In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Could you give me a pointer where that is detailed in the video? I'm not inclined to watch the entire thing right now and can't seem to find it, having skipped through a few times.

Anyhow, I'm not putting it past the US government to do some nasty shit, but this just doesn't make any sense for the reasons I've outlined before - which I notice you didn't comment on. As long as the supposed plot doesn't make any sense I'm going to require some pretty solid evidence before I believe it existed at all.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
here ya go rebuilder:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Building-the-World-Trade-Center-Towers-1811
watch this.
it is a documentary (choggie's post ironically)which it details the construction of the towers.
specifically pay attention to the architects and engineers when they discuss how the towers will react to MULTIPLE plane crashes into the tower.

Edit: actually I meant to post this in the video comments, but I guess this is good too.

i do not know the exact point in the video where the architectual engineer lays out the parameters for plane impact but i recall quite clearly that the fuel capacity and dimensions were equal to a 727 and that the towers were designed to not only absorb an impact but MULTIPLE impacts.
you should watch the film,it is very interesting and considering this engineering feat was done in the early 70's..wow.

as for the WHODUNIT scenario,
well..thats a bit more complicated and while there is a very strong circimstantial case,along with many suspicious activities concerning the federal governments role in 9/11.
there is no evidence..only conjecture.
STRONG conjecture..but that is not evidence.
so i dont take a stand on conjecture.
but i will share some of the concerns i have off the top of my head.
1.the federal governments "conspiracy theory" concerning 9/11 does not hold up under scrutiny.
2.the findings of the 9/11 commission and popular mechanics fail under scrutiny also (follow the money)
3.the physics is all wrong for the towers to have "pancaked".i know it's been 28 years since engineering school but thats too obvious.
these are just a few things that have never been fully clarified and they bother me.because we really DONT KNOW.did our government create a false flag operation?
i dont know but i do know what we are being told is bullshit.
take into consideration historical context and the economic climate at the time and a list begins to emerge.
was it al-qeada?unlikely
isreal?possible
USA?possible
a multi-national group?possible
but if you look at any one group the one things that really nags me being a former military man is that there should have been no way ANY other entity could have pulled this off without federal governments assistance.
and that means that not only did our government KNOW about 9/11 but helped precipitate it.

but there is no evidence...so while i can speculate all day and night i will not accuse.but you have to admit,it paints a disturbing picture when you look at the enormity of it all.
no one wants to admit that their own government assisted in the slaughter of thousands to push through a political agenda that included and illegal war and the theft of billions.
any way you cut it,there is something very wrong going on here.
i hope this inarticulate rant helped some rebuilder LOL.
till next time.
namaste.

Your video, How the BBC shot tracking timelapse shots for "Plants", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

My point is, there ARE clear, ironclad protections to the "traditional marriage" crowd's rights - in the US constitution.

They are neither clear nor ironclad enough. There is already evidence that there are both individuals and groups who are just waiting for a law to pass so that they can use it to start litigation. You may think that the constitution is self evident in this respect. I agree that to NORMAL people with common sense and fairness, it probably is enough. But we're not talking about anything normal, sensible or fair. We're talking about fringe activists who will use any loophole of any kind to instigate legislation. That's the kind of world we live in, alas. Unless the law in itself CONTAINS those clearly spelt out protections, then there will be those who will use it for purposes and causes which it was never intended for. That's reality, and 'traditional marriage' defenders are not stupid enough to just cross their fingers. That's just how it is.

Nicely done

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
>> ^ForgedReality:
EWWWWWWWW!! This bitch is most assuredly NOT fucking cute. Are you kidding me? God damn. This bitch is UUUUGGGGLY and NOT CUTE. Plus I had to turn my speakers way the fuck up to even hear this video. Laaaame. Every piece of media on the internet needs to have its audio normalized.
Also, ew, it just got to the part where she starts playing. And what the fuck is this shitty ass song? Sounds like crap. Honestly. This is annoying. Sorry. I have to say it. I would downvote if I could.


Since you apparently don't know this, let me clarify: If you watch videos via VideoSift, comments you make will not actually be forwarded to Youtube. Next time, click on the embedded video first, then comment. When you do, remember to work the word "faggot" in there somehow. I think they require that as a matter of policy.

Yeah, it's pretty common lately. The sift comparison engine doesn't include the title in the comparison, and most dupes I see are the result of virtually no tags.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Ah, that's what the tags are for. I didn't put the names in the tags since I figured any search will look in the title as well, so why duplicate? Thanks for the heads-up.

Hey man. Your Jon Stewart/Glenn Beck clip was already sifted. #3 on the top 15 list at the moment
Try to add more tags next time (like 'jon stewart, glenn beck' and so on. Would help the site find other similar videos when you submit and avoid dupes.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-does-Glenn-Beck -> http://www.videosift.com/video/tds-The-11-3-Project

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Fat cat climbs ladder, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Then I sincerely apologize. I certainly don't want to run anyone away from a discussion. Sorry about that, rebuilder. Your opinion is extremely valid and respected.

redacted.

Well said.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
>> ^KnivesOut:
For the love of all that is holy, can we please retire the word "FAIL"? This wasn't even a "fail", the device worked perfectly.


To be fair, though, it does provide a pretty robust way to identify videos not worth the time it takes to view them.

Hi, some nice nordic/psytrance videos:)!!
Cheers..

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Well one of the arguments that conservatives use consistently is that they dont trust the government to run their healthcare. Stewart was arguing that the program being run by the government was in fact a good, well constructed program. Now what we need to do is create a similar program that is less costly.

Orrrr we could just stop fighting wars we dont belong in and save money for healthcare that way.
I keep hearing about the 1 trillion dollar price tag on a new health care plan, but the Iraq War to date has cost the US $860 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html?pagewanted=all
Not to sound like a hippy douche but we need to get patriotic about something BESIDES war.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
Oh FFS. I think public healthcare is a fine idea, but this clip is just a load of bull. Kristol is saying that U.S. soldiers get expensive, quality medical services paid by the state that, if offered to everyone, would be too costly, but the soldiers have earned it. Stewart ignores the cost issue and uses this as proof the state should, in fact, provide a similar level of care to everyone.

Whether or not the state can provide good healthcare services at a high cost is not the issue. The question is whether the state can provide it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. I think yes, but I can still see there is no good argument being made here for that point of view.