64 floors is because that asbestos had already been laid. It was up to code. They couldn't put any more asbestos in. And taking it out is more dangerous than leaving it in place.

Furthermore, the architetects of the buildings had survied the towers a few weeks before the crashes and said the towers could withstand a fire. As noted by Urban Ranger, this does not mean a fire fueled by several thousnad gallons of jet fuel. The temperature caused by such a flame (around 4,000° F IIRC) was enough to melt the steel, even had there been asbestos.

Anyways, it wasn't about environmentalism but safe workplaces and neighborhoods.

	18-01-2002 23:07									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

Obviously the builders/owners should have found an alternative method of heat insulation the structural steel in the upper floors, shorthening the tower if necessary to compensate for weight of material or paying for the whatever more expensive insulation was available. Even in the 60s there were light weight insulating materials more effective than asbestos, but very expensive, were available, but perhaps not in the volume requred, they were all being used in the space program IIRC.

And yes it is most often best to leave undeteriorated ACBM in place, often applying extra coatings of sealer until the building is demolished, than to remove it. The Feds, through the EPA & health agencies admitted as long as 17 years ago the asbestos removal programs, primarily in public schools up to that point, created MANY times the exposure, as much as a few orders of magnitude, than doing nothing, much less using abatement in place procedures, which are now the most common. Most asbestos removal now comes only during the pre demolition process. The haste and go ahead with removal before adequate study in the 70s and early 80s, and before adequate devolopment and refinement of techniques may well have created MORE exposure to friable asbestos, than any other cause.

Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 18-01-2002 at 23:13

	18-01-2002 23:15									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There was a factory in my old neighborhood back in Chicago. The developers wanted to renovate it and convert it into yuppie housing. However, they decided it would cost too much to take the asbestos out safely. So they demolished the building and let the stuff float free in the air.

The clouds went for miles and lasted for days cuz they didn't tear it all down in one day.

	18-01-2002 23:39									#42
	Tired of ads?

Must have been a while ago, during the stupid days of early ACBM removal. Now a days it is encapsulated and removed before structural demolition. I do not have much experience with the srapyed on or smilar applied ACBM. Only two buildings that I have had taken down conatained even a small amount of that stuff. By far the most common ACBM I deal with, either pre demolition removal or between tenants, are floor tiles and mastic. Lead paint actually gives me much more problems and expense than asbestos.

Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 18-01-2002 at 23:48

	18-01-2002 23:41									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

1994-95.

	18-01-2002 23:46									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 1994-95.

Tahts G-damn ridiculous if they did what you said they did, what kind of crooked permitting authority did you have where you lived?

	18-01-2002 23:47									#45
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Mayor Daley

	19-01-2002 01:01									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

That would explain it.

	19-01-2002 01:53									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	19-01-2002 06:53									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ted -

quote: 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 -

quote: There are different kinds of fires, Berz.

I'm aware of this.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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?

	19-01-2002 07:08									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Let's see, you start with:

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

Then end with:

quote: Oh yeah, that would only expose your lack of intelligence

Once again making you a hypocrite.

	19-01-2002 07:39									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Mayor Daley

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola That would explain it.

ROFLMAO

	19-01-2002 11:26									#51
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	19-01-2002 12:33									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ted -

quote: 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:

quote: 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 -

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	19-01-2002 12:48									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

quote: 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.

	19-01-2002 19:56									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	19-01-2002 20:19									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ted -

quote: 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

quote: 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:

quote: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

quote: 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":

quote: 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.

	19-01-2002 20:50									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ted -

quote: 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:

quote: 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.

quote: 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!

	20-01-2002 04:39									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

quote: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

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

quote: 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.

	20-01-2002 05:21									#58
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ted -

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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!

quote: 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.

quote: 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!

quote: 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.

	20-01-2002 05:40									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Was I "deluding" myself when you claimed..

Yes, I think you just answered your own question.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	20-01-2002 06:09									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: 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.