What you describe, seems similar to what is discussed in the thread, linked above; a proposed "solution" is included, although the actual cause of the problem, remains unidentified - so, if you figure out the cause, please be sure to announce it.
Seriously, thank you for this, which provides interesting considerations pertaining to kinetic-to-heat conversion during collision, which is something that I didn't quite understand in detail. I was not aware that what you describe, would be a representation of "quantum fluctuation" which, as little as I understand of it, I had regarded as pertaining to a concept of random creation of particle-antiparticle pairs, which led to an association of quantum coupling, in my imagination (which does, indeed, tend toward silliness, from time to time), and thus the facetious idea of "coupled" WTC towers.
I suppose that one ought to be careful about joking of serious subjects; but then, less fun and perhaps less likelihood of the occasional gem such as yours.
Edit: the proper term for what I had called "quantum coupling," is actually "quantum entanglement"
You'll need to provide documentation of burned tongues, for this to be credible. Alternatively, an empty mozzarella wrapper, found on the the ground outside the WTC, may suffice.
I suppose that next you're going to claim that a duplicate set of WTC towers rose up out of the ground, at the same moments that the NYC WTC towers fell.
I was joking. Shotglass's representation of energy equal to "27*10^21 J in the mass of the plane" is e=mc^2 for Tristan's plane mass of 300 metric tons.
In fact, I have no reason at all to suppose that there was any nuclear explosion (which is the usual context of e=mc^2) in the WTC, notwithstanding the previous proposition, in this thread, that U.S. gov't nuclear demolition items may have been used to produce the necessary extent of WTC destruction. Nor can I think of any way that the plane's mass could be converted into e=mc^2 energy; I was just playing; sorry.
I am curious to know what is the basis for the allegation about hijackers' passports being found on the street next to the WTC, or whatever it is. What, exactly, is the allegation, and how reliable is it?
Ah, finally an explanation for the seemingly nuclear-like explosion, necessary to bring down the WTC towers. Now, we just need to know what converted the mass to energy. And we need to expose the perpetrators, who did that.
Actually, we're talking about a few hundred tons of material, moving at several hundred miles per hour. That's quite a lot of kinetic energy, to be absorbed by the building. And that's not even counting the effects of a large amount of burning fuel.
Note that a bullet weighs a few ounces, and an artillery shell weighs a few pounds. Yet a tiny bullet's momentum can knock someone over, and bullets and artillery shells do considerable damage, by transferring their kinetic energy.
George W. Bush is simply the President of the USA; he is not some sort of king, or deity; he is an administrator, the head of the Executive branch of the U.S. government. Virtually everything that he does, involves the knowledge, and requires the assent and cooperation, of other persons, who have their own understandings and their own consciences. And there are competing branches, and other agencies, of the U.S. government, and laws and common practices that control them, and that provide "checks and balances" on the use of any Powers that may be asserted by the President.
It is a popular "conspiracy theory" that Bush deceived everyone into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. A little thought should enable one to recognize that this is absurd. Mr. Bush had no recognizable, independent ability to know whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq; as I stated, he is no sort of deity or magic man. Instead, there are intelligence agencies (that long predated his being President), and other common, formal methods by which he would, and did, achieve any understanding of WMD's in Iraq, or other such matters.
It would be only slightly hyperbolic to say that "everybody in the world" was convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD's (and this was true, btw; what was not, apparently, true was the expectation of the extent to which Hussein had WMD's; that expectation had been based upon what was previously understood about Iraq's WMD's, and Hussein's further pursuit of them, and his elimination of the "inspections" that had been intended to keep track of the actual facts of the matter). All U.S. intelligence agencies reported their opinions, to the President, that Iraq had significant quantities of WMD's, and so did the intelligence services of many other nations, and the UN Security Council believed likewise. Furthermore, virtually every U.S. federal politician of note, gave a speech or press conference or something, urging concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD's. Yet somehow (according to "theory"), Bush (who, some say, is too stupid to tie his own shoelaces) nevertheless was the only guy in the world who actually knew the truth that "there were no WMD's in Iraq," and yet "lied" to everybody - by telling them what they already believed. Such a theory is senseless; in actuality, Bush was simply the U.S. government's administrator, who acted upon the information that was given to him by people whose professional function was to do that.
Halliburton got to Iraq, because it has long been a contractor to the U.S. government; it is a large enterprise with expertise in (among other things) matters of energy production and, particularly, oil fields. It was employed to put out the many oil well fires that occurred during the first Gulf War, and I suppose that its expertise was recognized and further utilized by the U.S. government, with regard to oil, and perhaps other, matters pertaining to the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq, subsequent to the invasion.
