>> ^aurens:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.
Kinda like a jet plane's black boxes aren't irrecoverable... no wait, they were. FBI: "None of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered." But this defies reason. Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found? Anonymous source at the NTSB: "Off the record, we had the boxes,"
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't know what you mean by "produced,"He means if you have evidence that implicates a suspect of a crime, then you indict that person. You then find and arrest that person, charge them, and follow the rule of law. The FBI admits they have no "hard evidence" that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks, yet he was immediately blamed for it. The Taliban offered extradition if we provided evidence and we refused. Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context...
You're talking about the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside? Never mind the approach the pilot took makes no sense. If your target is the Pentagon, you can cause the most damage and most causalities by doing a nose down crash in the top. Instead the amateur pilot does a high precision 360 degree turn, descending 7,000 feet in the last 2 minutes to impact the Pentagon in the front, the only spot with reinforced steel. He spends an extra 2 and half minutes in the air exposed and ends up hitting the exact spot that has been reinforced and also where the bookkeeping and accountants were. Day before 9/11: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Conspiracy? I think so. (Bonus: WeAreChange confronts Rumsfeld)
>> ^aurens:

Three videos, not one, were released.
And at least 84 remain classified. Why?
And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens. If you spent anytime at all "thinking" or looking at the evidence, then you would recognize government lies for what they are. You don't have to know the truth to recognize a lie.

Curiously, given all the Wall Street scandals later in the year, Building 7 housed the SEC files related to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Some were backed up in other places, but many were not, especially those classified as confidential

>> ^marbles:

@cheerleaders for Western colonialism and imperialism
This is what you support:
http://videosift.com/video/Make-No-Mistake-NATO-committed-War-Cri
mes-in-Libya
Get ready for the occupation force in Libya, the advance on Syria, and maybe even a confrontation with Iran.
http://videosift.com/video/Military-Sources-Reveal-Ground-For
ce-Invasion-of-Libya
http://videosift.com/video/World-War-III-Defined-Wider-War-
Unfolding-in-Middle-East
This has been planned out for at least 10 years.
Gareth Porter: General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.


And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

@cheerleaders for Western colonialism and imperialism

This is what you support:

http://videosift.com/video/Make-No-Mistake-NATO-committed-War-Crimes-in-Libya

Get ready for the occupation force in Libya, the advance on Syria, and maybe even a confrontation with Iran.
http://videosift.com/video/Military-Sources-Reveal-Ground-Force-Invasion-of-Libya
http://videosift.com/video/World-War-III-Defined-Wider-War-Unfolding-in-Middle-East

This has been planned out for at least 10 years.
Gareth Porter: General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sorry for the late reply. Not really top-secret. More just trying to stay one step ahead of spammers. It's a constant battle going on in the background of VideoSift - and yeah, sometimes there is some collateral damage of innocent bystanders. We log IPs of previous spammers and automatically deactivate new accounts on the same IP. We also have a few "behavioural" trip-wires that can cause an automatic banning. We don't publicise these bannings as we don't want to give succour to the enemy.

So there are known bannings, there are unknown bannings and there are uh... banning bannings and then um ... forget it, Rumsfeld is a tool.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

http://videosift.com/member/OMNIPLEX
I didn't know this user at all. I just saw the banned symbol next to his/her name in a "Who voted for this video" section. Whenever I see a new banned user I usually go look at their profile to see what caused it. I guess I'm a Videosift rubbernecker.
In this case I see nothing. He/She's got 2 comments, no videos, no profile comments... obviously no down vote spree. What happened? And is there any way there could be a feed of bans/hobblings? (Do we even still have hobbling?) It might be good for checks and balances.


Top Secret, then? ;

Unknown Unknowns

By Thomas Sowell (Jul 13, 2011)

When Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, he coined some phrases about knowledge that apply far beyond military matters.

Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that there are some things that we know that we know. He called those "known knowns." We may, for example, know how many aircraft carriers some other country has. We may also know that they have troops and tanks, without knowing how many. In Rumsfeld's phrase, that would be an "unknown known" -- a gap in our knowledge that we at least know exists.

Finally, there are things we don't even know exist, much less anything about them. These are "unknown unknowns" -- and they are the most dangerous. We had no clue, for example, when dawn broke on September 11, 2001, that somebody was going to fly two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center that day.

There are similar kinds of gaps in our knowledge in the economy. Unfortunately, our own government creates uncertainties that can paralyze the economy, especially when these uncertainties take the form of "unknown unknowns."

