Do you feel there was a thorough investigation as to how or what happened during 9/11? Just curious.. I personally think it could have been more extensive.
Do you feel there was a thorough investigation as to how or what happened during 9/11? Just curious.. I personally think it could have been more extensive.
I don't think that there was anything else they could do besides investigating the hijackers. All of the evidence (if there was any) of any possible government involvement would have been destroyed when the towers fell.
I agree with Zakyman, because everything that was invloled in the incedent(the plane, the hijackers, the towers themselves) were practicly gone completly.
I also don't think much more could be done. Buti think I saw on CNN today that they were interviewing the guy who let the hijackers on the plane. But there really wasn't too much to investigate. The planes exploded into the towers and then all of the steel and concreate, fire and whatever else in the tower collaped on top of the planes. I think there would be little evidence after that.
I don't really know what has been done exactly, but I could imagine the government (or whoever investigated that) didn't make much effort to look further once they had their official version of the facts straight. If they had found out that they were wrong, they'd have lost their alibi to retaliate, and I'm sure they didn't want to take that risk.
They were the most lethal terrorist attacks in history, taking the lives of 3,000 Americans and international citizens and ultimately leading to far-reaching changes in anti-terror approaches and operations in the U.S. and around the globe.
Our ensuing investigation of the attacks of 9/11â"code-named âPENTTBOMââ"was our largest investigation ever. At the peak of the case, more than half our agents worked to identify the hijackers and their sponsors and, with other agencies, to head off any possible future attacks. We followed more than half-a-million investigative leads, including several hundred thousand tips from the public. The attack and crash sites also represented the largest crime scenes in FBI history.
Also you have the 9/11 Comission Report and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology invastigated the collaps of the WTC. I don't know what else could be done.
I don't know what to think about 9/11. The FBI says that there were like 19 hijackers, and at least 6 of them are alive.
Another thing is how the towers fell. It's impossible that steel melts at 1200 C*(fire that arised out of kerosene gets a max. temp. of 1200 C*). Steel melts at a temp. of min. 1500 C*.
Another thing is(I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist xD) about the core of the WTC. A long pilar of steal beams covered with concrete. If the WTC fell with the "ancake effect", then the core should be still standing there(wonder if everyone knows the structure of the WTC).
I don't know what to think about 9/11. The FBI says that there were like 19 hijackers, and at least 6 of them are alive. Another thing is how the towers fell. It's impossible that steel melts at 1200 C*(fire that arised out of kerosene gets a max. temp. of 1200 C*). Steel melts at a temp. of min. 1500 C*. Another thing is(I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist xD) about the core of the WTC. A long pilar of steal beams covered with concrete. If the WTC fell with the "ancake effect", then the core should be still standing there(wonder if everyone knows the structure of the WTC). So, many questions popping out of my mind . Greetings
I think this link should explain it. If it works...
I can recommend you Popular Mechanics. They debunk 16 often heard arguments by truthers.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strengthâ"and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics
Here you can watch a discussion between two people from Popular Mechanics and two people who made "Loose Change" (they claim 9/11 was an inside job). You will see that the so called "truthers" have no idea what they are talking about and didn't do their research.
Another thing is how the towers fell. It's impossible that steel melts at 1200 C*(fire that arised out of kerosene gets a max. temp. of 1200 C*). Steel melts at a temp. of min. 1500 C*.
You don't know much about mechanics, do you? Here, an Edward Current video I watched a few hours ago.
Another thing is(I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist xD)
That is because you are...
Another thing is(I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist xD) about the core of the WTC. A long pilar of steal beams covered with concrete. If the WTC fell with the "ancake effect", then the core should be still standing there(wonder if everyone knows the structure of the WTC).
Watch the videos. The core fell first. Then the unsupported outsides fell.
I don't really know what you mean. We know who the hijacker were, we know who hired them, we know how/why the buidlings collapsed, we know that 9/11 could have been prevented because there were some warnings. What else do you want to know?
I would like to know why we did so much when there are so many other things we could've done.
before i continue, I would like to appologize for what I'm about to say. I'm looking at this from a logical standpoint.
There are so many more people in america dying on the highway than from a terrorist attack. if we really wanted to damage them, we needed to give them the biggest insult a warrior can give to another, to be ignored. we can still mourn those who died, but we shouldn't have done so many counter terrorism techniques because they practically had no effect. because of our prejudice, muslims are alienated in america for no reason, and the rest of the world hates us for being so overzealous.
we should've just rebuilt and pretended it never happened. it is just like a bullying situation: it goaded us into fighting when we should've ignored it. nothing good comes from this violence, but we were so blinded by fear, rage, and sadness that we would agree to anything if we thought it would help.
once again, I'm not trying to offend anyone, but from a certain viewpoint, we completely overreacted.