Afghanistan, btw, was known to be a (Taliban-controlled) state supporter of Osama bin Laden, who claimed responsibility for destroying the WTC towers, and other terrorist acts against the USA. That's why "Bush got us to go to" Afghanistan. The reasons for going to Iraq, I have elsewhere, in this forum, described (a couple of times, so if you're interested, you can check my previous postings, by clicking on my name) - the short version is that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was regarded as (among other things) a resource for Islamic terrorists, against which the USA was waging war; this is how warfare is conducted: eliminating the enemy's resources and thus ability to wage war; this is why the "Allies" in WWII, for example, destroyed many German factories, oil refineries, bridges and railroad tracks, hydroelectric dams, etc. (it is not because these objects were expected to jump up and invade Europe or the USA).
One reportedly major reason for increasing oil prices, is greatly increased demand - especially by China, which is very rapidly industrializing and therefore consuming much more oil than had previously been the case - and not so greatly increased supply. I don't know anything about "unmetered" Iraqi oil, although it has been reported that Iraq has been selling oil (and has achieved some political agreement, among Iraqis, pertaining to the equitable distribution of financial proceeds from the sale of oil), so I would assume that they thus know what they are selling, and what money they are getting from such sales - which would involve quantitative measurements.
Quote:
Mothers of martyrs are reported as happy that they die. One mother of a Palestinian suicide bomber who had blown himself to bits said "with a resolutely cheerful countenance,
"I was very happy when I heard. To be a martyr, that's something. Very few people can do it. I prayed to thank God. I know my son is close to me."34
Quote: Q: What about the parents of these children? A: The reaction of parents can be surprising. Poverty and illiteracy play a major role in determining their beliefs. In Southern Afghanistan, many of the families I spoke with were proud of the fact that their young sons—some less than 15 years old—had glorified the name of Islam by "attacking the enemy."
Quote:
5. Official and parental complicity: The Palestinian Authority Ministry for Youth and Sport also oversees summer camps that are designed to recruit children to carry out attacks against Israel. At the camps, the children are subject to incitement, and are trained to use weapons for future attacks against Israel.
In many cases, Palestinian children dress up as a "shaheed" (martyr) with their parents' consent. Indeed, these children are often encouraged to do so by their parents. More and more cases are coming to light of children participating in processions, wearing replicas of explosive belts and inscriptions declaring that they are martyrs. This brings to mind the photograph of the baby recently discovered in Hebron. The photograph showed a baby wearing a replica explosive belt and a headband declaring that the baby was a martyr for "Allah". There is no doubt that this phenomenon has a destructive influence on the education of children who are instilled with the culture of the Jihad. These children are then easily recruited by terrorist organizations for the purpose of carrying out attacks.
I expect that you can find more sources, yourself. I used "parents of terrorists" as the Google search term, and only read through a few of the returns.
Such a question is meaningless, until you first identify WHAT would be the court case. WHO is the accused? WHAT is the accusation? WHAT is the argument and evidence, that would constitute proof that the accusation is accurate?
A court is not a forum for speculative questions, or for seeking explanations for complex events. Its function is to decide legal disputes.
For the record, only the last stuff, about it's being a plot by Dick Cheney, included some sense of sarcasm. The point is, that one's general attitude toward the event (including, being opposed to the Iraq war, or George Bush or Dick Cheney, generally) can affect one's regard to what "facts" are significant or, perhaps, intentionally ignored or "covered up." Generally, I tend to think that investigators made the best sense out of what they regarded as being significant, at the time (including, btw, Osama bin Laden's claiming of responsibility for the attack, and knowledge about the hijackers), which may be different from what one may later regard, in hindsight, to have been possibly significant and overlooked (or even, "covered up"). People are still arguing about whether the Moon landings were a conspiratorial hoax and, in some cases, have a whole bunch of "facts" to invoke in support of their opinions.
And BTW, bin Laden had a record of attacking America, whereas Dick Cheney did not.
The way I would describe it, is that since nothing like this had ever happened before, therefore finding out what had happened, would be a very complex and difficult problem, and it would be likely that there were considerations that would be overlooked (since not really having any basis for being sure what facts might later turn out to have been possibly significant), and there were competing concerns, such as cleaning the place up. And of course, there was the obvious fact that jetliners had crashed into the buildings, which would seem to provide a straightforward explanation for what happened (if only they had started out with a presumption that the whole thing was a plot by Dick Cheney, to launch a war against Iraq, then things might have turned out very differently).
Well, I do agree that one can infer, from what I described, that the government's ethically legitimate authority to wage war, derives from the Rights of citizens (generically, here - meaning, participants in the civilization) to conduct their self-defense (which actually is more specific than the way that you described it).
Anyway, with specific regard to the warfare being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq (I'm assuming that this is what you mean), Congress (as our Constitutional system's representation of "the support of the people") did, in fact, authorize these actions.