The short-run quick fixes that seem so attractive to so many politicians, and to many in the media, create many unknowns that make investors reluctant to invest and employers reluctant to employ. Politicians may only look as far ahead as the next election, but investors have to look ahead for as many years as it will take for their investments to start bringing in some money.

The net result is that both our financial institutions and our businesses have had record amounts of cash sitting idle while millions of people can't find jobs. Ordinarily these institutions make money by investing money and hiring workers. Why not now?

Because numerous and unpredictable government interventions create many unknowns, including "unknown unknowns."

The quick fix that got both Democrats and Republicans off the hook with a temporary bipartisan tax compromise, several months ago, leaves investors uncertain as to what the tax rate will be when any money they invest today starts bringing in a return in another two or three or ten years. It is known that there will be taxes but nobody knows what the tax rate will be then.

Some investors can send their investment money to foreign countries, where the tax rate is already known, is often lower than the tax rate in the United States and -- perhaps even more important -- is not some temporary, quick-fix compromise that is going to expire before their investments start earning a return.

Although more foreign investments were coming into the United States, a few years ago, than there were American investments going to foreign countries, today it is just the reverse. American investors are sending more of their money out of the country than foreign investors are sending here.

Since 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal, "the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital." They add: "That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don't exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India."

President Obama's rhetoric deplores such "outsourcing," but his administration's policies make outsourcing an ever more attractive alternative to investing in the United States and creating American jobs.

Blithely piling onto American businesses both known costs like more taxes and unknowable costs -- such as the massive ObamaCare mandates that are still evolving -- provides more incentives for investors to send their money elsewhere to escape the hassles.

Hardly a month goes by without this administration coming up with a new anti-business policy -- whether directed against Boeing, banks or other private enterprises. Neither investors nor employers can know when the next one is coming or what it will be. These are unknown unknowns.

Such anti-business policies would just be business' problem, except that it is businesses that create jobs.

The biggest losers from creating an adverse business climate may not be businesses themselves -- especially not big businesses, which can readily invest more of their money overseas. The biggest losers are likely to be working people in America, who cannot just relocate to Europe or Asia to take the jobs created there by American multinational corporations.

>> ^NetRunner:

Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.
Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.
Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.
But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".
At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!
Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?
I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"
Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...


We just have a different take on it.

When I said "silly argument", I didn't mean that you were silly or that you didn't get it, I meant that I felt the argument was silly because I agree with almost everything that you're saying here. I'm not trying to get in your face. I guess I'm just a little cynical lately because I feel that the "problem" begins and ends with the consumer. There is a lot of corporate crap in the middle of that shit sandwich, but in the end it's the consumers eating it. They are the ones choosing to increase ratings and they are the ones who refuse to stop watching. I'm not trying to tell you not to make a fuss about anything. I'm just telling you how I see things.

I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Try not to read that as "you are incapable of understanding", because that isn't what I'm saying.

I don't think you can "change the minds of consumers". I think most people just don't care. And yes, most of them are just oblivious. I randomly asked someone today (a statistical analyst) "Who is the Secretary of State" and their answer was "Rumsfeld". I also think that most people prefer to have "news" reflected back to them that confirms their views.

Forget it, I don't want to rehash my opinion . I just want you to know that I'm not saying "yes it does" have to be this way. "Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices." For me, that sums it up, in your own words.

Like I said, I'm not trying to win anything here, not trying to sway you or get in your face .. just telling you what I think and I apologize if you think I was getting in your face. I honestly believe we agree 99% of the way here .. but for me the balance of culpability leans towards the consumers not the broadcasters. In other words, I place more hope in people than I do corporations, and although I'm universally disappointed by both, more so by the people.

I'm sorry you took offense to what I had to say here. I never wanted that. I'm not trying to shout you down or tell you you don't understand reality, I'm telling you my opinion of how I perceive the reality of the situation. That's all. I'm going to just drop it because like I said, it's silly to argue with someone that I basically agree with.

>> ^ipfreely:

@ VoodooV
Really? Please do name these Republican doing something "far far more despicable and against the law but rarely resign"


How about Bush and illegal domestic surveillance?

How about Rumsfeld and torture at Abu Ghraib?

Or Dick Cheney outing a CIA operative for political revenge?

@blankfist - Everyone else on this site knows you are conservative. Everyone else but you. Come out of the closet already. Don't you notice how JesusFreak and QM fawn over your comments and posts. It's no coincidence. It's cool. Let your inner confederate flag fly.

Back to the topic. