View Single Post
Old 07-19-2011, 04:49 PM   #25
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Mendenhall plans to sue endorser for dropping him

Quote:
Originally Posted by thumper View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thumper View Post
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.

[YOUTUBE]4rtwb34Pd1k[/YOUTUBE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thumper View Post
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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.

Quote:

"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.
Quote:
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_...skthepilot186/

My favorite quote from that article though....

Quote:
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.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=1295313365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote