Mendenhall plans to sue endorser for dropping him

[thumper]

[thumper]

[SteeleReign]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by thumper

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.

Originally Posted by thumper

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]

Originally Posted by thumper

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_...skthepilot186/

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.

[SCMom]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

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

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/67...es-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

Originally Posted by thumper

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. 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]

Originally Posted by SCMom

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.

[YOUTUBE]4rtwb34Pd1k[/YOUTUBE]

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?