PDA

View Full Version : Mendenhall plans to sue endorser for dropping him


Atlanta Dan
07-18-2011, 06:04 PM
Two months after Champion athletic gear dropped Rashard Mendenhall as an endorser in the wake of his comments about Osama Bin Laden’s death, the Steelers running back has decided to sue the company.

Darren Rovell of CNBC reports Mendenhall plans to sue HanesBrand, the parent company for Champion.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/mendenhall-plans-to-sue-champion/

Yeah - that will work out well:banging:

Mendenhall needs to remember the first rule of holes- when you are in one, quit digging

You would think the agents for players such as Mendenall and Harrison would provide some counseling for what they are getting paid, but I guess not :noidea:

BigRick
07-18-2011, 06:27 PM
Two months after Champion athletic gear dropped Rashard Mendenhall as an endorser in the wake of his comments about Osama Bin Laden’s death, the Steelers running back has decided to sue the company.

Darren Rovell of CNBC reports Mendenhall plans to sue HanesBrand, the parent company for Champion.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/mendenhall-plans-to-sue-champion/

Yeah - that will work out well:banging:

Mendenhall needs to remember the first rule of holes- when you are in one, quit digging

You would think the agents for players such as Mendenall and Harrison would provide some counseling for what they are getting paid, but I guess not :noidea:

Some people never know when to let dead dogs lie. Quess his college education didn't do him any good.:banging:

tanda10506
07-18-2011, 06:48 PM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

pete74
07-18-2011, 06:58 PM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

please show me the evidence because im extremly eager to hear this. as for the sponsor, they can chose who they want to represent there company and who they do not want

Atlanta Dan
07-18-2011, 07:20 PM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

Why should cheating on your wife cost you your sponsorships, since that presumably is a matter between the husband and wife - ask Tiger Woods how that has worked out with regard to the much more significant sponsorship deals he lost after his infidelities were disclosed

Athletes lose sponsorships for the same reason they obtain them - because companies want to be associated with an image.

Mendenhall has a right to say what he wants and businesses have a right to not want to be associated. let alone pay $$, with someone who makes statements that are unpopular.

As far as the "overwhelming" evidence this was not a terrorist attack, public opinion disagrees - whether you think it is right, Hanes has to deal with the opinion of the public to which it is selling its products

It's nothing personal - it's strictly business

steelerchad
07-18-2011, 09:03 PM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

You said it yourself. His alternative opinion. A consumer products company pays an endorser to represent their brand to appeal to the most people possible. An alternative opinion on a controversial topic impacts negatively on their targeted customer base. It's simple math. Why pay someone to alienate your customers?

BTW. He has no chance of winning this lawsuit. Even more, I'm sure the company was smart enough to have language in the contract that nullifies it for pretty much anything they deem as negative.

Wallace108
07-19-2011, 12:03 AM
Athletes lose sponsorships for the same reason they obtain them - because companies want to be associated with an image.

You're exactly right. As Andre Aggassi used to say ... image is everything.
There's a reason why guys like Tiger (as you stated), Ben, Kobe Bryant, and Mendy lost endorsement deals ... companies didn't want their name associated with an athlete's tarnished image.

I don't know anything about the lawsuit. If he's suing for money that's owed to him, that's one thing. But if he's suing simply because they dropped him, yeah, good luck with that, Mendy. :coffee:

DanRooney
07-19-2011, 06:22 AM
please show me the evidence because im extremly eager to hear this. as for the sponsor, they can chose who they want to represent there company and who they do not want

Watch the documentary Loose Change in YouTube

Atlanta Dan
07-19-2011, 07:17 AM
I'm sure the company was smart enough to have language in the contract that nullifies it for pretty much anything they deem as negative.

Yep

The contract did allow for circumstances under which the it could be dropped, including if Mendenhall…

“commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any situation or occurrence tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public.”

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/rashard-mendenhall-sues-champion/

Regardless of their alleged merit, IMO Mendenhall's 9-11 coments pretty clearly offended the majority of the consuming public unless Hanes plans to feature Mendenhall in a marketing campaign in Afghanistan or Pakistan

Whomever Mendenall hired to file this lawsuit must have obtained his law degree in exchange for mailing in cereal box tops

SteeleReign
07-19-2011, 07:36 AM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

Good God - not this again!! :doh: I assume you've been watching Youtube videos with Thumper?

SteeleReign
07-19-2011, 07:37 AM
Watch the documentary Loose Change in YouTube

...and there it is...:blah:

fart
07-19-2011, 08:56 AM
Watch the documentary Loose Change in YouTube


Read the 9-11 commission's report on the attacks and see if you can refute any of the scientific explanations they laid out. :screwy:

tanda10506
07-19-2011, 10:16 AM
I'm not trying to start a 9/11 argument. The evidence is there, more then just youtube. The explanations in the 9/11 commission are hog wash, there's nothing to disprove from them, they are straight out lies. If you think there were that many anomolies in one day that's fine, I don't. But my argument was not really about that, it was about the right of speech. After the Tiger Woods issue was brought up, I do see it differently, it's all public opinion. It's a shame that it is the case, but I guess it is what it is.

Wallace108
07-19-2011, 11:06 AM
But my argument was not really about that, it was about the right of speech.

This is what was at issue when some of us originally debated Mendy's comments. Yes, he has the right to say what he wants. And people have the right to criticize what he says. And Champion has the right to not want him associated with their company.

"Freedom" of speech is a little misleading ... it often comes with a cost. Sure, you're free to say whatever you want, but you're going to be held accountable for what you say. That's a lesson Mendy obviously didn't learn.

austinfrench76
07-19-2011, 12:31 PM
Everyone has rights, both individual and corporately. They can choose to drop him as he could have chosen not to represent them. Just another awful, stupid, waste-of-time lawsuit.

thumper
07-19-2011, 01:05 PM
From Mendenhal's comments, it seems like he's saying that he doesn't think 9/11 was a regular terrorist attack, rather an inside job or done with inside help. So if he doesn't think Bin Laden was actually involved then I could see why he wouldn't cheer his death. I'm not saying I'm a 9/11 "truther" but there is overwhelming evidence that it was not a regular terrorist attack. So why should voicing your alternative opinion cost you a sponsorship?

Oh boy, "OPEN GIANT CAN OF WORMS HERE."

Here's the thing. FACT: The "establishment" mows you down if you
are a public person (actor, sports person, politician, et al) and question
the official version of the story; you will be taken down. It is the ultimate 3rd rail.
It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. Now, we can debate why
that is, but there is no question that if you publicly question the validity
of the official story, they are coming after you to ruin you one way or the other.
Every public person I can think of who openly questioned their story has
lost their job, been framed for some BS charge or have been some
how ruined.

Again, we can debate why that is, but there is no question that those who
question it get systematically taken down. If Mendy doesn't change his
tune soon, he will be done in the NFL. Bank on it. Charlie Sheen
questioned it. He lost the highest paid gig in TV. Was it all because
he is crazy or did he get set up to begin with? He had easily contained
his partying to perform at his job - staring in the most popular sitcom
on TV. It wasn't until that "woman" came out with her lame story that
he lost his gig. She was about as credible as the woman who framed
the IMF banker president. Steven Jones had a professor gig at BYU. Not any more.

Oh, and before the ideologues rush to claim that anyone who questions
it is crazy, then maybe you should ask yourself why so many experts such
as engineers, arch. and pilots have openly asserted that the official version
is simply impossible. Thousands of them.

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

thumper
07-19-2011, 01:13 PM
This is what was at issue when some of us originally debated Mendy's comments. Yes, he has the right to say what he wants. And people have the right to criticize what he says. And Champion has the right to not want him associated with their company.

"Freedom" of speech is a little misleading ... it often comes with a cost. Sure, you're free to say whatever you want, but you're going to be held accountable for what you say. That's a lesson Mendy obviously didn't learn.

I actually respect RM for being aware enough to question when things
deserve to be questioned. His only error is choosing when and where
to fight the fight. You can't just grab that 3rd rail thinking you are bullet
proof. If he keeps it up, he will be out of the NFL soon. The NFL is
VERY much a part of the establishment. They will find an angle on
destroying his credibility and get him. He might be harder to nail than
a Charlie Sheen (who obviously had issues to easily take him down)
but they will at least make him out to be a loon, lose his high profile
job, so whenever he mentions this stuff, the vast majority will roll
their eyes and say he is a nut. He won't have any platform to preach
it. Speaking the truth is not a bullet proof vest. As a matter of fact,
speaking the truth often puts a bulls eye on your @ss.

That IMF president went against "the establishment" (not 911 stuff) and
how long did it take to produce a woman saying he sexually assaulted
her? I knew that stunk of a set up immediately. And now what? Turns
out she has a huge past of lying about this very thing.

thumper
07-19-2011, 01:23 PM
Read the 9-11 commission's report on the attacks and see if you can refute any of the scientific explanations they laid out. :screwy:

Refute them? That's about as hard as falling off a moss-covered log.
How about their explanation for why 7 fell down? "At this point, we don't
know." Iron clad science indeed.

If 7 really fell down by just having a few small fires going, then they
would do an emergency research on that, as a steel framed
building has NEVER collapsed due to fires - not before or SINCE
then. But we are to believe it just kind of collapsed, at free fall
speed, in it's own footprint, from "small fires." Such a claim
is pure lunacy.

Who would have anything to gain from a false flag attack?
Who would have the motive?
Who would have the means?

Some guy hoping around caves? Yea, that's totally believable.
Why didn't they use any of the proven mode of crime investigation
for this? If you look at all the coincidences needed to make their
story true, it should blow your mind. Members of their own commission
have come out and said the investigation was a total fraud and they
could not stand by any of it.

Cell phones worked at 30,000 feet back then?
Steel melts at 800 degrees instead of the known scientific
temps needed, 2,500 degrees, which is impossible from
a fire of jet fuel and office furniture.

"Pilots" not capable of flying a single engine Cessna flew
a jumbo jet in a manner that expert pilots could not even
have pulled off.

Flying a 757 a few feet off the ground, at 500 MPH without scrapping
the ground? Not possible, according to pilots.

thumper
07-19-2011, 01:31 PM
Good God - not this again!! :doh: I assume you've been watching Youtube videos with Thumper?

Yea, it's always a hoot when someone operating in ignorance
makes fun of someone who is educated. There is far more
than youtube vids out there, but what is wrong with youtube vids?
It's a medium, not a slanted source; it contains all things, good,
bad, accurate, loony, funny, serious, insightful, crap filled - all
of it.

This shallow minded stance clearly indicates America has plenty
of sheep with limited ability to think. So, let me ask? Are all books
accurate and truthful? No? Really? Then anything that's in a library
is now a joke since some books are not true. That is how ludicrous
your take on youtube is. It's that pathetic. When one doesn't grasp
the difference between a source and a type of medium, they
better keep their lawn mowing job, because they just don't have
the ability to think on anything but a very low level.

thumper
07-19-2011, 02:22 PM
please show me the evidence because im extremly eager to hear this. as for the sponsor, they can chose who they want to represent there company and who they do not want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSmFnlwrK0

Why did #7 collapse? It didn't get hit with planes.
Why did Silverstein order to "pull it ?"
How could they fall at free fall speeds? Physically impossible.

thumper
07-19-2011, 02:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us&NR=1

thumper
07-19-2011, 03:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E&NR=1

SteeleReign
07-19-2011, 04:14 PM
On a roll now aren't you Thumper? You're anything but unpredictable.

As for Mendy, he has every right to say and do stupid things, and be judged for them.

SteeleReign
07-19-2011, 04:23 PM
Yea, it's always a hoot when someone operating in ignorance
makes fun of someone who is educated. There is far more:doh:
than youtube vids out there, but what is wrong with youtube vids?
It's a medium, not a slanted source; it contains all things, good,
bad, accurate, loony, funny, serious, insightful, crap filled - all
of it.



