Liar.
He said this specific indictment contains no evidence of administration involvement, that's a far cry from a statement that there was none. Every time you lie this way it's exactly the same as admitting you know your arguments are failures minus the honor of being truthful.

They have been consistently clear that the FBI won't decide if or how Russian interference influenced the election, that's not their job, but it's clear that was and is the intent, and Putin isn't known for spinning his wheels. You still spout Russian made slogans and theories constantly, it influenced you immensely.

The intelligence community under Obama didn't do nothing, but I agree they didn't do enough. They absolutely should have said Trump was under investigation for working with our enemies to subvert government processes when they publicly reopened the Clinton investigation over emails that contained nothing.
Trump's intelligence community has apparently actually done nothing, nor has Trump besides encourage Putin to do it again by standing with him against America's interests time and time again and by hinting another free pass with no resistance can be expected this election.

I disagree. Police are not supposed to be our masters, we are not supposed to bow and scrape before them in the hopes we don't get sent to the stocks (or worse). Police are simply supposed to enforce the laws that we, as a society, have decided that we all should follow.

The problem is, we have allowed the police to become more than that through our own lack of care and mismanagement. A policeman should have to undergo more rigorous training and background checks, mental and physical, than any other service we provide to ourselves. Instead we pay them about the same as teachers and we let bullies into the system. We also allow people with significant evidence that they should never have positions of authority due to mental issues to become police. We do not rigorously punish the bad cops, nor prevent them from seeking work elsewhere, leading to the same type of thing that led to catholic molesters being shuffled about to molest again.

As far as police fearing others, can we finally say that the number of police fatalities are far less than the the ones inflicted by police? Yes, we have many guns in the USA, but the few times I recall of a police person being killed by one seem to revolve around them experiencing a retaliation style attack when you would least expect it (and not on a call), or when they are alone and on a remote call location. Yet most of these controversial police shootings of suspects seem to happen when they are in a group of officers with weapons drawn, which I would consider far less of a jumpy situation than being alone on a highway. If I am an officer, with multiple other officers nearby, I have weapons on the suspect (taser or otherwise), why am I more worried than if I am alone with a suspect? It simply doesn't make sense.

Finally, referring back to your resisting comment, have we not seen lately that you can still be shot while doing absolutely no resisting? One man was laying on the ground, hands in the air, while telling a mentally ill patient of his not to do anything that would get him shot, and the man on the ground got shot. Here in Austin we had a mentally ill man running naked in the street and he was shot and killed versus being tasered or taken down. The use of force, and the extremity of it, have not been shown to be merited. So if you can be shot and killed for not resisting, or simply not understanding the commands in the short time you are given to do so, what can we do? Should we carry a pair of handcuffs and a taser so we can pre-apply these items and give the cops less to fear?

No other comment...I'll take that as concession that I'm right about all that. Thanks

OK, lets discuss the video then.
If there had been no video, what do you think would have happened to this poor 'suspect'? I say he might not be seen again, at least for decades. He was on probation/parole (the cops didn't know that), accosted over nothing, searched for nothing (with nothing found on him), arrested for nothing, beaten mercilessly for nothing with deadly objects and pepper sprayed while prone on the ground with cops on his back, then charged with assault on a police officer (obvious lie) and resisting arrest (another obvious lie, there was no resistance, only compliance that wasn't fast enough for the gang of thugs...I mean cops...and absolutely no reason ever given for the original arrest they claim he resisted in the first place). Without the video, he would be in jail for the next few months (minimum) awaiting trial where he would then have to dispute the multiple officers lies (claiming he assaulted and resisted). Who would the courts believe, 6-8 cops or one felon? I think we all know the unfortunate answer to that question. Sadly, because people like me are honest enough to admit we can't believe a word that a cop says (you're all trained to lie in the performance of your duties, and once a liar always a liar) I never serve on a criminal jury, leaving only jurors that will believe cops and liars on juries....which is not a good outcome.

It's easy to say 'just fight it in court' when you are part of a group that is considered 'truthful' by courts, contrary to all evidence. Single private citizens contradicting numerous officers (lies) without video proof that the cops are lying have no chance in court. You know this.

