More people in America believe in aliens (UFO's) than they do Jesus. Some perspective for you...

I think we should be changing laws to cater to the grey's. ha

You know what hev, that was ver disingenuous. I found where the above explanation came from....
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

I guess you didn't bother to read the entire article, because it went on to explain exactly why the towers collapsed and why they collapsed in the manner that they did. The only conspiracy going on here is yours, you have the audacity to claim that the President is a liar, and lo and behold, now we find that you yourself are distorting the facts, hmmmm, seems to me that means you're a liar.

dmk

We put this to rest months ago when we were using websites with information in regards to the tower collapse. But I'm glad I have the effect on you to call me a liar.

While the temp of the fire was not enough to bring down the towers the impact could have weakened the structure enough to bring one floor down on top of the next, creating a domino effect.

It still doesn't answer how they brought down WTC7 with demolitions literally hours after the collapse of the main towers. And it certainly doesn't explain why no fighter jets were in the air around NYC between the first and second plane hits.

Face hev, you are a liar, and you were caught in your. Don't weasel your way out of it.

Furthermore, until the second plane hit the WTC no one was sure what was going on, it was only after that second plane hitting did anyone realize that it was a planned and coordinated attack. Hindsight is 20/20. To sit here now and say that the second plane should have been shot down is ridiculous. As far a WTC 7 goes the will always be conspiracy theories, however, until someone provides proof rather than supposition, you still left with what has been reported. I guess everyone who was there for the search and rescue and talked about seeing the flow of molten steel are in on the conspiracy as well. All those volunteers, how do the seem to keep all their stories straight???

dmk

I am not a liar. I was using the article for its information on the heat such an event would produce and the fact that this heat would not be enough to weaken the metal in the structure. But I'm glad I got to you one way or another.

And I think it is a naive statement to say "hindsight is always 20/20" when speaking of a commercial boeing jet hitting a skyscrapper in the most populated city in America and no fighter jets happened to be scrambled in 30 minutes time.

It is also naive to think demolitions could be placed within hours in a building that stood in the shadow of one of the worst disasters in US history. Even under ideal conditions the time allotted is not adequate.

How many lies can you tell in one post.

First, the bin Laden family was questioned by the FBI prior to their departure from the country. The 9/11 commissioned validated the questioning during their hearings. Quit using Michael Moore factoids.

Second, there was no relationship between the CIA and bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The US backed Afghanistan mujihideen through Pakistan. bin Laden belonged to the Arab mujihideen, a seperate entity entirely. The Arab mujihideen were mostly Arabs not from Afghanistan that came to fight. They were funded mainly by Saudi Arabia, who feared a Russia invasion. Following the Soviet withdrawal, bin Laden's group participated in the civil war in Afghanistan that lead to the eventually formation of the Taliban government, the members of the Afghanistan mujihideen went on to form the Northern Alliance, who opposed the Talibani.

You spend so much of your time researching your conspiracy theories, yet so little on actually researching history. How do you expect someone to believe your conspiracy rants, when you can't even get the facts of real world events straight.

dmk

I wouldn't go so far as to call Hev a liar. He just seems misinformed.

Then what would you call it when you quote from an article and then change the conclusion that the initial author of the article published??

It seems to me that changing the facts to fit your own conclusion is lying, then again I may be wrong.

dmk

I would not call it lying at all. I would call it the inference of a different conclusion using the same original supporting facts. I am kind of getting the impression that you were just eagerly awaiting the opportunity to pounce on Hev.