This shallow minded stance clearly indicates America has plenty
of sheep with limited ability to think. So, let me ask? Are all books
accurate and truthful? No? Really? Then anything that's in a library
is now a joke since some books are not true. That is how ludicrous
your take on youtube is. It's that pathetic. When one doesn't grasp
the difference between a source and a type of medium, they
better keep their lawn mowing job, because they just don't have
the ability to think on anything but a very low level.

You're welcome to your opinion. I don't consider YouTube to be either a source for truth or deceit, but rather a warehouse for entertainment. Keep in mind thumper, that on every polarizing issue in this age, there will be antagonists that bend and twist reality for their own reasons. Money, fame, advancement of one's career, etc. You can find videos on YouTube that will present the "facts" for and against just about any topic of societal or political interest. I find it laughable that you watch some of these videos and lend any credence to their "facts."

SteelCityMom
07-19-2011, 04:49 PM
FACT: The "establishment" mows you down if you
are a public person (actor, sports person, politician, et al) and question
the official version of the story; you will be taken down. It is the ultimate 3rd rail.
It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. Now, we can debate why
that is, but there is no question that if you publicly question the validity
of the official story, they are coming after you to ruin you one way or the other.
Every public person I can think of who openly questioned their story has
lost their job, been framed for some BS charge or have been some
how ruined.

Again, we can debate why that is, but there is no question that those who
question it get systematically taken down. If Mendy doesn't change his
tune soon, he will be done in the NFL. Bank on it. Charlie Sheen
questioned it. He lost the highest paid gig in TV. Was it all because
he is crazy or did he get set up to begin with? He had easily contained
his partying to perform at his job - staring in the most popular sitcom
on TV. It wasn't until that "woman" came out with her lame story that
he lost his gig. She was about as credible as the woman who framed
the IMF banker president. Steven Jones had a professor gig at BYU. Not any more.

Fact? No question? You're basically just spouting your opinion on the matters of these people and claiming them to be fact...then act surprised and start calling people uneducated because they won't or can't take you seriously.

I think you might have a problem with what the definition of fact is.

Oh, and before the ideologues rush to claim that anyone who questions
it is crazy, then maybe you should ask yourself why so many experts such
as engineers, arch. and pilots have openly asserted that the official version
is simply impossible. Thousands of them.

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/It's not really as many engineers, architects and pilots as you make it out to be. It's not even 1% of the number of professional engineers, architects and pilots that are employed in the US. So, while you and they alike have the right to express opinions on the matter, the truth of the matter is the other 99+% of the less than 1%'s colleagues don't agree. Millions of them.

I actually respect RM for being aware enough to question when things
deserve to be questioned. His only error is choosing when and where
to fight the fight. You can't just grab that 3rd rail thinking you are bullet
proof. If he keeps it up, he will be out of the NFL soon. The NFL is
VERY much a part of the establishment. They will find an angle on
destroying his credibility and get him. He might be harder to nail than
a Charlie Sheen (who obviously had issues to easily take him down)
but they will at least make him out to be a loon, lose his high profile
job, so whenever he mentions this stuff, the vast majority will roll
their eyes and say he is a nut. He won't have any platform to preach
it. Speaking the truth is not a bullet proof vest. As a matter of fact,
speaking the truth often puts a bulls eye on your @ss.

That IMF president went against "the establishment" (not 911 stuff) and
how long did it take to produce a woman saying he sexually assaulted
her? I knew that stunk of a set up immediately. And now what? Turns
out she has a huge past of lying about this very thing.

You mean like the bulls eye that is on Steve Pieczenik's ass? He's only been saying since 2002 that bin Laden was already dead and that 9/11 was part of a false flag operation. He is currently an advisor to the Department of Defense.

Or what about Ron Paul?

Naaa....they're just gonna get Charlie Sheen and Mendenhall. That'll teach people to question the man.

4rtwb34Pd1k

Refute them? That's about as hard as falling off a moss-covered log.
How about their explanation for why 7 fell down? "At this point, we don't
know." Iron clad science indeed.

If 7 really fell down by just having a few small fires going, then they
would do an emergency research on that, as a steel framed
building has NEVER collapsed due to fires - not before or SINCE
then. But we are to believe it just kind of collapsed, at free fall
speed, in it's own footprint, from "small fires." Such a claim
is pure lunacy.

That is mostly true (there are some examples of steel framed buildings partially collapsing due to fire alone), but there are definitely circumstances other than fire to take into consideration here.

In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. The Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Steel melts at 800 degrees instead of the known scientific
temps needed, 2,500 degrees, which is impossible from
a fire of jet fuel and office furniture.

True...but steel doesn't necessarily need to melt for a collapse to happen.

"Pilots" not capable of flying a single engine Cessna flew
a jumbo jet in a manner that expert pilots could not even
have pulled off.

Flying a 757 a few feet off the ground, at 500 MPH without scrapping
the ground? Not possible, according to pilots.

Not possible, according to pilots? I wasn't aware all pilots felt this way...especially since some don't.



"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.


Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the c0ckpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

My favorite quote from that article though....

I propose a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theories are themselves part of the conspiracy, intended by the conspirators to discredit the idea of there being a conspiracy -- and to divide and conquer those who might sleuth out the truth.

It's probably true. :chuckle:

SteelCityMom
07-19-2011, 04:55 PM
Anyhow...like others, I don't think Mendenhall has a leg to stand on if his lawsuit is simply because his endorsement was dropped. It's his right to voice his opinions and it's Hanes right to decide who they want to represent their brand.

ricardisimo
07-19-2011, 05:10 PM
My first instinct is that Mendy's going to lose this one. Then it occurred to me that lawyers pick these fights for all sorts of reasons, and some variety of settlement might be the ultimate goal. The endorsement is gone, obviously, more so because of this very suit than for Mendenhall's views on high-rise engineering and explosives.

I find it fishy in the extreme that Champion would make public the terms of their contract with Mendenhall and post it on the web. If he's such a douche and persona non grata they should have just cut him and run. Why that sort of PR maneuver? Weird.

I couldn't care less about 9/11, quite honestly. I think Mendenhall's real crime was attempting to humanize an official enemy. That will never be accepted, and everyone must immediately pounce upon and dismember anyone who tries to undermine state propaganda like that. We have to hate who we're told to hate, or the entire system falls apart immediately.

Atlanta Dan
07-19-2011, 08:18 PM
My first instinct is that Mendy's going to lose this one. Then it occurred to me that lawyers pick these fights for all sorts of reasons, and some variety of settlement might be the ultimate goal.

Or his attorney may just be an idiot:noidea:

The apparent theory of the case is that Mendenhall had made ignorant remarks on other subjects prior to sounding off on 9-11 and there was no action taken by Hanes so for that reason nothing Mendenhall said could justify dumping his endorsement

Hanesbrands' decision to drop the Steelers star was likely a "kneejerk reaction" made within 48 hours of the tweets, [Mendenhall's attorney] said. The swiftness of that move contrasts with Champion's silence regarding other contentious tweets by Mendenhall, the lawsuit claims.

On March 15, for example, Mendenhall tweeted about his agreement with Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson's comments comparing the NFL to "modern-day slavery."

"Anyone with knowledge of the slave trade and the NFL could say that these two parallel each other," Mendenhall wrote.

About six weeks later, he tweeted that women who decline to perform oral sex on a partner should be aware that "It's either gonna be you, OR some other chick."

"Hanesbrands at no time prior to May 2011 suggested that it disagreed with Mr. Mendenhall's comments or that his tweets were in any way inconsistent with the values of the Champion brand," the lawsuit says

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6783353/rashard-mendenhall-pittsburgh-steelers-sues-champion-1m

I guess this attorney will be stunned when Hanes fires back with defenses such as the 9-11 comments addressing a much more volatile issue and the 9-11 comments being the last straw for Hanes after the prior nonsense Mendy had been generating during the offseason


Steelers front office must be thrilled about this after the Ward and Harrison events

Wallace108
07-20-2011, 12:30 AM
That IMF president went against "the establishment" (not 911 stuff) and
how long did it take to produce a woman saying he sexually assaulted
her? I knew that stunk of a set up immediately. And now what? Turns
out she has a huge past of lying about this very thing.

Thumper, you're having a hard time distinguishing between fact and theory. What does it prove that Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexual assault? Hell, Ben was accused of sexual assault TWICE. Wait, maybe Ben knows something and the "establishment" is trying to ruin his career. That has to be it. :nervous: And I'll bet you Goodell is part of the Bilderberg group. I'm going straight to YouTube to see if I can find a video connecting those dots.

thumper
07-20-2011, 12:56 PM
Fact? No question? You're basically just spouting your opinion on the matters of these people and claiming them to be fact...then act surprised and start calling people uneducated because they won't or can't take you seriously.

OK, so it's not a fact that steel melts at 2500 degrees? Or that back
in 2001 cell phones had like 1% chance of working at 30,000 feet?
Or that it's physically impossible for a steel framed structure to
fall at free fall speeds unless explosives were used? Yea know,
little things like laws of physics?


I think you might have a problem with what the definition of fact is.

I am about to demonstrate the opposite.

It's not really as many engineers, architects and pilots as you make it out to be. It's not even 1% of the number of professional engineers, architects and pilots that are employed in the US. So, while you and they alike have the right to express opinions on the matter, the truth of the matter is the other 99+% of the less than 1%'s colleagues don't agree. Millions of them.

And you know this how? I have already asserted that speaking out against
the official story is the 3rd rail and leads to career suicide. Now, let's look
what you are calling a "fact." You are making the assumption that those
engineers who have not come out speaking out against the official story
must agree with the story. And you don't see the massive flaws in your
"logic?" You assume that those who haven't officially spoken out against
the fairy tale all must agree with it. What a failed mode of thought. You don't
see me publicly speaking out against it. So would you then claim I agree
with the flawed and impossible official story? I guess I must agree with it
since I am not in any group like AE911truth, right? Using your logic, that
must be the case.


You mean like the bulls eye that is on Steve Pieczenik's ass? He's only been saying since 2002 that bin Laden was already dead and that 9/11 was part of a false flag operation. He is currently an advisor to the Department of Defense.

I don't have time to look everything up. But if he is/was doing biz with the
govt. on an official basis and holds these views publicly he will be ruined,
just as have all the others. Oh wait, he is a writer. He isn't any govt. official.
Show me how he is doing official biz with the US govt. while expressing
these views.

Or what about Ron Paul?

What about him? He won't be allowed to become president, you
can put that in the bank. Since that is his desire, and they will
make sure that won't happen, I would say he is ruined. Paul is
one of the very few who speak the truth in DC. He never wavers.
He votes as he speaks, not like the rest of the scum bags.

Naaa....they're just gonna get Charlie Sheen and Mendenhall. That'll teach people to question the man.

Your ignorance is showing....greatly.

4rtwb34Pd1k



That is mostly true (there are some examples of steel framed buildings partially collapsing due to fire alone), but there are definitely circumstances other than fire to take into consideration here.

"Partially collapsing?" After being on fire for how long? And how
much did they collapse? Anything like towers 1 and 2 or building 7?
Did they ever completely implode looking exactly like controlled
demolition? Ever? No? But on this one day, THREE building did.
Nothing to question there.


http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm



True...but steel doesn't necessarily need to melt for a collapse to happen.

Then why hasn't it EVER happened before or since?


Not possible, according to pilots? I wasn't aware all pilots felt this way...especially since some don't.


Already covered above with engineers. Silence is not an admission
of views either direction. I find it laughable that you make the assumption
that those who don't speak out against the official story must believe it.
That is beyond flawed thinking. Tell me, why were the steel cores not
left standing after the "progressive collapse?" Why were those who
reported all those explosions not allowed to testify in the official commission
report? Why were they not interested in hearing the witnesses who felt
and heard those explosions? Were they not looking for the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI

thumper
07-20-2011, 01:00 PM
Thumper, you're having a hard time distinguishing between fact and theory. What does it prove that Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexual assault? Hell, Ben was accused of sexual assault TWICE. Wait, maybe Ben knows something and the "establishment" is trying to ruin his career. That has to be it. :nervous: And I'll bet you Goodell is part of the Bilderberg group. I'm going straight to YouTube to see if I can find a video connecting those dots.