As I stated, the steel would need to be dropped 65km, to melt ALL of it. Dropping it from the height of the WTC tower, would (acting by itself) likely melt about 1% of it. Can you quantify how much of it was, in fact, melted?
Also, I provided two possible explanations of why it might remain liquid - including, lowered melting point as a consequence of mixing with non-steel materials, and being in a circumstance that would provide thermal insulation to prevent it from cooling enough to solidify.
Well, again, I am not sure what you mean by "over-generalizing." Perhaps it is that I have apparently overgeneralized about your own sentiments, based upon what has seemed to be your inclination to respond to any of my comments, on such matters, by simply calling me a stupid (or "faking it") "neocon" (and similarly characterizing any similar source of information).
Nevertheless, it seems to me that pretty much any statement about the world and its circumstances, is likely to be a generalization. If it is an overgeneralization, then a useful approach is to examine it for what is specifically true, and what is excessive inference. This is not accomplished by simply dismissing it entirely (and insultingly) as "stupid," or "small-minded," or "neocon," or such.
Neither do I overgeneralize about Muslims, as I have previously described that I (and others) quite recognize that there is a distinction between aggressive Muslims, and those who are not. But neither do I ignore my observations of aggressive Muslims, or suppose that they are of negligible significance, or that others who regard them as significant, are stupid and such (including an assertion that their representation of their concern, is "complete and utter bollocks").
Well, I'm not sure quite what you mean by "neocon," but certainly, such information sources as you (and others) have called "neocon" (e.g. - Frontpagemag, WND and Fox News) are quite new, and are indeed, regarded as heretical (and thus, I suppose, arguably "contamination") by what used to be the main television networks, newspapers and magazines.
Evidently, you've not read or heard the many speeches and writings, by many Muslim clerics, alluding to the "blasphemy that is democracy" and especially, condemning Iraqis for embracing such heresy, and advocating the establishment of universally supreme, Sharia law, as a replacement for all other political systems. Perhaps you are, instead, inclined to regard any purported existence of such sentiments, to be "biased contamination" of correct, mainstream understanding, inasmuch as being "neocon" conspiring or mere stupidity.[/quote]
WRT my post #219, above, I thought of a simpler experiment, which would be to consider a piece of steel, independently, raised to some initial height and then allowed to free-fall and convert its potential energy into absorbed heat, to see if that would be sufficient to melt it.
Since not knowing the type of steel, I used some approximations for heat capacity (475J/[kg*deg.C]) and melting temperature (1370deg.C).
In order to completely melt a mass of steel, it would need to be dropped from a height of ~65km. If it were dropped from a height of ~400m (the height of the WTC tower), this would be sufficient to melt ~0.61% of its mass. Again, note that these numbers neglect air friction and assume free-fall (and, indeed, the whole consideration is a simplified estimate).
(where M=initial mass and m=melted mass, g=gravitational acceleration=9.8m/s^2, h=initial height, C=heat capacity, deltaT=change in temperature [I used 1350deg.C, assuming 20deg.C as initial temperature])
I thought that it made pretty good sense, actually. I suppose that a fairly simple calculation could be done, to examine whether it is, in fact, reasonable. This would require:
1) knowing the mass (or density) and dimensions of the building (to estimate its initial gravitational potential energy)
2) knowing the mass-fraction of steel, of the building, and assuming that the energy was equally distributed among all materials (I'm not actually sure if this is a valid assumption, although it seems reasonable, to me, at this moment), in order to calculate the mass of steel, and the amount of energy absorbed by it
3) knowing the heat-capacity of the steel, and its initial temperature (I suppose that one could assume that the steel was at ambient atmospheric temperature, initially, and this would suffice)
From this, one could calculate the final temperature of the steel, and compare it to the melting temperature of steel. I can only surmise that the initial potential energy of the building, was enormous, and the final conversion into heat energy, would be quite enough to cause some melting of steel.
As to why it could remain molten, after some time, adding impurities to a substance, lowers its melting temperature (this is why salt is placed on roads and sidewalks, in winter, to enable the water to remain liquid at normally freezing temperatures). Also, the circumstances of the "molten steel" may have been such that it was thermally insulated, and thus maintained at sufficiently high temperature to remain liquid.
BTW, "thermite" is iron oxide and aluminum, both of which were undoubtedly present in the building. It seems at least somewhat likely that the destruction of the building, could combine these materials (and there was even a large amount of heat, to "ignite" the "thermite"), so as to produce a thermite-like residue (assuming that such a substance was found in the wreckage of the building).
This is the essence of the traditional, USA theory of government (explained in our Declaration of Independence). A person has a Right, and therefore a Just Power, to defend himself (herself) against being violated (that is, to secure his unalienable Rights - the acknowledgement and deference owed to his characteristic nature as an individual being, self-regulated by his own internal systems, and self-directed by his own will), even though violence is otherwise antithetical to a condition of civilization (since all persons have such Rights, and civilization is an association of such beings/persons).
