why would they do that? don't they want to find out who did it? How much were they paid?
2006-11-23 17:20:08 · 13 answers · asked by sincere12_26 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
~They stored it all in the South Bronx. It fit right in with the rest of the neighborhood. They couldn't leave the human remains on site - the maggots would have eaten them.
2006-11-23 17:25:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They're are many reasons why the remains needed to be moved:
1. The remains of the world trade center needed to be moved to try and find survivors.
2. The remains were in a busy portion of New York, which needed to be cleared to bring back business.
3. The remains were not really evidence.
Bottom line, there was nothing to be found in the remains except potential survivors. There would not have been and there was no "evidence" to be found.
Nothing illegal was done.
2006-11-24 01:25:46 · answer #2 · answered by Frank 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm pretty sure all of the remains were examined before carting them off. They know what "the evidence" showed ... but do we get to know? Kind of like the Warren Commission that took years to come to light.
The evidence was in the buildings *and* in the planes. It's all evidence.
2006-11-24 01:54:27 · answer #3 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think of it on a smaller scale. If someone throws a rock through your window, you don't leave the broken glass all over the carpet until the guy is caught. You document the damage and repair it. This is the same thing on a much larger scale. The destruction was very fully documented and the debris removed.
2006-11-24 03:54:14 · answer #4 · answered by James P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evidence can be disposed of once its probative value is established. In the case of the WTC, there was and is no question of who did it. If you feel like picking over the WTC remains, you can go to the landfill where the stuff got dumped and poke around. Since there was about a million tons of debris, that could take a while.
2006-11-24 01:25:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The evidence would be the remains of the airplanes not the buildings. If I shot someone in their home the gun and bullet are the evidence not the house.
2006-11-24 01:26:32 · answer #6 · answered by Jane S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt they could find out anything from the rubble that was left over. I mean they already knew that there was explosives on the planes. If they left it there it would have gotten infested with rats and small animals like that. Which would have been a very bad thing.
2006-11-24 01:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by Timothy C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would not have been able to find any evidence in the WTC wreckage. It was all burnt beyond recognition. And I highly doubt that they terrorists carried their financial information along with them. The government would be spending its money much better looking somewhere where they could actually find evidence.
2006-11-24 01:23:21 · answer #8 · answered by Bballoakie 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it is illegal, but due to recent presidential signing statements, the government no longer has to obey the law.
2006-11-26 08:55:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
By your logic the USS Missouri is "evidence". I don't think Admiral Yamamoto was lying when he said he sank her, and I'll take Osama Bin-Ladin at his word as well.
2006-11-24 01:23:17 · answer #10 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