It's called common sense. Can you prove water is wet? You
can't? Then it must not be true. Strauss-Kahn just happened
to be pursuing policies that the big bankers were not in favor
of, and just like that, not only does the accusation happen, but
the mainstream media (owned by the banking elite) jumped
all over it. Isn't it interesting how some news stories make
it to the top of the list when they seemingly are less newsworthy
than things barely mentioned at all? Nah, just keep buying the
lies without thinking, if that's what's working for you. Me? I prefer
to seek the truth and not just buy the BS. It's how I roll. But feel
free to remain manipulated if that works for you. :hatsoff:

thumper
07-20-2011, 01:22 PM
You're welcome to your opinion. I don't consider YouTube to be either a source for truth or deceit, but rather a warehouse for entertainment.

Mostly it is a medium that is indeed a collection of vids for entertainment
value. But it's still a medium, not a source. I see people making the mistake
of treating it as a source. That is like saying a library is a source. That is
retarded and flawed. A library is a collection of books with various views
and positions. It contains facts, opinions, truths and non-truths. It contains
works of fiction. So, using the dim understanding that youtube has vids
that are not factual, then all vids on youtube must not contain valid points...is
just stupid.

Keep in mind thumper, that on every polarizing issue in this age, there will be antagonists that bend and twist reality for their own reasons. Money, fame, advancement of one's career, etc. You can find videos on YouTube that will present the "facts" for and against just about any topic of societal or political interest. I find it laughable that you watch some of these videos and lend any credence to their "facts."

Of course. The above is stating the obvious. But where you go off the path
of logic is making the assumption that vids on youtube may indeed
assert the actual truth. Again, using your model of thought, I can't believe
any book in any library can possess the truth since some books in the
same library present fiction. YT is a COLLECTION of vids - some for
entertainment, some offering the truth, some full of lies. It's up to an
intelligent person to be able to shift thru the info, use common sense
and a collaborative effort to determine what is true and what are lies,
etc. For those who are frightened by some potential realities they find
too scary to even open their mind to, well, then they can live in bliss
even if it also means living in ignorance. Some need to believe JFK
was killed by one lone nut, acting totally on his own without anything
deeper than that. It's what the establishment tells us, and some can
only live by believing in what the establishment tells us. Others realize
the establishment is full of entities that seek more power and riches
at the expense of the peoples' well being. Our founding fathers clearly
were aware of how tyranny came to the shores of every country unless
the citizens were informed and aware. A free country can only maintain
it's freedom if there is a valid free press. You won't find a valid free
press in any of our mainstream media. You might want to look into
who owns all the major media groups, and who owns the news sources
from which all the mainstream media gets their news to report on. Go
ahead and look into that.

SteelCityMom
07-20-2011, 02:06 PM
OK, so it's not a fact that steel melts at 2500 degrees? Or that back
in 2001 cell phones had like 1% chance of working at 30,000 feet?
Or that it's physically impossible for a steel framed structure to
fall at free fall speeds unless explosives were used? Yea know,
little things like laws of physics?

That's not what I was referring to when I brought up your misuse of the word fact. Nice attempt at twisting it in your favor though.

I was responding to your post on how you think it's a undeniable fact that anybody who speaks out about 9/11 (against gov't version) will have their lives destroyed. You have no way to prove that since you don't know everyone who does or doesn't speak out about it. It was an extremely broad statement you made that you claimed was fact...and it's not.



I am about to demonstrate the opposite.


I doubt it.


And you know this how? I have already asserted that speaking out against
the official story is the 3rd rail and leads to career suicide. Now, let's look
what you are calling a "fact." You are making the assumption that those
engineers who have not come out speaking out against the official story
must agree with the story. And you don't see the massive flaws in your
"logic?" You assume that those who haven't officially spoken out against
the fairy tale all must agree with it. What a failed mode of thought. You don't
see me publicly speaking out against it. So would you then claim I agree
with the flawed and impossible official story? I guess I must agree with it
since I am not in any group like AE911truth, right? Using your logic, that
must be the case.


No, you're right that I don't know what every single one of them agrees with. But you're bringing up what a few thousand people think in a pool of millions.

And you keep bringing up career suicide. Have ALL those pilots, engineers and architects who spoke out lost their jobs or something? How can you possibly know that as fact?

You make a lot of assumptions too and carry around a lot of flawed logic yourself on this topic.



I don't have time to look everything up. But if he is/was doing biz with the
govt. on an official basis and holds these views publicly he will be ruined,
just as have all the others. Oh wait, he is a writer. He isn't any govt. official.
Show me how he is doing official biz with the US govt. while expressing
these views.

I assumed (wrongly) that you would know who he is. I just guessed that by your opinions on the matter that you listened to/watched a lot of Alex Jones, and Pieczenik has been on frequently.

He does some writing now, yes...but he's done a myriad of things over his career. According to the biography section on his own website though, he is still an advisor to the department of defense.

http://www.stevepieczenik.com/bio.htm

All you had to do was use google to find your proof. Seriously.


What about him? He won't be allowed to become president, you
can put that in the bank. Since that is his desire, and they will
make sure that won't happen, I would say he is ruined. Paul is
one of the very few who speak the truth in DC. He never wavers.
He votes as he speaks, not like the rest of the scum bags.

Ok, so he's probably not going to be president...and that means he's ruined? Does that mean every political figure ever who hoped to be president and didn't get elected is ruined? Some of the statements you make are extremely ridiculous.

And just so we're on the same page here...I'd vote for him every day of the week and twice on Sundays for the very same reasons you stated. Unfortunately people don't want to hear honesty. Hogwash is much more appealing to most. I would never consider him to be ruined though because of his viewpoints.



Your ignorance is showing....greatly.


As is yours.


"Partially collapsing?" After being on fire for how long? And how
much did they collapse? Anything like towers 1 and 2 or building 7?
Did they ever completely implode looking exactly like controlled
demolition? Ever? No? But on this one day, THREE building did.
Nothing to question there.

No, they were obviously not anything like any of the WTC buildings...but did you even read my entire post? You're trying to compare apples and oranges with this. The WTC buildings obviously collapsed under much different circumstances than any other high rise collapse. When was the last time you remember a 767 doing 500mph slamming into a sky scraper? How often does a building (WTC7) remain in a blaze for 6+ hours with no firefighters trying to put it out AND have major structural damage?

I'm not saying there's no way in hell that it didn't happen the way you say it, but it doesn't sound like you're willing to consider the possibility that freaky things happen sometimes, and there's really nothing to compare these collapses to. It was an extremely unique situation. I just know it's possible that all things considered that day, it doesn't blow my mind to think that all the circumstances put together could result in the towers coming down.


Then why hasn't it EVER happened before or since?

See above reference to the fact that something like 9/11 had never happened before.

Already covered above with engineers. Silence is not an admission
of views either direction. I find it laughable that you make the assumption
that those who don't speak out against the official story must believe it.
That is beyond flawed thinking. Tell me, why were the steel cores not
left standing after the "progressive collapse?" Why were those who
reported all those explosions not allowed to testify in the official commission
report? Why were they not interested in hearing the witnesses who felt
and heard those explosions? Were they not looking for the truth?

What are you talking about? You stated that according TO PILOTS (another broad statement...you make it sound like every pilot thinks the same way you do) that there was no way these guys with limited training could do what they did, and then I stated that there are pilots who disagree with you, and gave examples. I don't know what the point of your little rant is here.

I'm not even going to try to argue whether 9/11 was an inside job, or why steel cores weren't left standing or any of that other shit. It would be pointless for a couple reasons. One, I don't disagree with your want to question what happened that day. I know something wasn't right about that day, but I don't think it's to the extent that you and others want to make it out to be. It's become a circus and a joke IMO. Two, you wouldn't concede to anyone with a differing take on it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was me, the gov't, or a respected professional. Your mind is set and your opinions on the matter are written in stone. Three, because of that, it would be a huge waste of my time to try to show you anything counter to what you already believe. If you didn't already think that every little thing you state is absolute fact, then I might go down that road, but at the present time it would be nothing more than talking (or typing I guess) to a brick wall.

thumper
07-20-2011, 04:20 PM
That's not what I was referring to when I brought up your misuse of the word fact. Nice attempt at twisting it in your favor though.

I was responding to your post on how you think it's a undeniable fact that anybody who speaks out about 9/11 (against gov't version) will have their lives destroyed. You have no way to prove that since you don't know everyone who does or doesn't speak out about it. It was an extremely broad statement you made that you claimed was fact...and it's not.

The above is a straw man argument. I never said EVERYONE who speaks
out against the govt. story will have life ruined. I specified that those with
a bigger platform of listeners are the ones who mysteriously end up in
scandal, etc. We are a nation of 316 million. They don't have the resources
to address every single person who they figure out doesn't buy their fairy
tale....not yet. They will need much larger "attacks" that will allow the public
to agree with them rounding up citizens without any charges, lawyers,
explanations, visits, or the govt. even admitting where people were taken
to. But guess what? It's already in the books; they can actually do that
according to signing statements from both Bush and BO. Habeas Corpus is
at the core of our freedom. Without it, they can let tyranny run wild. And they
will. Without 911, they could have NEVER invaded Afgh. or Iraq. With it? Endless
war. Permanent, massive military bases in the middle east, that won't be
going any where. And of the 15,000 troops that will always be there from here
on out (over all # much larger because of the equal part mercenaries that will
also be there), we are going to call these machine-gun waving folk "diplomats."
See yesterday's news. I am not making that up.

But back on point. Since they do not have the police state implemented yet
(and won't until the upcoming attacks to scare people into allowing it in
order to make us more "safe") they only go after high profile people who
question the official, obviously-flawed story. I NEVER asserted they can
go after every single person who questions it. They don't have that manpower or
green light until nastier events go down. But it is so obvious they are building
the infrastructure in order to accommodate it some day. And of the few mouth
pieces who are still free to get on the soap box on this stuff, you have to wonder
about strategy. Is Alex Jones hurting their cause or creating more people to
think that he is proof that those who question it are crazy? Also, I never said
these people are all-powerful, just very, very powerful. They are not successful
at 100% at trying to destroy those wanting to discuss the truth. Sometimes their
attempts at smearing and destroying ppl fail. But generally speaking, look at
how the careers have gone for public figures who question it. See any trends?
If Mendenhall keeps bringing it up his NFL career will be over sooner rather
than later. You can BANK on it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/052108_witch_hunt.htm

I am kind of surprised the reaction shocked Jesse. Could he be that naive?
I find it beyond obvious when they set their controlled media on witch hunts.
All of a sudden, a story, with consistent talking points, shows up in every
mainstream media outlet, all saying the same things. Jesse got a taste
of it when he questioned the official story. Like I said, it is the 3rd rail and
you touch that 3rd rail, you die. I fully believe Ron Paul is keenly aware of
the BS with their story, but he knows going there will ruin him. He knows
the time is not right to focus on that now, as they will thoroughly paint
him out to be some nut. And it would work.


No, you're right that I don't know what every single one of them agrees with. But you're bringing up what a few thousand people think in a pool of millions.

The fact that thousands have come out, knowing the risks involved, is
noteworthy. You pooh pooh that only mere thousands have come out
with their name expressing they think the official story is BS. I view it
as pretty significant that that many even dare to at this point. I don't.
You won't find me out on a street corner with a sign expressing it
was an inside job. Not yet.

And you keep bringing up career suicide. Have ALL those pilots, engineers and architects who spoke out lost their jobs or something? How can you possibly know that as fact?