Because a participant in a civilization, has such a Just Power, thus he can delegate that Just Power to an agent, to act for him, to secure his self-defense, and this is the (only) source of a government's Just Power to behave violently (enforcing compliance with its will). Government has ethically legitimate Power, only because, and only to the extent that, the participants in the civilization have such ethically legitimate Power, themselves, and employ government as their agent to manifest it. For government to exercise violent power, for any other cause, is directly opposed to its natural purpose, which is to enable the persistence of a condition of civilization, by acting as a common agency of self-defense.
There seems to have been a whole lot of Russians, who were not at all happy about the conditions of living in the Soviet Union; they were simply subjugated by force, which may seem to have achieved an apparently stable condition of political peace, but that's quite distinct from happiness. I really don't know what Russians, generally, think about their current circumstances; but then, I'm not even sure what are their current circumstances - although it does seem that Putin was trying pretty hard to restore the conditions of the old Soviet Union.
You seem to be referring to the Electoral College, and the Election Primary system of some States. The reason for it all, is contained in the fact that the USA was never intended to be a democracy, but instead, a Constitutional Republic.
Explaining it all, would perhaps take some considerable time, but the short version is that the USA is a federation of originally autonomous States, which formed an alliance - to secure their independence from colonial Britain, and later, to secure their common defense. The "plurality voting system" is in recognition of, and accordance with, this federal nature of the USA.
A Constitutional Republic means that the government is established as having a specific purpose, and is given permission to exercise specified Powers, rather than simply being empowered to act to satisfy the popular will in any matter at all, which would characterize "democracy." Nevertheless, the USA is often described as "a democracy" - presumably, as a kind of simplified way of noting that citizens vote and are the foundations of political power.
OK; no Frontpagemag, no WND and no Fox News, as sources of information (also, no op-ed pieces from Bill O'Reilly). Anybody else?
Do you mean that he did not tolerate extremist behavior, within Iraq? Or do you mean that he did not tolerate extremist behavior, outside Iraq? Or do you mean that he simply did not tolerate any extremist behavior, at all?
The US is very far from "blindly supporting Israel." Instead, it has organized several peace conferences, and it has continued to pressure Israel to refrain from violence (including retaliation for the extensive Hezbollah rocket attacks from Lebanon, a while back), and to make concessions (including, returning virtually all captured territories [Oslo accords, if I recall correctly], in exchange for peace; unfortunately, what Arafat required as the essential concession, was extinction of Israel, and this turned out to be a deal-breaker).
Anyway, the USA is an ally of Israel (democracy, and all), and that means that it is willing to support Israel's defense of its existence. Some persons have said that the USA is too willing to pressure Israel to make concessions for peace, arguing that such concessions would be suicidal for Israel.
As for "civilian neighborhoods," Palestinian civilians are its soldiers (as confusing as that may be, for everybody concerned), and while it would be nice if the Palestinians would be kind enough to identify who is the one that is making bombs and deploying them, and who is shooting rockets, and who is the peaceful civilian, and if these groups would separate themselves, and maybe wear uniforms, for the sake of conducting an orderly Geneva-Convention-style war, then things would perhaps work out more to your satisfaction. As it is, many Palestinians seem to prefer the confusion, since it gives them the opportunity to try to convince everybody that evil Israelis are attacking peaceful Palestinian civilians, and even to convince some foreigners to visit Palestine and to become human shields, themselves (presumably, so that the Palestinians can achieve their desire to have peace while living next door to Israel).
Perhaps you're right. Anyway, the pertinent problem is that Israelis want Israel to exist, and several of Israel's neighbors want Israel not to exist. Please, let me know when you think of a peaceful solution to that disagreement.
Assuming that you're correct about this, it occurs to me that this represents a circumstance wherein the Middle East had been already conquered by Islam, while Europe was still in the process of attempted conquest by Islam (which attempt continued until the 17th Century). Also, Muslim law has a rather annoying version of "tolerance" toward non-Muslims:
I suppose that universal submission is one version of "peace."
I really don't know, but the problems of American interventionism, generally, are widely recognized. And btw, if you want to be really funny, you should perhaps henceforth spell "FOX" as "faux;" many persons do that, so I guess that it would be a great party trick.
The reason was that the purpose of the war, was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and doing more than this (removing him from power in Iraq), would be difficult and, in any case, not seemingly supported by the UN and by the coalition of allies that had been formed with the intent to respond to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The result was a continuation of problems with Saddam, that became urgent (specifically, wrt his continuing enmity and pursuit of weapons, and the incipient failure of the "containment" of him [unpopular "sanctions," and the greatly corrupted "oil for food" program]), following the 9/11 event.