22-01-2002 17:06									#91
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"Mr Levine said if there was a fire above the 64th floor, the towers would collapse. He must have believed the substitute was not as effective for a reason. "

You don't think he could have been biased at all?
After all he was being told his invention was dangerous...

"How does this engineer know that? "

Read his calculation of the energy of the impact...

"The steel did. "

No it didn't...the external steel frame was sliced through like butter...and the internal structure was severely damaged in the North tower (no staircases survived the impact) and badly damaged in the South (5 people managed to get past the impact floors).

"If one side of the building's steel supports had been taken out, it would have collapsed within seconds, not a half hour. "

Read the report...you don't know what you're talking about.

"Which is kind of the point, had the asbestos been used and it prevented the collapse - at least long enough for firefighters to combat the fire, maybe the towers would not have collapsed and airborne asbestos would not have been a problem. "

You have given absolutely no data to showthis...none...zip...squit diddly. The asbestos its replacement were both rated the same for fire proofing.

	22-01-2002 21:03									#92
	Support Apolyton

Tolls -

quote: You don't think he could have been biased at all? After all he was being told his invention was dangerous...

Biased in what way? The effects of asbestos were already being discovered so what did he have to gain by making his prediction? He wasn't the only one with reservations about the substitute:

quote: The protection of the steel structure that delayed the collapsing was made using a substitute for the carcinogenic Asbestos. Some scientists fear, however, that these substitutes, tested only at relatively normal fire temperatures, were not as efficient as the original Asbestos. They theorize that perhaps more lives could have been saved were it not for the insufficient fire protection.

From:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N49/Bu...Techno.49f.html

Unfortunately, I could not find a footnote or list of these scientists at that link.

You said (you thought) the only (?) insulator capable of withstanding the extreme temps - mineral wool combined with asbestos I believe - was not available 30 years ago. But it was, the coating used was asbestos and mineral (rock) wool. And I know it is asking alot to read all the links below, but one explains that the aluminum from the planes did not ignite in the impact and that temps were not as high as you claimed.

We won't know the truth until the original asbestos coating is compared to the substitute under conditions reflecting the fire, and I don't know if that analysis will ever be done since asbestos is no longer a viable option for construction.

quote: Read his calculation of the energy of the impact...

How can I? GSquid didn't offer a link.

quote: No it didn't...the external steel frame was sliced through like butter...and the internal structure was severely damaged in the North tower (no staircases survived the impact) and badly damaged in the South (5 people managed to get past the impact floors).

GSquid and I were talking about insulation being destroyed by the impact. Obviously the plane went thru some of the perimeter struts, but any insulation covering them would have been useless since the struts were cut anyway.

quote: Read the report...you don't know what you're talking about.

Lol, what report? He didn't provide a link so how can I read this report he is citing?
GSquid claimed the problem was not "melting" steel supports, but sheared supports. I said the planes did not take out enough of the supports to collapse the towers...you don't know what you're talking about.

quote: You have given absolutely no data to showthis...none...zip...squit diddly. The asbestos its replacement were both rated the same for fire proofing.

Then I'll repeat this part:

quote: The protection of the steel structure that delayed the collapsing was made using a substitute for the carcinogenic Asbestos. Some scientists fear, however, that these substitutes, tested only at relatively normal fire temperatures, were not as efficient as the original Asbestos. They theorize that perhaps more lives could have been saved were it not for the insufficient fire protection.

Here are a few more links showing that the "jury" is still out:

http://www.newsday.com/news/printed...l=ny-news-print

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...Eagar-0112.html

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/pd112101d.html

http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/

http://www.arup.com/WTC_19_09_01.pdf

	22-01-2002 21:30									#93
	Remove this text

Berzerker:
Read the thread...I posted right after Squid with two links, one in PDF and one in html, of a report about the WTC collapse and the likelihood that fire was not the determinant.

I suggest you read it before you comment anymore.

	23-01-2002 08:58									#94
	Put an end to popups!