Again, straw man argument. I never said EVERYONE loses their career
who stand to call it BS. They start with those who have the biggest platforms
and will work their way down. They don't have the manpower to plug every hole
of every person who doesn't go along with their fairy tale.

You make a lot of assumptions too and carry around a lot of flawed logic yourself on this topic.

Ah, it's certainly more true if you are allowed to claim assertions
that I never even made, i.e. straw man.

I assumed (wrongly) that you would know who he is. I just guessed that by your opinions on the matter that you listened to/watched a lot of Alex Jones, and Pieczenik has been on frequently.

I am sure the govt. would be interested in his views so as to keep
the pulse of the truth seekers. But he will never have any official
position if he speaks his mind on it. They would come after him
big time.

He does some writing now, yes...but he's done a myriad of things over his career. According to the biography section on his own website though, he is still an advisor to the department of defense.

http://www.stevepieczenik.com/bio.htm


Right. Advisor. Does the govt. even acknowledge it as being true?

All you had to do was use google to find your proof. Seriously.


What's that? Is it something I can find on the innernets? :chuckle:

Ok, so he's probably not going to be president...and that means he's ruined? Does that mean every political figure ever who hoped to be president and didn't get elected is ruined? Some of the statements you make are extremely ridiculous.

Especially when you make my assertions for me, stating things
I never asserted. Check out how Cynthia McKinney's career went
after she questioned their story.

And just so we're on the same page here...I'd vote for him every day of the week and twice on Sundays for the very same reasons you stated. Unfortunately people don't want to hear honesty. Hogwash is much more appealing to most. I would never consider him to be ruined though because of his viewpoints.


Greed. Well first you have to get people past being ideologues, where
everything they hear on TV/read, either makes them agree or disagree
greatly whether they hate right or left. If people think in those archaic
terms, they have no hope at ever seeing the truth. But the puppeteers
hope most of us never break out of that thinking. It keeps us with our
eyes well off the ball. If we have our panties in a wad over gay marriage
then we don't bother to notice the much larger issues - issues that
our reps will never even bring up, other than Ron and Rand Paul.
Kucinich also brings up some of the legit points. Everyone else
who has are no longer in office.


No, they were obviously not anything like any of the WTC buildings...but did you even read my entire post? You're trying to compare apples and oranges with this. The WTC buildings obviously collapsed under much different circumstances than any other high rise collapse. When was the last time you remember a 767 doing 500mph slamming into a sky scraper? How often does a building (WTC7) remain in a blaze for 6+ hours with no firefighters trying to put it out AND have major structural damage?

The towers were engineered to handle not just one hit from a jumbo
jet, but two. Their unique construction made them able to withstand
hurricane winds of 140 MPH, a far more potent stress than an plane
hitting them. They barely wavered. There was no signs that the hits
could cause them to go down. And the fires were going out, as the
black smoke indicated, as did firemen on the site, with the radio
transmission saying they only needed "two lines"
to "knock it (the fire) down." And 7 had comparitively tiny fires compared
to those cases where steel-framed buildings were ENGULFED in flames
over night. And they didn't even come down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI

I'm not saying there's no way in hell that it didn't happen the way you say it, but it doesn't sound like you're willing to consider the possibility that freaky things happen sometimes, and there's really nothing to compare these collapses to. It was an extremely unique situation. I just know it's possible that all things considered that day, it doesn't blow my mind to think that all the circumstances put together could result in the towers coming down.

I once thought as you did, but after years of research no longer believe
the official story is any where near possible. There are so many other
oddities that one must over look to believe their story could be true.
100s of them. In Shanksville, a massive 757 merely leaves a hole but
little else. Oh, they "found' and engine in that hole. And, they found
a bible some where. No massive crash like that merely leaves a hole.
There would have been loads of other shlt all over the place. That
hole was nothing other than a bomb.


What are you talking about? You stated that according TO PILOTS (another broad statement...you make it sound like every pilot thinks the same way you do) that there was no way these guys with limited training could do what they did, and then I stated that there are pilots who disagree with you, and gave examples. I don't know what the point of your little rant is here.

Straw man again. Never said EVERY pilot. Most probably have never
even thought about it. Most people just never really take time to think
other than what they catch on the nightly news and morning newspaper.
You won't find this stuff in those mediums.

I'm not even going to try to argue whether 9/11 was an inside job, or why steel cores weren't left standing or any of that other shit. It would be pointless for a couple reasons. One, I don't disagree with your want to question what happened that day. I know something wasn't right about that day, but I don't think it's to the extent that you and others want to make it out to be. It's become a circus and a joke IMO. Two, you wouldn't concede to anyone with a differing take on it anyway. Doesn't matter if it was me, the gov't, or a respected professional. Your mind is set and your opinions on the matter are written in stone. Three, because of that, it would be a huge waste of my time to try to show you anything counter to what you already believe. If you didn't already think that every little thing you state is absolute fact, then I might go down that road, but at the present time it would be nothing more than talking (or typing I guess) to a brick wall.

My mind is "set" after 10 years of research. It's not as if my "mind was
set" on Sept. 12th, 2001. I fully bought into the full story and even wanted
to enlist in the military to go kill whoever was responsible, assuming
it was done by middle east bogeymen. It is very mind-expanding to start
thinking our "govt" could ever purposely kill us. It's like taking the "red pill."
But after you dive down the rabbit hole, you realize our fed. govt. is not really
by or for the people anymore. It's not like our next-door neighbor policeman
is in on this. You are talking about the most powerful and rich people of the
world and as Bruce Springstein said, "Poor man want to be rich, rich man
want to be king, and king ain't satisfied until he rules everything."

And, just in case you are assuming otherwise, I have plenty of areas in
my life where I still have ambiguity. I don't just go around and form
strong opinions unless I truly feel like I know the truth. UFOs? God?
Bigfoot? Global climate change? I don't know. But when someone
suggested that this was done on the inside, I went to prove them wrong.
I in no way thought it possible. And the more I dug, the more I realised
the official story was a lie. A huge lie. A false flag (FF). And FFs have
been going on since man has been around. This is nothing new. It's
just new to us. Hitler used a FF to get his invasions going. USA used
a FF to enter into Vietnam war. Israel tried - and failed - to use a FF to
get the US to entire their fight with Egypt by attacking the USS Liberty
themselves and blame Egypt. Once you see these truths, you start
to think more logically and thoroughly about all this stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NRWBcfXnMo <--very long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaCjkdueA5o <--much shorter

Uh, also, if you think our own govt. killing us to start a war is too
far fetched, look into Operation Northwoods.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

That has been de-classified and clearly shows the govt. had plans to kill us,
blame Cuba, so we could then attack and invade that country,
all based on lies. That plan is a FACT, not an unknown. JFK
wouldn't go along with it, nor other war-mongering efforts, nor
with the existence of the Fed. Any wonder he got his head
blown off?

Oh wait, a lone nut job did that, not related to anything else. :noidea:

SteelCityMom
07-20-2011, 05:36 PM
The above is a straw man argument. I never said EVERYONE who speaks
out against the govt. story will have life ruined. I specified that those with
a bigger platform of listeners are the ones who mysteriously end up in
scandal, etc.

Even if you didn't mean everyone, what I said would still apply and is in no way a straw man argument.

You state, as fact, that any public figure who speaks out that 9/11 was an inside job, that their lives/careers would be ruined. First let me ask you out of this list of people, how many have had their lives ruined?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

Next, I'd like to know how you can see into the future and know as fact that the ones whose lives haven't been ruined yet, will eventually become ruined.

The fact that thousands have come out, knowing the risks involved, is
noteworthy. You pooh pooh that only mere thousands have come out
with their name expressing they think the official story is BS. I view it
as pretty significant that that many even dare to at this point. I don't.
You won't find me out on a street corner with a sign expressing it
was an inside job. Not yet.

I just don't see it as being as noteworthy as you do I guess. Probably because I don't think people's lives are being intentionally destroyed because of their opinions. We're probably never going to see eye to eye on this at all.



Again, straw man argument. I never said EVERYONE loses their career
who stand to call it BS. They start with those who have the biggest platforms
and will work their way down. They don't have the manpower to plug every hole
of every person who doesn't go along with their fairy tale.

Oh come on. I don't even know how to take this statement seriously. Again, you keep stating things like they're absolute fact, and they're not. You don't have to say EVERYONE in your statements. You have to know that you keep making these broad sweeping statements that sound like you mean everyone and anyone.


I am sure the govt. would be interested in his views so as to keep
the pulse of the truth seekers. But he will never have any official
position if he speaks his mind on it. They would come after him
big time.

Lol...the guy's 67 years old. He's a Harvard trained psychiatrist and has a doctorate in international relations (anti-terrorism). He worked under Reagan and G.W. Bush as deputy assistant secretary before and after he did this....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=y_pLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QfkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7047,529503&dq=pieczenik&hl=en



Right. Advisor. Does the govt. even acknowledge it as being true?

I don't know...let me go ask them lol. :doh:


Straw man again. Never said EVERY pilot. Most probably have never
even thought about it. Most people just never really take time to think
other than what they catch on the nightly news and morning newspaper.
You won't find this stuff in those mediums.

And again...not a straw man argument when you claim things like "not according to pilots". All I did was give some examples of pilots who don't agree with your side. Yes, they are out there.

And, just in case you are assuming otherwise, I have plenty of areas in
my life where I still have ambiguity. I don't just go around and form
strong opinions unless I truly feel like I know the truth. UFOs? God?
Bigfoot? Global climate change? I don't know. But when someone
suggested that this was done on the inside, I went to prove them wrong.
I in no way thought it possible. And the more I dug, the more I realised
the official story was a lie. A huge lie. A false flag (FF). And FFs have
been going on since man has been around. This is nothing new. It's
just new to us. Hitler used a FF to get his invasions going. USA used
a FF to enter into Vietnam war. Israel tried - and failed - to use a FF to
get the US to entire their fight with Egypt by attacking the USS Liberty
themselves and blame Egypt. Once you see these truths, you start
to think more logically and thoroughly about all this stuff.

I meant your mind is set on this issue, not everything...just to clarify. I just don't think you think very logically on this one, so I can't take your advice to think any more logically than I feel I do on the subject.

Just as you cannot believe the gov't's word on what happened (neither can I), I cannot just take random postings on the internet or tv interviews as 100% fact. I don't think either sides version is the truth to be quite honest, and because of all the crazy shit that gets made up (i.e. laser projections of the planes hitting the buildings, airplanes with 100's of people being taken to secret locations), nobody knows how to take any of it seriously. Like I said before...it's sad, but it's all become a big circus and a joke now. That's about where I stand on it at the moment lol.

Nevermore
07-20-2011, 10:38 PM
OK, so it's not a fact that steel melts at 2500 degrees? (words)
Or that it's physically impossible for a steel framed structure to
fall at free fall speeds unless explosives were used? Yea know,
little things like laws of physics?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI

Yeah, like the physics that says a metal beam does not need to MELT in order to fail. The structure did not melt, it failed. Due mainly to a FULL PLANE's worth of jet fuel. The initial impact took out some of the support structure of the building with the impact. I think we can agree to that. The temperature then weakened the supports. The fire was not uniform, nor was the heat. Eventually the hottest areas (and the exposed faces of the beams) buckled. This caused a catastrophic failure of the remaining support for the building. This failure started the chain reaction of the collapse. As for it coming straight down, that was due to the failure of the angle clips holding each floor to the supports. That is why the building collapsed from the top, not the bottom. Every building you've ever seen blown up, what floor is destroyed first? The bottom, and the rest of the building comes down on top. This started at the impact point.

As for your pilot comment, lining up a 767 with the biggest tower in New York is cake! I'm a pilot. Trust me, after a couple hours even you could do it, so the thought that "it was too hard to hit the buildings" is pure crap.

