artisan Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I don't understand either. Why did this prevent any further loss of life? Why would they send firefighters into the building to rescue people and then blow the building up with them inside? Many people who weren't actually in the towers died when they collapsed. Controlled demolition, which you are referring to as expensive, is so because it is a long process. Buildings have to be stripped inside so that they don't leave enormous clouds of dust and falling debris which the WTC did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing#The_bomb Read this people were convinced that the Towers would fall into each other when the first attack took place, so why not on the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing#The_bomb Read this people were convinced that the Towers would fall into each other when the first attack took place, so why not on the second Yes but why would this cause any more fatalities than the towers falling down did?? I don't understand why blowing the towers up would save any lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing#The_bomb Read this people were convinced that the Towers would fall into each other when the first attack took place, so why not on the second What it says is that the bomber anticipated that one would fall onto the other. I suspect his knowledge of strucural engineering is a little thin - he was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing#The_bomb Read this people were convinced that the Towers would fall into each other when the first attack took place, so why not on the second The bomb was at the bottom of the tower, so you might expect it to fall over sideways if one side of the base was missing, not the same as being hit near the top by a plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4U2NV Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 To many people to reply to but here goes. Artison aint far off from what i think but i agree that i disagree with my fellow forummers. However another point being that the very FEMA dealt the Katrina disaster utter incompetence if ever, the very same that compiled the report on the 911 attacks, what other report barring this government agency one on the attacks can we refer to? No one will ever be making one for fear on some truths being uncovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 4U2NV, I think it's fair to say that an awful lot of people were caught out that day and there's already been a lot of embarrassment already. Governments and thier agencies tend to retreat into secrecy simply because that's how they are, not always because there is something to hide. They are also incredibly good at to **** ups and the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. If I was going to embark upon a conspiracy I wouldn't choose a Government to carry it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4U2NV Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 4U2NV, I think it's fair to say that an awful lot of people were caught out that day and there's already been a lot of embarrassment already. Governments and thier agencies tend to retreat into secrecy simply because that's how they are, not always because there is something to hide. They are also incredibly good at to **** ups and the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. If I was going to embark upon a conspiracy I wouldn't choose a Government to carry it out 2 wars were launched on them attacks on 911 and alot of people killed after them wouldn't you say. i think independent inquiry is justified considering fema is a government agency and that very administration were war mongering or that not under debate either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The invasions are separate thing altogether to be honest. It's important to realise that investigating the events of 9/11 are separate from the subsequent reactive political decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4U2NV Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The invasions are separate thing altogether to be honest. It's important to realise that investigating the events of 9/11 are separate from the subsequent reactive political decisions. Sure they are:hihi: The report was being compiled while the war mongering was going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 What it says is that the bomber anticipated that one would fall onto the other. I suspect his knowledge of strucural engineering is a little thin - he was wrong. Yes they were thank God, imagine the death toll at that time of day, and with political climate at that time, a few nuclear bombs may have been flying around. I understand it was only T. Blairs intervention that stopped this at the second time around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.