EDIT: there are requirements for arrest, requirements that cops ignore constantly or fabricate, as in this case.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'magnets, track, no resistance, electrons, liquid nitrogen' to 'magnets, track, no resistance, electrons, liquid nitrogen, superconductor, levitate' - edited by xxovercastxx

too bad they would probably all die from illness' they probably have no resistances to

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah, I have to ask what is so shocking. When the cop in NYC maced the girl who was already behind the police net and offering no resistance, I would call that shocking. Based on this edited video these police officers LOOK TO BE dispersing people who refused to disperse after being ordered to.
Of course you have to yank or drag someone who goes limp or links arms and refuses to cooperate. How else do you move someone like that from point A to point B? And the woman screaming at :08 comes across more like someone freaking out and resisting rather than someone actually being hurt by the police.
We all should know by now the magic of video editing can leave out all context, reality TV is based on it. This comes across more like a viral ad for The Herald Sun than some shocking footage of police overreaction.


As far as Australian law goes (pretty sure the US is similar), the cops are allowed to use equal and proportionate force to complete their duties. I don't see truncheons, I don't see pepper spray, I don't see stun guns/tasers, people being slammed face first in to the ground etc.

Yes, people have a right to protest, but with rights come responsibilities. As far as public opinion goes, these guys might have garnered more sympathy if our banking sector had emulated Wall St's screw ups. How unfortunate for them that Australia didn't trigger the GFC or even suffer that badly because of it... \8 |

Yeah, I have to ask what is so shocking. When the cop in NYC maced the girl who was already behind the police net and offering no resistance, I would call that shocking. Based on this edited video these police officers LOOK TO BE dispersing people who refused to disperse after being ordered to.

Of course you have to yank or drag someone who goes limp or links arms and refuses to cooperate. How else do you move someone like that from point A to point B? And the woman screaming at :08 comes across more like someone freaking out and resisting rather than someone actually being hurt by the police.

We all should know by now the magic of video editing can leave out all context, reality TV is based on it. This comes across more like a viral ad for The Herald Sun than some shocking footage of police overreaction.

If the company policy is no resistance, would that not encourage more robbery? What is the point in having weapons for defence if you're not permitted to use them? Walgreens could have praised his courage but added; "We do not recommend all employees react in this manner. However, it is the individuals choice to defend themselves if they feel their life is threatened." As for some of the comments; it is easy to sit at your desk and site statistics or studies AFTER the fact. Are you seriously saying that in a similar situation you would think; "I should be ok because my chances of getting killed, according to a recent study, are pretty low, or would you do what he did? I hope you never have to find out.

>> ^imstellar28:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/guymontage" title="member since July 18th, 2009" class="profilelink">guymontage
Who said you have to be an engineer? What I said is I very much doubt anyone in this thread is qualified to comment on the consequences of a plane hitting a skyscraper. To think you can just waltz in here and quote "Inertia" because you heard it in 8th grade science class is just ridiculous.
What argument is rcyhan making? The guy in the experiment started with the hypothesis "thermite can cut steel" and then conducted an experiment and proved that yes, it can cut steel. What is not scientific about that? As far as I understand it, that is the exact implementation of the scientific method. The fact that the conclusion is "widely known" (rychans words) has no bearing on this video. Clearly, it is not "widely known" if a mainstream television show is conducting experiments and concludes that thermite can not, in fact, cut steel.
Everyone on the internet thinks they are an expert, but who in this thread even has a college degree much less one in civil engineering? Even if someone has a degree in civil engineering who has the experience with skyscrapers or even the particular design of this tower? It's retarded to think anyone here is anything even resembling an expert on the physics of this particular situation.


My physics went up to a minor on my undergraduate degree. Even in high school though the potential energy of millions of tonnes of concrete at a certain height is already taught. That is more energy than any bomb or load of jet fuel anyone can get their hands on, and it's all rigged to unload itself straight down.

The truther that are idiots are the ones insisting that the planes weren't the cause of the collapse. If you distrust and loath the government enough to believe they were behind the attacks, if you are a rational, scientific person you will conclude that the government organized the plane crashes to take out the towers. All the insistence that was merely a cover for explosives already planted inside is insanity. If the government wanted to commit the act, they would just plant the explosives and set them off. It wouldn't have even been the first time terrorists tried to use explosives to collapse the buildings. The ONLY thing adding the planes into the mix would do is make it infinitely more prone to failure and discovery.

