View Single Post
Old 07-20-2011, 01:56 PM   #30
thumper
Banned
 

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,192
Member Number: 13415
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: Mendenhall plans to sue endorser for dropping him

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCMom View Post
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?

Quote:
I think you might have a problem with what the definition of fact is.
I am about to demonstrate the opposite.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Naaa....they're just gonna get Charlie Sheen and Mendenhall. That'll teach people to question the man.
Your ignorance is showing....greatly.

[YOUTUBE]4rtwb34Pd1k[/YOUTUBE]


Quote:
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



Quote:
True...but steel doesn't necessarily need to melt for a collapse to happen.
Then why hasn't it EVER happened before or since?


Quote:
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?

thumper is offline   Reply With Quote