Tolls -

quote: Berzerker: Read the thread...I posted right after Squid with two links, one in PDF and one in html, of a report about the WTC collapse and the likelihood that fire was not the determinant. I suggest you read it before you comment anymore.

You quoted my responses to GSquid and told me to read the report he was commenting on for which he provided no link, not the links you thought he might be citing. Did you read my links? I have read a number of reports that claim the fire was the determinant, but I will look at yours now.

	23-01-2002 09:23									#95
	Remove this text

Tolls, that for that link - it makes interesting reading.

I'd be interested to read something similar on the Pentagon impact. As I understand it, the plane hit a recently renovated section of the building (presumably with good fire protection), yet it took several days to put the fire out.

	23-01-2002 10:23									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Tolls - your first link takes too long to upload so I went to the second link.

While the author claims it was the impacts that brought down the towers, he doesn't claim the fire was inconsequential:

quote: The likely influence of the fire in the time from impact to collapse would have been to progressively weaken the residual vertical load carrying capacity from the remaining core columns, increasing the need for slab panel action from the floor slabs above the impact region back to the perimeter frame. This would have been transmitted up through the floors above the impact region through the tension tie effect from the core columns, increasing the severity of shear action between the top floor or floors and the perimeter frame.

Here are some quotes from my links:

quote: Fireproofing on floor supports and columns in the World Trade Center was inadequate, a structural expert said yesterday, adding a new wrinkle to the debate over the causes of the towers' collapse.

quote: The photos, taken in the north tower between 1990 and 1993, show exposed steel and what appears to be spotty fireproofing on floor joists, connections between the floors and the exterior columns, and on core columns. It is not clear, however, whether those areas shown were subsequently improved by the Port Authority. The agency spent millions on replacing asbestos-based fireproofing over the decades. "The photos indicate a need for further study of the fireproofing in the towers," said Frederick Mowrer, a University of Maryland engineering professor who presented Morse's pictures.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printed...l=ny-news-print

quote: “Fire melts steel,” Burns said. In addition, he said, the impact of the plane could have severely damaged the building’s sprinklers, allowing the fire to rage, despite fireproofing supposed to protect steel columns and beams.

http://chicagotribune.com/news/nati...in-towers.story

quote: The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

quote: The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures

[url]http://www.tms...Eagar-0112.html

Hmm...try it again. This was the link claiming the aluminum did not ignite.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...Eagar-0112.html

quote: Some scientists say that the reason the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed in a matter of minutes following the assault by two commercial airliners was the lack of asbestos in the building to retard the flames' progress.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/pd112101d.html

quote: "In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection,"

quote: Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing.

http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/

This link also claims it was the fire and not the collisions:

http://www.arup.com/WTC_19_09_01.pdf

	23-01-2002 14:17									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

I have read your stuff...but this quote is bollocks:
"Some scientists say that the reason the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed in a matter of minutes following the assault by two commercial airliners was the lack of asbestos in the building to retard the flames' progress."

It did not collapse in a matter of minutes...the North tower survived over 1 1/2 hours...as for redundancy, yes they had a large level of redundancy as shown by the ability of the North Tower to stand for as long as it did, but the South Tower (losing some twice as many floors) clearly overwhelmed that redundancy.

As for the lack of covering on some metal structures, that has nothing to do with asbestos or not...that has to do with poor maintenance or poor construction.

Failure of the sprinkler system caused by the crash has nothing to do with asbestos either...

None of these deny that the crash would have stripped protection from the central column...asbestos or no asbestos.

Quite frankly I find it rather despicable that anyone would use this to try and make a political point with little evidence to back it up...

	23-01-2002 14:59									#98
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Tolls Quite frankly I find it rather despicable that anyone would use this to try and make a political point with little evidence to back it up...

Welcome to the post Sept 11 world. Everyone has used the attacks to push their personal hobby horse.

	23-01-2002 16:42									#99
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Tolls -

quote: I have read your stuff...but this quote is bollocks: It did not collapse in a matter of minutes...the North tower survived over 1 1/2 hours...

First, did you read those links before telling me to make no further comments until reading your links? So your only complaint with that quote is that they didn't specify how many minutes? Btw, one of those links disputes the air speeds used by the engineer in his impact force analysis you or GSquid cited.

quote: as for redundancy, yes they had a large level of redundancy as shown by the ability of the North Tower to stand for as long as it did, but the South Tower (losing some twice as many floors) clearly overwhelmed that redundancy.

That tower was hit lower meaning more weight was above. Analyses not yet done might show if the second tower suffered more initial damage.

quote: As for the lack of covering on some metal structures, that has nothing to do with asbestos or not...that has to do with poor maintenance or poor construction.

They spent years removing the older asbestos insulation and replacing it so I'd say that process might have had something to do with exposed steel.

quote: Failure of the sprinkler system caused by the crash has nothing to do with asbestos either...

Never said it did (assuming it failed). But it still has something to do with the asbestos in that the failure might have placed more emphasis on other safety measures, including the insulating materials.

quote: None of these deny that the crash would have stripped protection from the central column...asbestos or no asbestos.

None of these claim the crash stripped enough away either.

quote: Quite frankly I find it rather despicable that anyone would use this to try and make a political point with little evidence to back it up...

Were these scientists making a "political point" when offering the possibility that removing the asbestos and using a substitute contributed to the collapses? What "political point" was I making? I said early on they should have either started over or finished the buildings with the asbestos in addition to acknowledging the potential hazards of asbestos. I never said anything about politics, try and get a grip...

	24-01-2002 08:48									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Bob and Stefu - You guys chastised me for making a possibly false link between Ted Striker and G Squid and proceeded to make your own false accusations, now you disappear without responding to my rebuttal? And I do find it interesting that Ted Striker, a very prolific poster, also disappeared before the Squid showed up, so I'm still not sure they aren't the same person.

Tolls - Are you going to back up your accusation or join Bob and Stefu?

	24-01-2002 14:43									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have backed up everything...so now I'm ignoring you. I suspect everyone else has given up on you as well...bye bye.
I've removed the notification from this thread...

In Usenet terms...**plonk** into the bin with you.

	24-01-2002 16:38									#102
	Increase Your PM Length

Oh, Berz, if you insist.

quote: And who was Ted Striker before becoming Ted Striker?

derek.

quote: I suggest you look at this thread to see if I've been insulting everyone. Ted and Squid (ahem...) entered this thread launching ad hominems at me, and it wasn't the first time Ted did this.

Let us now see the first exchange between you and Ted:

Ted: ****ing brilliant Berzerker.

You: I see you're still in pain from all the other threads, Ted. Try to relax, son, you'll get a stroke long before your time. Well, someone as stupid as you will find a way of going before too long I guess.

See? Ted is bashing your opinion, you are bashing Ted.

quote: I saw a nice connection between Ted and Squid in how they both used ad hominems in this thread. I've debated Squid in the past and we have always debated with civility, but now Squid shows up with the same kind of unsupported insults as Ted.

Again, the writing styles are different enough to cast serious doubt on any claim Squid would be Ted's DL. Also, Squid has posted with his current moniker (Giant_Squid) before.

quote: As for calling people "liars", aside from Ted/Squid, whom have I called a liar?

Many many people in threads long passed.

quote: And if you use "government" to take money from others to pay for what you, there is NO moral distinction between you and the thief who steals without help from "government" to pay for what he wants.

You can think what you think. However, this is nothing but name-calling, and gets tiring. It's same tactic as accusing death penalty supporter of being "murderer" or pro-choicer of being "baby-killer."

	25-01-2002 16:55									#103
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Tolls -

quote: I have backed up everything...

BS! When did you back up your accusation that I was "using" this tragedy to push a political agenda?

quote: so now I'm ignoring you.

In other words, you can't back up your accusation so you are running away.