In other news..... Let's get this lockout fixed so I can argue Steelers fans about their crappy team,:drink::chuckle: not their crappy conspiracy theories!!!! :banging:

thumper
07-21-2011, 12:31 PM
Yeah, like the physics that says a metal beam does not need to MELT in order to fail. The structure did not melt, it failed. Due mainly to a FULL PLANE's worth of jet fuel. The initial impact took out some of the support structure of the building with the impact. I think we can agree to that. The temperature then weakened the supports. The fire was not uniform, nor was the heat. Eventually the hottest areas (and the exposed faces of the beams) buckled. This caused a catastrophic failure of the remaining support for the building. This failure started the chain reaction of the collapse. As for it coming straight down, that was due to the failure of the angle clips holding each floor to the supports. That is why the building collapsed from the top, not the bottom. Every building you've ever seen blown up, what floor is destroyed first? The bottom, and the rest of the building comes down on top. This started at the impact point.

No offense, but I can tell you have only done very superficial
research on this. There are clearly accounts of eye witnesses
that point to explosives going off in the basement right before
the planes hit. Account after account point to this. When the
firemen showed up, the lobby was completely destroyed, as
if bombs had already been set off. I could produce 100s of links -
not that that is proof by itself but why would these people experienced
these explosions if there weren't any? Why?

http://www.rinf.com/news/july-05/14a.html

And, yes, steel can fail without actually melting but those temps
weren't hot enough to make that happen, either. Also, there is not
way, using the pancake theory, that those buildings could have fallen
at free fall speeds. There would be resistance as each floor fell into
the one below. It is physically impossible for them to fall as fast
as they did. Where was the resistance? Why were there obvious
visible plumes of smoke, usually associated with demolitions?

I mean, use common sense. Does this building really look like
all it did was "pancake" - sending tons of steel girders 100s of
feet out from the entire building? How does that happen without
explosives being involved?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

Oh, and then we got building 7. It wasn't even hit with a plane but
it completely imploded at free fall speed. Care to explain how that
could happen if they didn't use explosives to bring it down?

As for your pilot comment, lining up a 767 with the biggest tower in New York is cake! I'm a pilot. Trust me, after a couple hours even you could do it, so the thought that "it was too hard to hit the buildings" is pure crap.

That's one of the weaker arguments to begin with so I don't
even go there. But as far as pilot performance goes, I would
reference how a flunkie pilot who couldn't even pilot a single-engine
Cessna was able to fly a 757 like a fighter jet into the Pentagon at
500 MPH a few feet off the ground, with such precision that the lawn
of the Pentagon was untouched. None of the lawn was damaged at
all. So a flunkie could fly a jet that huge with such precision?

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html

Any how, there was no plane that hit there. There was a hole, that
supposedly was produced by the nose of a 757 but no impact
where the engines would have been, with the engines being the
most dense, by far, part of that aircraft. Also, no wings to be found,
no impact marks from where the wings would have been. I could
go on an on and on, but have done this enough times already.
Believe whatever makes you feel safe. Our govt. has been hijacked.
The very thing that our founding fathers feared has happened.
But if you want to believe the fairy tales offered by the very people
who are destroying our free country and sending us into perpetual
war, knock yourself out.

The next wave will make all this look like a girl scout meeting. And at
that point, anyone who doesn't believe in the lies spewed by the govt.
as a terror threat. That is already on it's way to being the case. In case
you didn't notice, they already put out a report to all law enforcement
entities that anyone who doesn't believe their official stories as a
"threat" along with any of our combat veterans who don't agree with
our wars. Just make all those who don't blindly go along with their
lies as "threats." They are also moving to allow the govt. to deny
who ever they wish, ownership of guns. No proof or cause will be
needed; they can deny gun ownership purely on their say so. Talk
about unconstitutional - but it is all on it's way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

Nevermore
07-21-2011, 01:07 PM
Not that it really matters, because I think you are a nut, but what was the motivation here? Is your theory that the US government killed thousands of its own people, destroyed symbols of our country, and covered it all up to simply go to war in Afghanistan? And for what gain there? For a group that typically portrays Bush as a bumbling idiot, you claim he pulled off the most intricate and hidden operation in the history of the world. If I get this right:

1. He convinced Al Queda to train the hijackers and carry out the operation.
2. He convinced Bin Laden to claim responsibility for the attack.
3. He created an agency that covertly planted explosives in the WTC.
4. He made it look real enough to those on the planes that they made panicked cell phone calls to loved ones (or their voices were mimicked and all of their loved ones were called by someone else to make us believe it happened).
5. These real hijackers were then replaced by "experienced" pilots to fly the precise attack on the pentagon, or as you suggest that plane "disappeared" and was replaced by a missile that hit the Pentagon.
6. A bomb was set off in a field in Pennsylvania to "simulate" an aircraft crash and that plane "disappeared", all accompanied by the passengers telling their loved ones what they were about to do (staged of course).

And finally, what was the goal of all of this? To get oil in the middle east? Our operations over there have not gotten us any and have sent the price through the roof. To justify Afghanistan? I think 1 plane would have been sufficient and easier.

A president can't get a BJ in the oval office without CNN knowing about it. How do you think an event like this could be pulled off? Seriously? If it was, Bush was the most brilliant leader the world has ever seen, and I don't believe any of you conspiracy buffs would possibly agree with that.

I appreciate your imagination, but it is just that.

ricardisimo
07-21-2011, 01:49 PM
And I can't stress this point enough: There is no lack of evidence that the US government couldn't give two shits about the wellbeing of its own citizens. Why one would need to do gymnastics to prove this, when everywhere you look this is perfectly clear, is just bizarre to me.

P.S. - This conversation is clearly no longer a Steelers thread.

Riddle_Of_Steel
07-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Not that it really matters, because I think you are a nut, but what was the motivation here? Is your theory that the US government killed thousands of its own people, destroyed symbols of our country, and covered it all up to simply go to war in Afghanistan? And for what gain there? For a group that typically portrays Bush as a bumbling idiot, you claim he pulled off the most intricate and hidden operation in the history of the world. If I get this right:

1. He convinced Al Queda to train the hijackers and carry out the operation.
2. He convinced Bin Laden to claim responsibility for the attack.
3. He created an agency that covertly planted explosives in the WTC.
4. He made it look real enough to those on the planes that they made panicked cell phone calls to loved ones (or their voices were mimicked and all of their loved ones were called by someone else to make us believe it happened).
5. These real hijackers were then replaced by "experienced" pilots to fly the precise attack on the pentagon, or as you suggest that plane "disappeared" and was replaced by a missile that hit the Pentagon.
6. A bomb was set off in a field in Pennsylvania to "simulate" an aircraft crash and that plane "disappeared", all accompanied by the passengers telling their loved ones what they were about to do (staged of course).

And finally, what was the goal of all of this? To get oil in the middle east? Our operations over there have not gotten us any and have sent the price through the roof. To justify Afghanistan? I think 1 plane would have been sufficient and easier.

A president can't get a BJ in the oval office without CNN knowing about it. How do you think an event like this could be pulled off? Seriously? If it was, Bush was the most brilliant leader the world has ever seen, and I don't believe any of you conspiracy buffs would possibly agree with that.

I appreciate your imagination, but it is just that.

^^^^ THIS.

Conspiracy theorists went hogwild when Pearl Harbor was bombed too, and they were no more correct than they are about 9/11.

Riddle_Of_Steel
07-21-2011, 09:27 PM
Oh boy, "OPEN GIANT CAN OF WORMS HERE."

Here's the thing. FACT: The "establishment" mows you down if you
are a public person (actor, sports person, politician, et al) and question
the official version of the story; you will be taken down. It is the ultimate 3rd rail.
It might not happen overnight, but it will happen. Now, we can debate why
that is, but there is no question that if you publicly question the validity
of the official story, they are coming after you to ruin you one way or the other.
Every public person I can think of who openly questioned their story has
lost their job, been framed for some BS charge or have been some
how ruined.



How about Jesse Ventura? He is one of the most well-known and outspoken 9/11 conspiracy theorists, yet I have not seen any thing bad happen to him. Matter of factly, he was governor of Minnesota.

This "3rd rail" of your has less to do with some Orwellian government conspiracy to kill all dissenters, and more to do with public-facing companies and employers not wanting to be represented by wacky conspiracy theorists and other fringe elements that could tarnish their image.

Again, we can debate why that is, but there is no question that those who
question it get systematically taken down.


There IS a question because I just cited a pretty large, glaring exception to your rule.

If Mendy doesn't change his
tune soon, he will be done in the NFL. Bank on it.

I believe you, but not for the reasons you are thinking.

Charlie Sheen questioned it. He lost the highest paid gig in TV. Was it all because
he is crazy or did he get set up to begin with?

That would be option 1. He was derelict in his duties (a no-show because he was in rehab, no less) that he was contracted for, then had the nerve to ddemand a raise, and he had a bad attitude about it to boot. No employer is gonna put up with that crap, whether you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories or the abominable snowman....

Oh, and before the ideologues rush to claim that anyone who questions
it is crazy, then maybe you should ask yourself why so many experts such
as engineers, arch. and pilots have openly asserted that the official version
is simply impossible. Thousands of them.

We've already been through this. For every engineer, arch, and pilot who has backed the 9/11 conspiracy BS, 10 more refuted it.

Wallace108
07-22-2011, 12:11 AM
Thumper, I could argue against every single thing you've posted, including your assertion that I can't prove that water is wet, but I'm not going to waste your time, and I'm not going to waste my time. I'm going to keep it simple.

You keep accusing people on this board of being sheep and uneducated. Well, let me ask you this ... out of all of your 9/11 conspiracies, which you've supposedly put TONS of thought and research into, how many of them are your original thoughts and ideas? I'm going out on a limb and guessing NONE!!! You didn't come up with any of these ideas yourself ... You've been manipulated by the conspiracy theorists. You're nothing but a ****ing sheep following all the other wacko conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. BAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAA


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_03/sheep1712_468x347.jpg

Stop posting links to YouTube videos and conspiracy websites. If you truly believe in what you're saying, make the case yourself. Let's start with this ... you keep saying that anyone who speaks out against "the establishment" has their career ruined. Like who? Name them? :popcorn:

fart
07-22-2011, 12:45 AM
Stop posting links to YouTube videos and conspiracy websites. If you truly believe in what you're saying, make the case yourself. Let's start with this ... you keep saying that anyone who speaks out against "the establishment" has their career ruined. Like who? Name them? :popcorn:

You don't see all the raving homeless people on the streets? They knew too much...

Wallace108
07-22-2011, 01:18 AM
You don't see all the raving homeless people on the streets? They knew too much...

:sofunny:

I guess Mendy will be joining them soon.

LambertLunatic
07-22-2011, 06:58 AM
But my argument was not really about that, it was about the right of speech.

This has nothing to do with our 1st amendment right to free speech. The 1st amendment keeps the government from punishing us for what we say. Businesses are not obligated to provide their sponsors (or any employee) with free speech

steelerchad
07-22-2011, 08:22 AM
This has nothing to do with our 1st amendment right to free speech. The 1st amendment keeps the government from punishing us for what we say. Businesses are not obligated to provide their sponsors (or any employee) with free speech

That is correct sir.
I could choose to call my boss or better yet the owner of the company a f***in a**hole. But there would be consequences to pay for that. Mendy is now going to have to live with those consequences for saying what he had a right to say. He can't be put in jail or fined for saying what he wants to, but someone who is paying him to represent their product can't certainly stop doing so if they choose. If I'm paying someone to represent me and they go and alienate any part of my customer base, I'm going to be pissed off. Champion has every right to do this and moreso it is probably the correct decision for their business.

thumper
07-22-2011, 01:45 PM
How about Jesse Ventura? He is one of the most well-known and outspoken 9/11 conspiracy theorists, yet I have not seen any thing bad happen to him. Matter of factly, he was governor of Minnesota.

