*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Don-t-mess-with-cross-dressers

Excellent, love The Young Turk show and surprised they're covering this footage so quickly! The raw CCTV footage can be viewed at http://www.videosift.com/video/Don-t-mess-with-cross-dressers, but there's no audio. TYT makes the video much more entertaining!

Hiya, not sure how to flag this as a duplicate - FAQ says privileged members can invoke *dupeof but I'm not privileged http://www.videosift.com/video/Don-t-mess-with-cross-dressers is the one I submitted yesterday. Damn funny video, no wonder it's being posted again!

>> ^EmptyFriend:
awesome.
(although if you think about it, it makes no sense unless the dresser had just arrived that day and the husband hadn't even seen it yet....)

well, the logic is as sound as with nearly every modern film shown on canal+, so it's not surprising
brilliant ad

>> ^EmptyFriendalthough if you think about it, it makes no sense unless the dresser had just arrived that day and the husband hadn't even seen it yet....)


Yes, of course...THAT'S the unbelievable part.

>> ^EmptyFriend:
awesome.
(although if you think about it, it makes no sense unless the dresser had just arrived that day and the husband hadn't even seen it yet....)


That's the first thought that had gone through my head as well, it was still amusing though

awesome.

(although if you think about it, it makes no sense unless the dresser had just arrived that day and the husband hadn't even seen it yet....)

Some things to consider:

The towers had asbestos issues.

The insurance companies were held not liable in a prior to 911 court case for the asbestos removal, people don't realize sections of those towers were to become uninhabitable very shortly for being uninsurable.

Can you imagine the symbol of power to the world in NYC being a uninhabitable empty building?

The office that got hit in the Pentagon was the same office where they were conducting the investigation into the 2.3 trillion missing from the defense department that Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10... no more investigation.

Cheney had bought Dresser Industries in 1998 and that made Halliburton responsible for their asbestos abatement.

Halliburton Pays Dearly but Finally Escapes Cheney's Asbestos Mess

The World Trade Center was also a huge asbestos liability and realistically held very little value due to the overwhelming costs associated with the removal of said asbestos. It's funny how it all ties together, isn't it? http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003500.php

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

Halliburton was legally responsible for the WTC's asbestos problems. It would have been fought out in court but Halliburton might lose. They couldn't do a controlled demolition because of the asbestos. Of all the buildings in NYC, this one was the one whose demolition would be most advantageous for the vice president of the United States. And the first responders paid the price, on 911 and later.

To add to the convenience, Silverstein had the towers insured against terrorist attacks so that not only would he get to stop paying for the lease, he would even get most of his down payment back.

He also claimed entitlement to be paid the 3.6 billion insurance sum twice, arguing that the towers were destroyed in two separate attacks. This resulted in a long court battle and resulted in him eventually collecting his billions.

In short, privatizing the lease of the property and making sure all physical evidence was quickly destroyed by recycling the steel allowed Silverstein to collect on the insurance policy instead of having to go through lengthy forensic analysis over who or what really knocked down the towers.

It doesn't prove a conspiracy but is again one of those important coincidences to take place for the whole thing to play out plausibly.

As for building 7, lets keep in mind that all paperwork for SEC investigation of ENRON and WorldCom were destroyed in its collapse, and the cases had to be abandoned. How much that was worth personally or in cold hard cash is up to anyone's guess.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_payment.html http://www.freewebs.com/inside-man/

>> ^Kreegath:
People drive cars/boats/planes without knowing all the technical jargon used by experts. They cook food without knowing all the cooking terminology, do their hair without knowing the technical phrases known to hair dressers and use the computer without being intimately aware of the phraseology.
Some of the very select group of interviewed people shown here did know the difference, they just didn't know the keywords "browser" and "search engine". And that doesn't make them stupid.


I have to disagree. People can drive their cars without knowing what a carburetor does, but if they don't know the difference between the gear shifter and the emergency brake then they are fucked. People don't need to know how to code a webpage, but they need to know the difference between a browser and a search engine.

That said, this video is obviously edited to remove the intelligent answers. It just shows that there are some people out there who are hopelessly clueless.

People drive cars/boats/planes without knowing all the technical jargon used by experts. They cook food without knowing all the cooking terminology, do their hair without knowing the technical phrases known to hair dressers and use the computer without being intimately aware of the phraseology.
Some of the very select group of interviewed people shown here did know the difference, they just didn't know the keywords "browser" and "search engine". And that doesn't make them stupid.

The rules apply equally to both, but the situation is entirely different - a private person acting on their own property versus a government official acting on someone else's property.

If I throw away my old dresser, thats fine. If someone else throws it away thats oppressive. Why are you trying to blindly apply the concept to all situations, when that is clearly not appropriate?

Regards to company policy - you could quit and work elsewhere. If the company policy was universal, just as the case with all rentals having cameras, well I'd say its about time for a revolution. Which is exactly what I'm saying with regards to the government!

The policy sucks, just the corporate policy of spying on your employees, or the landlord policy of putting in cameras - and with the government, there is no viable alternative, I can't just quit like the company and find a new job, or wait till my lease is up and find a new landlord, there is no option with the government which is why blankfist, myself, etc. are so pissed about it.

>> ^NetRunner:
You think what would be tyranny if the government did it is perfectly okay if it's being done by a private company.

I don't know. Guess it's fate. Several old people in this town were stuck in their homes during robberies and beaten to death. One guy, a gay hair-dresser, they just tied up and beat for a while, but left him alive.

Guess we all gotta make our choices and stand by them.

Ah, the good old days.

Back when all the junkies and the pot-heads, all the cross-dressers and the fags, entertained a nation by hiding who they really were and pretending to be somebody else on stage.

then, when you're done, you can pretend to get dressed and collect the fake money on the dresser.

I normally dress up as a ninja because it's the only costume I own because I'm a real ninja with super powers. This year, however, I have to help a friend scare some kids at his neighborhood Haunted House, so a ninja outfit won't do.

Reminds me of college when we'd make our halls into haunted houses for the underprivileged kids to come through. Our hall was the best. We covered all the walls with black plastic (even doors, so people appeared to be reaching out from the walls). We had toilet paper hanging from the ceiling so the kids couldn't see too far ahead at what is lurking in the dark. At the very end of the hall we pushed a couple dressers together and used cardboard boxes to create a crawl space for the exit. The kids hated it, too, because we had someone at the other end to scare the bejeebus out of them. Good times. I want to be 23 and in college again.