I will show you why your accusation was hypocritical. When proponents and opponents of the drug war justify their political position, they do so by "using" tragedies. Proponents "use" the tragedies of addicts ruining their lives or the lives of others, and opponents "use" the tragedies of incarcerating millions of people who neither ruined their lives or anyone else's life. There are plenty of examples showing that everyone who acquires a political position does so by "using" tragedies, and several posters here "used" the tragedies of people getting lung disease from asbestos to justify banning it. Are you despicable for "using" tragedies when determining which political position to take? And I'm waiting for you to show what political position I took in this thread. Making hypocritical accusations and running away rather than backing them is despicable (to use your word)...

Stefu -

quote: See? Ted is bashing your opinion, you are bashing Ted

Wrong. Ted has repeatedly entered threads to initiate ad hominem attacks against me, and that is what he did in this thread. You don't thinking calling someone "****ing brilliant" is not the same as calling someone "stupid"? If he was only referring to my opening post, why didn't he offer anything to support his "critique"? Because he wasn't trying to insult my opening post, he was trying to insult me instead. He went on to accuse me of wanting to re-legalize asbestos, lead-based paints and gasoline and that I was "****ing pathetic" for opposing "environmentalism, none of which he supported either. I know you're unaware of the context in which the flame war between Ted and me began, but this is the 3rd thread Ted entered to launch ad hominems.

quote: Many many people in threads long passed.

Bullsh!t! You can't back this up.

quote: You can think what you think. However, this is nothing but name-calling, and gets tiring. It's same tactic as accusing death penalty supporter of being "murderer" or pro-choicer of being "baby-killer."

While I have some patience, when people enter threads to initiate ad hominems against me, I will retaliate which is what I've done in this thread. It is hypocritical for you and Bob to criticize me for responding to people who initiate flame wars.

Here is what you said:

quote: Berzerker, is it actually impossible for you to debate without insulting people? Oh, this takes me back to good ol' "Liar! Thief!" debates.

The obvious implication here is that I insult everyone I debate, yet you point only to the flame war Ted continued from previous threads which he also used to initiate ad hominems as proof. I already acknowledged insulting Ted in this thread, so why did you point only to him as proof that I insult everyone? Did you read this thread? Where are all my insults against everyone? If what you said was true, why did you send me a private message urging me to sign up for the debate threads/contests that seem to have fallen apart?

quote: derek.

Thanks.

	25-01-2002 17:19									#104
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: You don't thinking calling someone "****ing brilliant" is not the same as calling someone "stupid"?

He didn't say "You're ****ing brilliant", he said "****ing brilliant." There's a difference.

quote: went on to accuse me of wanting to re-legalize asbestos, lead-based paints and gasoline

No he didn't. He said "Next I say we re-legalize lead based paints and gasoline", obviously drawing a parallel between your opinions and re-legalizing lead based paints and gasoline.

quote: that I was "****ing pathetic"

Again, he didn't say "You're ****ing pathetic", just "****ing pathetic."

quote: If what you said was true, why did you send me a private message urging me to sign up for the debate threads/contests that seem to have fallen apart?

I sent them to pretty much everyone I could remember.

	25-01-2002 19:01									#105
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Stefu -

quote: He didn't say "You're ****ing brilliant", he said "****ing brilliant." There's a difference.

There is no difference, he didn't respond to what I said, only that I said it. You're ignoring the fact Ted started a flame war in previous threads and has used the same tactics in this thread as in the others.

quote: No he didn't. He said "Next I say we re-legalize lead based paints and gasoline", obviously drawing a parallel between your opinions and re-legalizing lead based paints and gasoline.

A parallel to what, my "desire" to re-legalize asbestos? I never said that. He was issuing an insult based on his convenient assumption I wanted to re-legalize asbestos.

quote: Again, he didn't say "You're ****ing pathetic", just "****ing pathetic."

What is the relevant difference? Both are insults...

quote: I sent them to pretty much everyone I could remember.

Even to people who insult everyone and call them "liars"?

Why are you not posting examples of me insulting everyone in this thread?