That's right. And, in fact, according to Jesse, once he because gov.
he was inundated with CIA agents demanding that answer to how
in the world he got elected. It freaked out the establishment that an
ind. got elected. It freaked them out that someone who they did not
have their hooks into got elected and they wanted to know how. By
the way, that was before JV started questioning 911. Back then he
was far less aware. Think JV could get elected now? No F-n way.
They would use their usual tactics to ensure he couldn't win in
office - with media smears and - if needed - voter fraud.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/03/jessecia/


This "3rd rail" of your has less to do with some Orwellian government conspiracy to kill all dissenters, and more to do with public-facing companies and employers not wanting to be represented by wacky conspiracy theorists and other fringe elements that could tarnish their image.

Has to do with both. But one created the other. Just watch what
the media does with any truthseeker 9 one 1. Watch their attitude.
The unified effort causes the sheep to just buy into it. If all the
media treats TS as nuts, then most of the sheep go along with it and
get angry themselves at the very notion, since that's what their TV
and media leads them to. Most just take the lead of what the media
tells them and only differentiates for the invented "right-left" paradigm,
that distracts the sheep into thinking they are on some sort of side
of things, when, in fact, there is virtually nothing substantially
different between the parties. The large agenda is sought by both.
Only difference is window dressing.


There IS a question because I just cited a pretty large, glaring exception to your rule.

No you didn't. I never said these guys are all-powerful; just very
powerful. JV isn't dead (good luck with that, he is a former seal)
but he is out off office, and he has no shows anymore, even though
he was very popular and, at one time, had all major news channels
fighting for his services. Now that he questions nine 1 0ne and the
wars, he has been black balled. You will say it's only because "the
people" don't like him any more and that is simply not true.


That would be option 1. He was derelict in his duties (a no-show because he was in rehab, no less) that he was contracted for, then had the nerve to ddemand a raise, and he had a bad attitude about it to boot. No employer is gonna put up with that crap, whether you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories or the abominable snowman....

Yea, that's the story we are told. We also heard stories about Ross
Perot, the president of the IMF bank, about all those people who
committed suicide when anyone could see the stories were not
believable at all. That is a LONG list. Sheen may have self destructed,
but that girl who reported that he "kept here in his hotel room when
she didn't want to be there" was such an obvious lie. She was a obvious
plant to anyone using common sense and looking into it. Any how, I
am not saying Sheen didn't have self-destructive habits. But they are
good in playing off those habits to destroy your credibility when you step
out of line. You will NEVER see any major media or the govt. give a fair
shake to anyone presenting credible evidence for this. NEVER. They
will only allow those who they can make look like a nut speak. How about
how so many of the witnesses, who witnessed things they don't want us
to even consider, were not allowed to testify for their phony commission?
Anyone who reported hearing and feeling explosions were not invited to
offer any testimony. Yea, that seems like they were really pursuing the truth.


We've already been through this. For every engineer, arch, and pilot who has backed the 9/11 conspiracy BS, 10 more refuted it.

ANYTHING the establishment wants to sell, they will have plenty
of those serving the cabal line up and testify. Just look at the ramp
up for the Iraq war. They had every Tom and Jerry line up and say
that Saddam was so dangerous and had so many WMDs. And anyone
who didn't agree? They got no air time, and were fired from their govt.
job. It is beyond obvious.

Anyone who can't see the towers fall, as they did, and not realize
their story is ridiculous doesn't even want to know the truth. It
is too scary for them and they will force themselves to buy into
the insanely obvious lies.

DanRooney
07-22-2011, 02:14 PM
You're welcome to your opinion. I don't consider YouTube to be either a source for truth or deceit, but rather a warehouse for entertainment. Keep in mind thumper, that on every polarizing issue in this age, there will be antagonists that bend and twist reality for their own reasons. Money, fame, advancement of one's career, etc. You can find videos on YouTube that will present the "facts" for and against just about any topic of societal or political interest. I find it laughable that you watch some of these videos and lend any credence to their "facts."

I find it laughable that you believe reports given out by the US government.

thumper
07-22-2011, 02:26 PM
Not that it really matters, because I think you are a nut, but what was the motivation here?

That's OK, because I think you are a duped patsy with no clue
regarding on what true reality is all around you. On the chessboard
you are a pawn.


Is your theory that the US government killed thousands of its own people, destroyed symbols of our country, and covered it all up to simply go to war in Afghanistan?

Well, you make several assumptions here and that's the _start_
of your fumbling in the dark. The "US govt." is not controlled by
our elected officials, period. It has been hijacked, just as our
founding fathers feared. Those wielding the most power are
not even American - they are the richest banker families. Our
govt. takes orders from these scum bags - yes, they are scum
bags who have already sought more power and profit from human
death and suffering. It's nothing new to them. Look at the real
reason the Revolutionary War was fought. It was to break off
from the largest banker family, Bank of London, et al. Our dudes
said "no" to accepting their $ with them charging us interest. They
told them they no longer needed their "$ created out of thin air" and
the interest that comes with it. When you don't play ball with the
central bankers, they will start wars. They told us if we don't keep
it going with us agreeing to accept their $, they would send redcoats
over. They did. And the rest is history. But that didn't stop them, it
only delayed it. Since then the Fed. Res. now is basically the same
entity (and family - very same) and serves the same purpose - they
create $ out of thin air, and charge us interest for it, and plummet
us into more debt, where we always owe them more and more. And,
as the founding fathers realized, we don't need those bankers at
all. Our country could launch its own currency and not have to pay
interest to foreign bankers. JFK knew this and sign EO 01111, which
would have eliminated the need for the FR. Of course, after his head
was blown off, the EO never came to be.


And for what gain there? For a group that typically portrays Bush as a bumbling idiot, you claim he pulled off the most intricate and hidden operation in the history of the world.

NEVER asserted that. Bush is a moron. He is a mere puppet. The
agenda he pursued was not his. He was just going along with the
powers that be. I doubt he even knew of the plot. He was immediately
flown to the middle of no where and Cheney - who definitely was totally
aware and engaged in the plan - orchestrated the particulars. Several
things clearly point to this, among them, that Cheney was put in charge
of running NORAD that day, as opposed to military generals, which was
the structure BEFORE and AFTER that day. But for some strange reason,
Cheney called all the shots on our air defense grid that day. And he oddly
chose to not put any fighters where they would have been - even with an
entire hour advance notice after the towers were hit. Some how they failed
to protect DC and the Pentagon. A 757 was supposedly allowed to come
waltzing in without any fighter jet to intercept them.


If I get this right:

I am sure you will get it all wrong.

1. He convinced Al Queda to train the hijackers and carry out the operation.

No. They put up some patsies and had them go to some flying
lessons so they could sell their BS story. 7 of the names hijackers
have been found to be living. But the media never reported it. How
could those guys be found alive if they were on planes that crashed?
All these did was toss some shit at a wall, show a video of one guy
in an airport toss a few passports around (that some how survived
the crashes in tact) and people like you fall for it.

2. He convinced Bin Laden to claim responsibility for the attack.

You mean that fat guy, wearing gold, who was right handed (OBL was
left handed) with a totally different face and nose of a video that
was "found" on the book shelf of some "house?" OBL never admitted
he had any part, or knowledge, of this. Matter of fact, he actually denied it
but the FBI said it was too dangerous to play those tapes, but felt it
wasn't dangerous to play the obvious forged on with the fake OBL.
Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyy believable.

3. He created an agency that covertly planted explosives in the WTC.

Bush created nothing. The entity who did this has existed forever.


4. He made it look real enough to those on the planes that they made panicked cell phone calls to loved ones (or their voices were mimicked and all of their loved ones were called by someone else to make us believe it happened).

Those calls were not even possible. And, yes, they can replicate voices
with ease.

5. These real hijackers were then replaced by "experienced" pilots to fly the precise attack on the pentagon, or as you suggest that plane "disappeared" and was replaced by a missile that hit the Pentagon.

The planes that hit the towers were highly likely remote controlled. No
plane hit the Pentagon. No evidence that one ever did.


6. A bomb was set off in a field in Pennsylvania to "simulate" an aircraft crash and that plane "disappeared", all accompanied by the passengers telling their loved ones what they were about to do (staged of course).

Look at the passenger list of that plane. It is like the who's who for
secretive military work. It was full of major players at weapons companies.

And finally, what was the goal of all of this? To get oil in the middle east? Our operations over there have not gotten us any and have sent the price through the roof. To justify Afghanistan? I think 1 plane would have been sufficient and easier.

Many goals. For one, the start of destroying our rights and privacy. That
has certainly happened and gets worse every day. And of course oil
prices have gone up - you think the cartel wants to make less $ or more?
The fantasy "Arab Spring" uprising has been created as well, all to eventually
cause wars there. The only country that won't have turmoil and chaos is Israel.
We will be made to believe that terror is still coming from that region, as
well as "human suffering" as they tried to sell in Egypt and now Libya. Soon
to join the list, Syria, Turkey, etc.


A president can't get a BJ in the oval office without CNN knowing about it. How do you think an event like this could be pulled off? Seriously? If it was, Bush was the most brilliant leader the world has ever seen, and I don't believe any of you conspiracy buffs would possibly agree with that.

It never came from Bush. He was merely the figure head. If you think
our country's president and other elected officials actually think up
the main hidden agendas, then, well, have a nice gullible life.

I appreciate your imagination, but it is just that.

And I appreciate your gullibility. It is mind expanding.

Oh, and, just in case you think I am only repeating some talking points,
I not only can tell you the truth of what happened, I can also tell you
what is GOING to happen.

thumper
07-22-2011, 02:28 PM
I find it laughable that you believe reports given out by the US government.

What, you think the US govt. and military would ever lie to us?
NO WAY! :sofunny:

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 02:55 PM
That's right. And, in fact, according to Jesse, once he because gov.
he was inundated with CIA agents demanding that answer to how
in the world he got elected. It freaked out the establishment that an
ind. got elected. It freaked them out that someone who they did not
have their hooks into got elected and they wanted to know how. By
the way, that was before JV started questioning 911. Back then he
was far less aware. Think JV could get elected now? No F-n way.
They would use their usual tactics to ensure he couldn't win in
office - with media smears and - if needed - voter fraud.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/03/jessecia/

I'm not denying that any of that happened, but if the CIA and the establishment were so freaked out by independent candidates...why wouldn't they have just smeared Jesse in the media or rigged the election beforehand? I mean, if that's the usual tactic (which yes I know sometimes it is...just the gov't doesn't really need to do the smearing, the other candidates usually take care of that) then why didn't they do it to him? Why did they wait till after to get freaked out? Did they not have the intelligence to know he was an independent candidate beforehand or the gonads to ruin him before he became governor or something? :noidea:

As far as his political career goes (in terms of the media)...the media are assholes. All of them. Doesn't matter which way they lean, they smell personal strife on someone and they go for blood. JV chose to end his career because *shocker* he was a governor and the media hounded him and his family. He's said if he was single he would have run again. He's certainly not the first or last governor/political figure to be hounded by the media. Hell, you don't even have to speak out about 9/11 to get hounded by the media...it happens to people who never even bring the subject up all the time. They really are just assholes....no conspiracy about it.

No you didn't. I never said these guys are all-powerful; just very
powerful. JV isn't dead (good luck with that, he is a former seal)
but he is out off office, and he has no shows anymore, even though
he was very popular and, at one time, had all major news channels
fighting for his services. Now that he questions nine 1 0ne and the
wars, he has been black balled. You will say it's only because "the
people" don't like him any more and that is simply not true.

What? You've never heard of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura? It's ran for two seasons on TruTV now. The only reason the third season is in limbo is because Ventura is suing Homeland Security and TSA for always patting him down (he has a metal hip and it always sets of the buzzers). He refuses to fly commercially again and may not be able to do the show.

