Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

The Morning Shoutout

Posted on: May 4, 2011 8:17 am
 
Rashard Mendenhall: There's been some speculation the Pittsburgh Steelers would consider getting rid of Mendenhall because of his ridiculous Tweets about Osama Bin Laden. Or, at least, attempt to punish him once the lockout ended (if it ever ends). A league source told me chances of the Steelers parting ways with Mendenhall over this issue are slim to none. It's possible Mendenhall is fined but I don't think that will happen, either. Nor should it.

But to say people inside the Pittsburgh organization aren't happy is an understatement. It goes beyond the denouncing statement of Art Rooney. I'm told many inside the organization, including players, are extremely offended. (And, yes, they were offended at the behavior of Ben Roethlisberger as well.) So while Mendenhall may not be punished he will have some explaining to do with members of the Steelers family. Not to mention Steelers fans.

By the way, I'm told that despite lockout rules preventing contact with players, the Steelers have somehow communicated their displeasure to Mendenhall. I'm not sure how they did this but they have.

TWITTER: It's a potentially dangerous medium for athletes. The reason why is some just don't understand it's power. Here is yet another example and there are many. Athletes, and many famous people, continue to think when they Tweet, it goes out to a few friends. Or no one cares. Or no one will see it. The opposite is true. Everyone sees it . Everyone monitors the Twitter of people like Mendenhall. Fans see Twitter as an entranceway into the lives of their favorite athletes and the media monitors Twitter. I know the NFL has -- repeatedly -- told this to players but the message isn't getting through.

SPEAKING OF TWITTER: Michael Oher, the talented offensive lineman from Baltimore, took a baseball bat to ESPN analyst Todd McShay via Twitter. Now, that's not the most interesting part of what Oher did. The most interesting part is that's not the first time I've heard players complain about draft analysts and the dreaded "character concerns" statement. The only thing NFL players hate more than training camp are draft analysts. Yes, I'd use the word despise. It's amazing how angry and bitter some players remain over what analysts said about them years after they were drafted. They take it extremely personal and never let it go.

DUI: If this had happened in the NFL there'd be great outrage. It happens in baseball and crickets chirp.

See you Thursday.


Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 8, 2012 8:16 pm
 

The Morning Shoutout

Cheerful... besides unquestionably savor to buy a visual appeal as well absolutely new zit, your favorite possible is a useful one.


fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 3, 2012 7:47 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 3, 2011 12:36 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: May 29, 2011 1:50 pm
 

The Morning Shoutout

There is good reason shyguy96 is shy. If he says the stupid things in public that he writes when posting on the Internet there is a good chance people laugh at him and call him names.



Since: Jan 13, 2007
Posted on: May 7, 2011 11:06 am
 

The Morning Shoutout

shyguy 96.........You have no idea what your talking about,the B52 hit the Empire state building it didn't ram directly into it and it was powered with gas and was put  out 40 minutes,older skyscrapers were made with much heavier steel.In the 9-11 the jets rammed into the towers and the heat WEAKENED the structure it didn't burn it down which in turn with all the damage of the crash itself helped the buildings collapse....Your a typical Wolverine,you don't know what your talking about and the world knows your U of M can't play football....if you support what this idiot has said your just as dumb as he is.Wink



Since: Sep 14, 2007
Posted on: May 5, 2011 2:59 pm
 

The Morning Shoutout

1. An indirect strike on the buiilding may have caused more damage than a direct strike.  The fuel you see burning outside the building is only some of the total amount of fuel the plane carried, at the first leg of a long flight.

2. The reason an indirect strike may have caused more damage than a direct strike is because the WTC were partially supported by their exoskeleton, more sides of that damaged, more risk of failure.  They both collapsed in a similar fashion for that reason: each successive floor struck by the floor above was supported on all 4 sides, centering the direction of collapse straight down.

3.  Plane crashes are typically avoided by their pilots, usually minimizing the force with which the plane crashes.  Often these efforts are not enough for most passengers to survive but usually there is wreckage to use as evidence and a black box to aid in crash investigations.  These planes were used as weapons.  Why do you think there isn't much left after missile strikes? 

4. covered elswhere.

5.  B-52's first took to the air in 1952.



Since: Mar 21, 2008
Posted on: May 5, 2011 1:46 pm
 

The Morning Shoutout

To: shyguy96

I have enjoyed the discussion as well.  I would refer you to the following site, , which has an article published by materials engineers which would suggest different 'facts.'

The steel involved in the construction of the tower didn't have to 'melt' for the Towers to fall, the integrity just had to be compromised enough for them to be unable to support the weight of the structure above it.  This would occur between 600-700C, an easily attainable temperature for such a large structural fire involving jet fuel.

North Tower was struck in the 90s, South Tower in the 70s, with damage extending up to the low 80s by the tangential impact, which you correctly point out.  With a total of 110 or so floors, that disparity in impact point is significant.

North Tower burned for 102 minutes, South Tower for 56 minutes.

In case the link doesn't carry through for above, http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jo

m/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html



I disagree with your position, but appreciate the way that you've respectfully communicated it.  I'm glad that we both had the freedom to discuss.  God bless America and those who put themselves in harm's way so that we can banter instead of being productive!



Since: Sep 20, 2008
Posted on: May 5, 2011 12:33 pm
 

The Morning Shoutout

To: Fred Coste


Great post from you. I appreciate the intelligence. To answer your question, there are many reasons why the South Tower fell 1st. I would have no idea which is right. It could be something deep. It could be something as simple as the people who blew it up, with dynamite, did it too early. I don't know. Lets focus on what we DO know..

1st, The North Tower was hit higher than the South Tower. But go back and look at the footage. The North Tower was hit head on, in the middle of the top floors. Exploding inside the building. The South Tower, was hit a bit lower than the top of the building. Certianly, not the middle. The South Tower was hit in the floors of the 80's, not the the 50's. But if you go look at the footage, the plane that hit the South Tower, almost missed. Hitting the South East corner of building. If you look at the footage, when the plane hit the South Tower, you can CLEARLY see that most of the "deadly jet fuel, lol" explodes in a fireball OUTSIDE of the tower. Thats nothing made up. Its as simple as just looking at the 10 second video. Because you can clearly see the fireball explosion on the OUTSIDE of the South Tower, its no reason why that tower should have fallen 1st, IF the reason both tower fell was because of "fire". Once again, none of this I am saying is opinion. Just go look at the video and do a little research and you'll see.

2nd, Both Tower fell straight down, and in less than 10 seconds. That means, when each building started to fall, the fall was complete in 10 seconds. Thats called "Free Fall Speed" people. There actually is a mathematical formula to calculate free fall speed. For a building that tall, that strong, that well built, to fall straight down, into a pile, at free fall speed, any smart scientist will tell you that it would have almost certainly fallen because of planned and structured demolition.

3rd, The planes that hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania, both crashed with the Black Box, all the bodies, all the blood and most of the plane parts just desintegrated on impact. We have hundreds of plane crashes in history, that tell us plane crashes don't usually go this way. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, MORE THAN ONCE, than to have 4 planes crashes in one day and NONE of the Black boxes where recovered.

4th, The metal used to build the Towers was certified, years ago, to withstand 3000 degree fire, for fours.. Jet fuel only burns at 2000 degrees.. Go read the middle school scentific chart. lol.. Regular metal would not burn in an hour, due to 2000 degree heat. So, the expensive and very high grade metal used to build the tallest building in the world, at the time, surely wouldn't melt at 2000 degrees.

5th, just a side note. The Empire State Building was hit in 1945, on the 79th floor, by a B-52 Bomber that got lost in fog.. I think, the Empire State Building is still standing today...

To think that we, Americans, know every single detail of 9-11, is silly. IF our goverment has lied to us about anything, it wouldn't be the 1st time in history the goverment lied about something. All Mednehall said was THINK. He wasn't siding with Bin Laden. He wasn't anti-American. He simply just said THINK..



Since: Sep 20, 2008
Posted on: May 5, 2011 11:40 am
 

The Morning Shoutout

To: santhony, again


No, I wasn't agreeing with Mendenhall. If you read his tweets, he never really said anything to be agreed with.. All he said was why are we celebrating a death?? Yes, Osama should have been punished. Yes, Osama deserved to lose his live.. I'm not supporting Bin Laden.. But to drop what you are doing, run outside and yell, scream, and celebrate the death of someone?? Its no need to over-the-top celebrate his death. The celebration is helping Bin Laden win.. Think about it..

Bin Laden stood for death. He stood for fear. He stood for war. So, what do we do?? We go to war. Spend billions of dollars and lose thousands of lives to hunt him down.. Then, the man that stood for death, gets celebrations by us when he dies. The man that stood for hate, gets us to hate him so much that we'd lose men, money, time and then celebrate his death by jumping up & down outside, singing the star bangled banner. So, basically, everything Bin Laden stood for, we go out and do in order to catch him. I'm not saying we should have stood pact and done nothing. But the celebration of a death outside the White House was a bit silly. We are supposed to be the bigger country. The better country. Other countries celebrate the death of people. Its not supposed to be us..



Since: Mar 21, 2008
Posted on: May 5, 2011 10:53 am
 

The Morning Shoutout

To: shyguy96

I apologize for my hyperbole, which apparently was a big sticking point in my post.  You are correct in that the South Tower burned for under an hour.  I'm not sure what your 'Hmmmm' is supposed to mean, but I'll assume that you're not questioning whether the damage from the planes could drop the structure.  Your focus on the facts has surely revealed that the plane hitting the South Tower was travelling almost 33% faster than the plane hitting the North Tower, and that it compromised the structure more significantly by striking lower (tip of the cap to posthuman for his post).

More force, more compromise of structural integrity and the South Tower fell first.


If you're a subscriber to a conspiracy theory, could you tell me why those involved would have dropped the tower struck later first? 


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com