Then you have the unscientific beliefs that people trumpet as reasons they believe the towers were rigged beforehand:
-Jet fuel can't melt steel! Meanwhile commercial steel furnaces are widely sold that are designed to do exactly that.
-The buildings collapsed at near free fall speed, no resistance! Go see the explosives free building demolition video here on the sift. Same speed of collapse, with just the upper supports pulled out by some cranes outside.
-Everyone knows the planes couldn't have been enough to collapse the buildings! Meanwhile, 10's of thousands of engineers the world over didn't bat an eye at the finding that the fires could cause the collapse. That's a lot of professionals in on the conspiracy.
-Blocking investigation of the real story! Meanwhile google scholar is filled with endless numbers of publicly available journal articles that speak to every loony idea the conspiracy crowd can throw out there.

If you believe the government worked with someone to crash planes into the towers that's one thing. If you believe the whole idea that the planes couldn't possibly have caused the collapse and the government must have wired it with explosives before hand, you believe something idiotic and need your head shaken.

Paintballs guns? I mean, they hurt, but for a person that is committed to his end, they offer no resistance.

>> ^entr0py:

Wait, what? Shit starts to get baffling when he sucker punches the kid he just saved in the gut (the one in jeans) for no obvious reason. Then proceeded to punch everyone in the face, including guys who seem to be trying to reason with him, and one who has his hands outstretched and it backing off. Also, not an old guy, just a gray haired psycho in his 30s or 40s.
In short, it's nothing like the description. I want my money back.


Yea little to no resistance agreed. None the less - I'm no expert but the old guy looks like he knows his shit in a way that is impressive to watch. When he first comes into the scene and immediately sets someone off balance. I think he sucker punched the kid at an opportune moment after the kid made it clear he wasn't done (throwing jacket) to get everyone to shut up and be complacent. Later when he's in the bottom right corner and they crowd him, one of the hoods reaches into the group towards the old dude and jerks their hand back after the guy did I can only guess what. Also, old and hunched or not, the way he stands (again I'm no expert) doesn't look totally natural or old man induced.

Enjoyed.

Very nicely shot indeed, great light, great shallow DOF, very nice.

As for the shaved/not shaved debate... I do love it being bare down there when... well I'm down there, feels great. However what I really DON'T like seeing are comments by people (usually those who've never been with a woman, but anyway) who say 'urgh, check out the hairy bush, that's disgusting' when they see one with some hair. To think that way is horrendous, and is a real 'porn' driven brain in action.

But... it certainly is nice, at least once in a while, to encounter no resistance

I love how in the high-speed footage it crumples the car like paper. The rocket ram just "slides" through it with no resistance whatsoever from the car.

"They could have built hotels on the beaches of Gaza"

ummm how could they do that when they have abject poverty and food/water/fuel/medicine all rationed and controlled by Israel who frequently refuses to let basic supplies enter the region.

That's saying someone can have a free state inside a prison.

How do you get investment when your prison guard wont recognize your people as a nation.

Also... how is it a war crime for hamas to shelter with their families but not a war crime for Israel to fire on the women and children?

If they didnt - if they had army barracks: they would be killed indiscriminately without mercy or taking of prisoners it would be suicide.

...and if there was no Hamas and no resistance what would happen? Israeli settlers would have nothing to fear...they would once again start claiming land and taking it with tanks.

>> ^Arg:
He states that the known width of the building is 100m. Is this the width when looking straight on? Is this video looking at the building straight on? If not then he is overestimating the width of the building in the video.


If the video is taken from an angle, wouldn't that mean that he was underestimating the width of the building in the video? For instance, if the roof is 100m across then from an angle it would be even longer. If he were seeing it from an angle (I can't tell) then he could be looking at something that could be up to 141m wide (45-degree view if the building is square).

In that case when he estimated how long it took for the building to drop 100m (or how far it dropped in one second) then the building would have actually dropped more than his estimation, meaning that his estimation would show a slower acceleration than what actually happened. Since that would put the acceleration well above gravitational force I don't think that is the case.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't errors. I wonder if he authenticated the time scale of the video. If that was faster than normal for any reason then it would make acceleration seem faster. This needs to be verified using multiple videos from other angles before we can draw confident conclusions.

If it is correct though, that's a big drop with no resistance. It looked like the initial velocity of the building at the beginning of those 2.5 seconds was 1.5m/s. That would mean the building dropped nearly 35 meters (114ft) without anything slowing it down. The implications of that are pretty big, so I'd definitely have to see some confirming calculations with multiple other videos before believing it.