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-strikes-back-with-lawsuit-against-tsa/

Now, I don't disagree with his lawsuit...TSA are assholes. But he's not the only person they routinely pat down like this. There are a lot of normal folk out there that go through the same thing (with the same discomfort as Jesse). If his show/career ends though because he refuses to fly, then that's because he chooses not to deal with their bullshit anymore. Nobody cancelled his show due to it not being popular though. I was under the impression it had a strong following.

Besides...he's always got his writing career to fall back on I guess. His latest was just published in April.

Sheen may have self destructed,
but that girl who reported that he "kept here in his hotel room when
she didn't want to be there" was such an obvious lie. She was a obvious
plant to anyone using common sense and looking into it.

How is that obvious? I don't know 100% if he did that or not, but given his past track record with women and violence...it's not that far fetched. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone with his history of drug abuse, violence and domestic violence could be capable of this. It was literally just a matter of time with him (as it always seemed to be).

Seriously though, I gave you a huge list of prominent figures who have spoken out against the gov't version of 9/11...and yes, I'm sure that some of those people have lost their jobs, or changed careers...maybe a handful have even been incarcerated for something...but that happens to people on both sides of the fence. Your continued assertations that saying something against the gov't version of 9/11 is "grabbing the third rail" is completely groundless, and you should probably just stop making shit like that up. It makes you look foolish and reasonable people know it's a crock of shit.

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 03:09 PM
What, you think the US govt. and military would ever lie to us?
NO WAY! :sofunny:

I think even people who don't believe the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 certainly know that the gov't lies to them. I mean, it's what gov't's do. It's just some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are so off the wall, it's like they just jumped out of a James Bond movie or something.

What I think, is that AT MOST our government (or at least probably a few key people inside) knew, or suspected what was going to happen...maybe to the degree that it did, maybe not...and let it happen and took full advantage of it. At the very least, I know the government seized their opportunities in the middle east when they saw the chance. But there's just too much circumstantial evidence surrounding many of the theories for me to even take them seriously.

Trust our government though? Not a chance.

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 03:12 PM
BTW, I am moving and merging this to the locker room. It's just sort of run it's course up here and hasn't had anything to do with football for a long time now.

thumper
07-22-2011, 03:23 PM
^^^^ THIS.

Conspiracy theorists went hogwild when Pearl Harbor was bombed too, and they were no more correct than they are about 9/11.

The evidence if overwhelming that they knew the attack at Pearl
was coming. It's just not "as bad" since they didn't actually
commit the attack themselves, but they knew it was coming. We
had cracked their code, we saw the massive fleet on radar, and
yet no one was warned. I find that reprehensible. We didn't
need to let Japan bomb as like fish in a barrel. They could have
convinced the American people to go into war had they actually
warned our troops and been ready to defend themselves. Why
was it necessary to have so many lives lost?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 03:57 PM
The evidence if overwhelming that they knew the attack at Pearl
was coming. It's just not "as bad" since they didn't actually
commit the attack themselves, but they knew it was coming. We
had cracked their code, we saw the massive fleet on radar, and
yet no one was warned. I find that reprehensible. We didn't
need to let Japan bomb as like fish in a barrel. They could have
convinced the American people to go into war had they actually
warned our troops and been ready to defend themselves. Why
was it necessary to have so many lives lost?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Well, that's a stretch too. It sounds all nice when you say they saw them coming on radar (because most people nowadays think of the kind of sophisticated radar we have now), but back then it was a piece of shit...and our military was lacking in many areas, one of them being training (pre-WWII). Those guys had no clue what they were looking at.

And I'm sure FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was a target...but I don't believe he knew when it would happen.

It is no secret that FDR wanted into the war, but the American public would never have agreed to get involved in Europe’s war. Military tactics would make a decision like pearl harbor an easy one. Allow the enemy to think you are weak and provide targets that would draw them in. In combat it is better to defend than attack, you will have the defensive positions and the ability to counter attack...it is the perfect draw and fain. However in the attack at pearl, there was no prepared defensive positions. But it did provide the spark that brought the U.S. into the war.

Now whether you believe that FDR knew about the pending attack or not (I'm guessing by all accounts that you do), our entrance into the war was going to happen. Entering when we did was far better for a number of reasons, but most important was to enter while England was still intact, providing us with a foot hold in Europe, and not having to fight German naval vessels off the America’s coast line . Whether or not the president knew prior and aided in the attack of pearl harbor isn’t as important as it was to enter the war in 1941...rather than being forced into the war in say 1943 or 1944 when Germany controlled all of Europe and the USSR and all their resources being brought to bear on the only free country left standing alone with their pants blowing in the wind.


One line from the article you posted struck me (I only skimmed over most of it, but only because I've read much about this already)..."FDR was always going to ignore Japan and go after Hitler, for his ultimate goal was to save his beloved Soviet Communism."

This sounds like total bullshit to me, and propaganda at it's finest. Ignore Japan? Are these writers stupid or something? I guess my grandpa was just off "ignoring Japan" when he was battling the Japanese at in the Pacific atolls.

Go after Hitler to save communism? I know FDR was a liberal, but come on. You don't think maybe he wanted to go after Hitler because he's taken over all but one free country in Europe? Or that he had plans to invade and restructure South America?

Where do you find this shit?

thumper
07-22-2011, 04:04 PM
I'm not denying that any of that happened, but if the CIA and the establishment were so freaked out by independent candidates...why wouldn't they have just smeared Jesse in the media or rigged the election beforehand? I mean, if that's the usual tactic (which yes I know sometimes it is...just the gov't doesn't really need to do the smearing, the other candidates usually take care of that) then why didn't they do it to him?

That's the point, SC. He got in when they didn't expect it. That is
why they were freaked: They didn't realize he had a real shot of
winning and he did. That is why they came to his crib and grilled
him in the basement for all that time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

I tend to believe JV. I don't see why he would make this stuff up. He
is a man, an honest man, with honor.

Why did they wait till after to get freaked out? Did they not have the intelligence to know he was an independent candidate beforehand or the gonads to ruin him before he became governor or something?

My guess - basing it on what JV said - is they underestimated him
and didn't realize he could win, hence didn't bother with their usual
tactics.

As far as his political career goes (in terms of the media)...the media are assholes. All of them. Doesn't matter which way they lean, they smell personal strife on someone and they go for blood. JV chose to end his career because *shocker* he was a governor and the media hounded him and his family. He's said if he was single he would have run again.

Yes. But that doesn't mean he _could_ win even if he tried, due to
the fact they would smear him and/or use voter fraud in order to
keep him out of office. Or, maybe JV could pull a Ron Paul and
win regardless, but it wouldn't be without them _trying_ to keep
him out.

He's certainly not the first or last governor/political figure to be hounded by the media. Hell, you don't even have to speak out about 9/11 to get hounded by the media...it happens to people who never even bring the subject up all the time. They really are just assholes....no conspiracy about it.

Sure. But that doesn't mean the media isn't controlled at the highest
levels. Just look into who owns the only wire services used by all
our major media and let me know what you think about that.


What? You've never heard of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura? It's ran for two seasons on TruTV now. The only reason the third season is in limbo is because Ventura is suing Homeland Security and TSA for always patting him down (he has a metal hip and it always sets of the buzzers). He refuses to fly commercially again and may not be able to do the show.

I've heard of it, and watched a few episodes. It was kind of disappointing
in that it appeared as sensationalism to a degree. I wasn't sure exactly
why it did not continue. I think I recall some episodes that were shot but
never allowed to be shown.

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-strikes-back-with-lawsuit-against-tsa/

Now, I don't disagree with his lawsuit...TSA are assholes. But he's not the only person they routinely pat down like this. There are a lot of normal folk out there that go through the same thing (with the same discomfort as Jesse). If his show/career ends though because he refuses to fly, then that's because he chooses not to deal with their bullshit anymore. Nobody cancelled his show due to it not being popular though. I was under the impression it had a strong following.

Well, if a show they don't like falls without them needing to make it do
so, I guess all the better for them, less work. Had JV pursued another
season, I am not sure if it would end up airing. But, we won't know if
JV has quit on his own.


How is that obvious? I don't know 100% if he did that or not, but given his past track record with women and violence...it's not that far fetched. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone with his history of drug abuse, violence and domestic violence could be capable of this. It was literally just a matter of time with him (as it always seemed to be).

The girl's statements to police were very weak and inconsistent.
I'm not trying to defend him, as he has done bad things. I won't
bother to, but when I looked into it at the time, it kind of seemed
like BS to me.

Seriously though, I gave you a huge list of prominent figures who have spoken out against the gov't version of 9/11...and yes, I'm sure that some of those people have lost their jobs, or changed careers...maybe a handful have even been incarcerated for something...but that happens to people on both sides of the fence. Your continued assertations that saying something against the gov't version of 9/11 is "grabbing the third rail" is completely groundless, and you should probably just stop making shit like that up. It makes you look foolish and reasonable people know it's a crock of shit.

That list was interesting, but huge. But a few things occurred to me.

1.) I didn't know 1/2 of them. Like I said earlier they go after those with
the largest audiences. They don't have the manpower to ruin every
single person who speaks against their story. If the person is pretty
obscure, I don't know. They may not make the cut as to who to bother
with.

2.) Many of them may have made a statement at one time, but have
discontinued since. I do believe you would likely get a warning call
before they actually have to put work in. Many on that list are not known
as truthers, because, for one reason of the other, have since decided
to shut their mouth about it. Ed Begley Jr. is one on that list who did
remain active in the movement. And, I can't say his career has taken off.
Has be been blackballed? No way to know for fact. I do remember James
Brolin bringing up "911weknow.com" or something along those lines. Can't
say he continues to try to bring it up any more. Who knows. You choose
to assume there are no forces at play to keep a lid on this; that's how
you see it. I find it obvious that there are definitely forces in play trying to
squelch the truther movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO2yZegigZo

Then it looks like Fox was happy to cover the story and bring flames
on his ass. (Fox is a great place to see what they are up to with their
agendas. You know when they vilify someone it's something they
fear.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3UUY2BTrzY

thumper
07-22-2011, 04:18 PM
Well, that's a stretch too. It sounds all nice when you say they saw them coming on radar (because most people nowadays think of the kind of sophisticated radar we have now), but back then it was a piece of shit...and our military was lacking in many areas, one of them being training (pre-WWII). Those guys had no clue what they were looking at.

They had decent enough radar. It could detect plane props.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opana_Radar_Site

They saw a massive image on it.
Why not at least bother to take some precaution? They also had
broken the Japanese code and had intercepted wires that spelled
out there was an attack coming.

And I'm sure FDR knew that Pearl Harbor was a target...but I don't believe he knew when it would happen.

So you say. I can't say that with any certainty.

It is no secret that FDR wanted into the war, but the American public would never have agreed to get involved in Europe’s war. Military tactics would make a decision like pearl harbor an easy one. Allow the enemy to think you are weak and provide targets that would draw them in. In combat it is better to defend than attack, you will have the defensive positions and the ability to counter attack...it is the perfect draw and fain. However in the attack at pearl, there was no prepared defensive positions. But it did provide the spark that brought the U.S. into the war.

That is the point. Why were they so totally unprepared when
it seems like they should have certainly had more of a clue.

Now whether you believe that FDR knew about the pending attack or not (I'm guessing by all accounts that you do), our entrance into the war was going to happen. Entering when we did was far better for a number of reasons, but most important was to enter while England was still intact, providing us with a foot hold in Europe, and not having to fight German naval vessels off the America’s coast line . Whether or not the president knew prior and aided in the attack of pearl harbor isn’t as important as it was to enter the war in 1941...rather than being forced into the war in say 1943 or 1944 when Germany controlled all of Europe and the USSR and all their resources being brought to bear on the only free country left standing alone with their pants blowing in the wind.

Not debating timing of entering the war. Just that the possibility that
they knew an attack was coming and purposely did nothing to prepare
for it.


