No terrorest has ever attacked the U.S.
the U.S. has attacked itself several times now to promote war, 3 skyscrapers in the HISTORY OF MANKIND have colapsed from fires and ALL 3 happend on 9/11 look it up . it is IMPOSSIBLE for jet fuel to melt steel
google that too
It's quite possible for jet fuel to melt steel.
"Rabble-Rabble, Aim you don't know what you're talking about."
Yes, I do.
Not only did I grow up walking around a factory with my father and learning about metals and their tolerances, I also have spent considerable time studying and working within the aviation field.
We use titanium and special nickel alloys in the construction of jet engines. Tines on the turbine aft of the combustion chamber are 'hollow' and have tiny holes drilled in them, through which cold air is forced through. This is necessary to cool the engines, else the materials they are made of will fail.
Temperatures of open-air combustion will be a little lower, as the fuel/air mixture is not quite as ideal - but it is still more than hot enough to bring steel to a mere 40% of its tensile strength. Further, design compromises made in the actual construction of the towers (as opposed to the ordered design) include mere bolting of joists rather than a full weld of those joists. Bolts, my friend, are designed to sheer at certain applied forces. Heating the bolts outside their rated tolerances (which most certainly happened) will, often, lower these sheering points, considerably.
Many people actually destroy equipment by replacing bolts and other "cheap" parts with 'better' parts. The reality is that those parts are designed as weak-links intentionally to protect the more complex and difficult to repair/maintain parts from damage. A brass worm gear, replaced with a steel worm gear, can cause severe damage to an engine or cause the drive shaft to snap, rather than simply stripping a gear down.
That all said - the NSA is operating under a huge fallacy.
That is the fallacy and delusion that "because I have more information, I can make better decisions." It's the fallacy of big data. You can collect all the information you want to from the Internet - it's not going to help capture terrorist activity if you have no idea what you are looking for.
And if you do know what you are looking for (through use of human intelligence networks), then "Big Data" is completely unnecessary and you can use much smaller and focused surveillance activities.
The money needs to be spent on better Human Intelligence; "Boots on ground" - rather than trying to re-enact "A beautiful mind" with e-mails strung up around the office, trying to decipher the next terrorist plot.
"M" Put it eloquently for why we still need Human Intelligence Networks:
[video=youtube;ptqoSZgh7q8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptqoSZgh7q8[/video]
Which is what the NSA, FBI, and CIA should be focusing on. Internet monitoring on such a colossal scale cannot catch the real security problems.
It's always been inside informants and undercover operatives who have untrenched mobs and derailed 'cultist' plots to kill tens and dozens of people. Those informants have allowed agencies to focus their resources to target problem areas. Those agents supporting those operatives have ensured success and added assurance to keep informants cooperative (there's nothing worse than being "in enemy territory," aiding that group's 'enemy,' and not having any kind of faith that agents/operatives will try to pull you out of hot water).
When we stripped funding from the CIA (because they also kept tabs on our politicians through the Cold War...) and other Human Intelligence networks following the collapse of the USSR - we lost huge portions of those networks. We even lost "the art" of building and maintaining those networks - several gaffes over the past decade and a half make that painfully (and shamefully) evident.
Groups like AQ - that we had operatives in up until around 1995, changed without our cultivation of their ranks. Countries we had close ties with went absolutely ape-shit when our networks shriveled and died.
The number of lives lost as a direct consequence of our culling of our intelligence networks number in the hundreds of thousands. Indirectly, it accounts for millions.
Then we get these "new age" 'thinkers' who want to come along and try to solve everything with a computer. As much of a nerd as I can be, and as much as I love computers - that's simply not the case. You must have good human intelligence networks.
I would rather deal with badge-wearing men coming and asking me questions about my neighbor than have some computer algorithm left to sorting through e-mails and phone records to try and figure out who the problem members of society are.
