I'd do what was right, no matter the cost.

How far back would you have to go to convince airlines to install stronger cockpit barriers and who would see the danger? Even through the 1960s-80s planes were not better secured despite dozens of hijackings. If only certain airlines or plane models had been secured, would Khalid Mohammed have changed plans to use different planes or attack somewhere else? Even after 9/11, airports confiscated barrels full of knives, and as I argued with the security agents over my "missing" film canisters, my mom walked right through wearing a 12-inch long hatpin. I say time cannot be changed because it has too many variable parts.

No.

What Back To The Future?..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ULjJ3EqyY

The tendency would be to stop such history making times, what about Dec. 7, 1941? or the Alamo in 1836? The great San Francisco earthquake of early 1900s or putting out the lantern the cow kicked over causing the great Chicago fire. If one of these didn't happen when they did what would have taken it's place that may have been worse or even caused changes that would benefit future occurrences?

Only if I contacted an efficient lawyer to defend me vs the US govt thinking I was in any way responsible for 9/11.

No, some things are better left unsaid. 😆

Insufficient information for me to give an answer.

What the demolition? A demolition that then allowed them to invade 7 middle eastern countries? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBvJUIMrO-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbtNTLjmpA Fact is people don't want to know the truth, otherwise they then have to deal with the horrors of that truth, they want to feel safe and secure, with a strong psychological need to trust their own government, and that's why they believe the narrative, and not their eyes or how they feel, it's called cognitive dissonance. Fact:- NO high rise steel framed skyscraper, has EVER, before or after 9/11 been caused to COMPLETELY collapse by fire. Secondly, each feature of the collapse points to explosives, the buildings collapse straight down into their own footprint, and at virtually free fall speed, as in controlled demolition. Thirdly, the rubble smouldered for months afterwards. On 9/11 or 7/11 many people in the buildings, including fire crew, reported feeling, or hearing controlled explosions. Virtually all the concrete was pulverised into very fine dust. Tower seven did not topple over through the second law of Theo dynamics, but fell straight down into it's own footprint like the other two towers, and the 47 storey building as not mentioned in the official report, which again is shady, only had fires on floors 7 and 12. Most of the concrete dust, steel and aluminium was blown out horizontally from the building, several hundred feet, most of the steel beams came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on to trucks, and so removing evidence from a crime scene, and pools of molten steel were found beneath the rubble, all this points to very powerful, precisely placed explosives. The pancake theory does not work in free fall, and what happened to the 47 massive steel columns, that constituted the core of each of the two towers, the weight bearing structures? For the pancake theory to be true, the columns should of been sticking out several hundred feet into the air, but the enquiry denied the existence of the columns, even though they were the unique feature of these towers when built. The puffs of smoke that come out of the building as it collapses are seen in controlled demolition. Point is, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, if it looks like a demolition, has the signatures of a demolition it's probably a demolition, and it's that straight forward. The one thing about the towers, is that they all were connected underground, in fact the other towers were damaged in 911, but they were not demolished on the same date as the twins II and number 7.