One line from the article you posted struck me (I only skimmed over most of it, but only because I've read much about this already)..."FDR was always going to ignore Japan and go after Hitler, for his ultimate goal was to save his beloved Soviet Communism."

I am not going to defend that assertion. Seems whack to me.
I am only asserting that the US may have known attack was coming
and purposely did nothing to prepare or warn our people.


Where do you find this shit?

Search engines.

MasterOfPuppets
07-22-2011, 04:37 PM
Where do you find this shit?

:scratchchin:..........:idea:.........:moon: ........:tap:

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 05:54 PM
They had decent enough radar. It could detect plane props.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opana_Radar_Site

They saw a massive image on it.
Why not at least bother to take some precaution? They also had
broken the Japanese code and had intercepted wires that spelled
out there was an attack coming.

That is the point. Why were they so totally unprepared when
it seems like they should have certainly had more of a clue.

The army back then wasn't like the army today. Yes, they buckled down and prepared when the time came, but it was less than 10 years earlier that they were training soldiers with wooden weapons.

I know the radars could detect things, but from some accounts I've heard, it was a couple of guys sitting in a room looking at it for a while scratching their heads and not knowing what they were looking at.

So you say. I can't say that with any certainty.

I can't say with any certainty either. It's just a guess on my part. It's hard to pick through old data like that though and say anything with any certainty, some of the language in those transmissions is vague and some of the information is just word of mouth.

What I will say is this though...and it might sound a little harsh and dismissive, but it's how I feel about it...if FDR did in fact know what was going to happen, and let it happen, I'm 95% ok with that. It was a necessary war for a number of reasons, and I don't know if the American people would have believed it to be a good idea until it was right on our doorstep (when it would have been too late).


I am not going to defend that assertion. Seems whack to me.
I am only asserting that the US may have known attack was coming
and purposely did nothing to prepare or warn our people.

Fair enough.

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 05:54 PM
:scratchchin:..........:idea:.........:moon: ........:tap:
:kick:

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 06:21 PM
That's the point, SC. He got in when they didn't expect it. That is
why they were freaked: They didn't realize he had a real shot of
winning and he did. That is why they came to his crib and grilled
him in the basement for all that time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

I tend to believe JV. I don't see why he would make this stuff up. He
is a man, an honest man, with honor.

I know, I was just making hypotheticals. I think he's a good guy too. I don't agree with him on some stuff, but that's ok.

Sure. But that doesn't mean the media isn't controlled at the highest
levels. Just look into who owns the only wire services used by all
our major media and let me know what you think about that.

Honestly, I barely even pay attention to main stream media. I got sick of the headaches and sensationalism years ago. If I want to know more about a specific story, it usually involves some searching on the internet. I can't say with any certainty who runs the mainstream networks...but I know they're only a step above retarded monkeys. So yeah, it probably is the government. :chuckle:

I've heard of it, and watched a few episodes. It was kind of disappointing
in that it appeared as sensationalism to a degree. I wasn't sure exactly
why it did not continue. I think I recall some episodes that were shot but
never allowed to be shown.

Felt the same way myself. It was a little interesting, but I don't much get into those over dramatized type shows (unless it's about guns, or warriors, or warriors with guns). So I don't know about unaired episodes, but it wouldn't surprise me.

That list was interesting, but huge. But a few things occurred to me.

1.) I didn't know 1/2 of them. Like I said earlier they go after those with
the largest audiences. They don't have the manpower to ruin every
single person who speaks against their story. If the person is pretty
obscure, I don't know. They may not make the cut as to who to bother
with.

No, I know it was huge...that's why I posted it lol. I don't know half of them either. But only a couple people jumped out at me as having been in some real hot water at one time or another.

2.) Many of them may have made a statement at one time, but have
discontinued since. I do believe you would likely get a warning call
before they actually have to put work in. Many on that list are not known
as truthers, because, for one reason of the other, have since decided
to shut their mouth about it. Ed Begley Jr. is one on that list who did
remain active in the movement. And, I can't say his career has taken off.
Has be been blackballed? No way to know for fact. I do remember James
Brolin bringing up "911weknow.com" or something along those lines. Can't
say he continues to try to bring it up any more. Who knows. You choose
to assume there are no forces at play to keep a lid on this; that's how
you see it. I find it obvious that there are definitely forces in play trying to
squelch the truther movement.

I wouldn't exactly say Ed Begley Jr.'s career was anything extremely notable to begin with...so no, I doubt he's been black balled lol. He's credited with 45 tv and film roles since 2001 though, so I really don't think so.

If they're truly are forces at work to squelch the truther movement...then they suck at it. I just don't see any real evidence that would come close to suggest that this is happening.

cloppbeast
07-23-2011, 07:27 AM
I couldn't care less about 9/11, quite honestly. I think Mendenhall's real crime was attempting to humanize an official enemy. That will never be accepted, and everyone must immediately pounce upon and dismember anyone who tries to undermine state propaganda like that. We have to hate who we're told to hate, or the entire system falls apart immediately.

True Dat.

cloppbeast
07-23-2011, 08:05 AM
I would like to start by saying I don't necessarilly disagree with Thumper, because I understand this is a more complicated issue than most people recognize. I don't think anybody really can attain enough information to know whether the U.S. Federal Government orchestrated the attack or terrorists. It's kind of like trying to prove God does or doesn't exist - it can't be done.

No offense, but I can tell you have only done very superficial
research on this. There are clearly accounts of eye witnesses
that point to explosives going off in the basement right before
the planes hit. Account after account point to this. When the
firemen showed up, the lobby was completely destroyed, as
if bombs had already been set off. I could produce 100s of links -
not that that is proof by itself but why would these people experienced
these explosions if there weren't any? Why?

Were these eye witness testomonies from the day of the event, or years after - because if these stories came out well after the fact, then they mean little to nothing to me. For a conspiracy theorist, it would prove no difficulty to find a "witness" to make up a story who may or may not have been there. That doesn't mean necessarilly that it's not true; but for me, the liklihood of foul play is just too large for me to take such testomony seriously, unfortunately.

Then again, much of the non-conspiratory testomony I take with a grain of salt as well.

And, yes, steel can fail without actually melting but those temps weren't hot enough to make that happen, either. ?

This is not true. There is no set temperature which is needed to make steel weaken to the point of failure. You would have to consider all the loads on the structure before making such a statement. Possibly, under normal conditions, a jet fuel fire may not cause a building to collapse. But lets say, for instance, you fly a ****ing plane into a building, then the combination of tempeture load could cause it to collapse.

Also, there is not way, using the pancake theory, that those buildings could have fallen at free fall speeds. There would be resistance as each floor fell into the one below. It is physically impossible for them to fall as fast as they did. Where was the resistance? Why were there obvious visible plumes of smoke, usually associated with demolitions?

A well engineered building is designed to fail in such way - and sky scrapers are designed to fail exactly like the WTC. There is nothing suspicious about how the WTC fell - that was how it was meant to fall.

Oh, and then we got building 7. It wasn't even hit with a plane but it completely imploded at free fall speed. Care to explain how that could happen if they didn't use explosives to bring it down?

A blind squirrel finds acorns once in a while.

You make an excellent point. I really can't argue with this.

That's one of the weaker arguments to begin with so I don't even go there. But as far as pilot performance goes, I would reference how a flunkie pilot who couldn't even pilot a single-engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 like a fighter jet into the Pentagon at 500 MPH a few feet off the ground, with such precision that the lawn
of the Pentagon was untouched. None of the lawn was damaged at
all. So a flunkie could fly a jet that huge with such precision?

Unlikely, but not impossible.

Believe whatever makes you feel safe. Our govt. has been hijacked. The very thing that our founding fathers feared has happened. But if you want to believe the fairy tales offered by the very people who are destroying our free country and sending us into perpetual war, knock yourself out.

We all believe what we want to believe - including yourself. A libertarian-minded person naturally distrusts government, making them the most likely to believe such conspiracy theories. You can pretend as if you're the model of objectivism, but your proving yourself a fraud. The fact you made such a bold declaritive statement using a bunch of non-related, not-well-thought-out, and shoddy facts shows you are as biased as they come.

But, the fact remains, none of us truly know the answer, yet we argue about it as if we do. On top of that, we criticize each other - one side is a bunch of wackos, the other side is a bunch of sheep who believe anything the government tells them. This whole 9/11 discussion has become as polarizing as any issue in this country. To be honest, it's almost like religion - because everyone thinks they know the answer when they don't.

Wallace108
07-23-2011, 11:02 AM
I don't think anybody really can attain enough information to know whether the U.S. Federal Government orchestrated the attack or terrorists. It's kind of like trying to prove God does or doesn't exist - it can't be done.

Very well said, cloppbeast. I don't think we'll ever know for sure exactly what happened on 9/11.

The problem I have with thumper is not necessarily his arguments, but the way he presents them. Just because most of us don't buy into the conspiracy theories, thumper calls us uneducated, sheep, and gullible for believing everything the government tells us. That's not only incorrect, but it's a piss-poor way to debate. And that's why I get a bit testy with him.

Although I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I also don't believe entirely in the official government version of events. I'm still convinced that Flight 93 was shot down. The crash site isn't consistent with a normal plane crash. And there are eyewitnesses who saw military planes in the area.

But does this mean there's a government conspiracy? Yes and no. Just because the government may have lied about the plane being shot down doesn't mean it was part of some nefarious conspiracy such as thumper suggests. Lying about what happened would serve two points. On possibly the most tragic day in our country's history, it wouldn't have done our psyche any good to know that our own government shot down one of our own planes and killed innocent people. And American people rallied around the story of courageous passengers on Flight 93. On a day of great tragedy, it gave Americans something to be proud of.

I'm not saying I'm right about this, just that I find it plausible ... and that just because me and many others don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracies doesn't mean we're uneducated sheep who believe everything the government tells us.

cloppbeast
07-23-2011, 11:34 AM
Very well said, cloppbeast. I don't think we'll ever know for sure exactly what happened on 9/11.

Thank You!

he problem I have with thumper is not necessarily his arguments, but the way he presents them. Just because most of us don't buy into the conspiracy theories, thumper calls us uneducated, sheep, and gullible for believing everything the government tells us. That's not only incorrect, but it's a piss-poor way to debate. And that's why I get a bit testy with him.

It's your typical conspiracy theorist argument. Thumper thinks he's unique with his opinion, but he's more oridnary than he understands.

I generally have a problem when people generalize their opponents, anyway - and this 9/11 debate epitimizes it. How can somebody seriously question another's open-mindedness solely based on their opinion on whether they believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Isn't it possible a person could have objectively considered all the facts and still concluded terrorists blew up the WTC with a plane? Of course.

But, then again, most conspiracy theorists lack any logic in their thought process, otherwise they would have never convinced themselves their conspiracy is such certainty.

But does this mean there's a government conspiracy? Yes and no. Just because the government may have lied about the plane being shot down doesn't mean it was part of some nefarious conspiracy such as thumper suggests. Lying about what happened would serve two points. On possibly the most tragic day in our country's history, it wouldn't have done our psyche any good to know that our own government shot down one of our own planes and killed innocent people. And American people rallied around the story of courageous passengers on Flight 93. On a day of great tragedy, it gave Americans something to be proud of.

Excellent point, dude.

Conspiracy theorists need to understand that, even if they've uncovered some enlightening facts, they still haven't proven a government consipiracy is the only explanation.

It's odd we don't hear much about the other building that fell down, I admit. I also admit that it was odd it fell down in the first place. Is a government conspiracy the only possible explanation as to why it fell? Quite obviously, no.

I'm not saying I'm right about this, just that I find it plausible ... and that just because me and many others don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracies doesn't mean we're uneducated sheep who believe everything the government tells us.

Nobody is right, including yourself - which is why I listen to you more than others. In this debate, I do not trust a person who says he/she has the answer. In fact, in my daily life, I don't trust anybody in general who says they have the answers. Perhaps I've read too much Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus.