Mendenhall plans to sue endorser for dropping him

[thumper]

Originally Posted by Wallace108

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.

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.

[thumper]

Originally Posted by SteeleReign

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]

Originally Posted by thumper

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]

Originally Posted by SCMom

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...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?

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.

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.

<--very long

<--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.

[SteelCityMom]

Originally Posted by thumper

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...ieczenik&hl=en

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by thumper

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?

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, not their crappy conspiracy theories!!!!

[thumper]

Originally Posted by Nevermore

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/evid.../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...tos/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.

[Nevermore]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Nevermore

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.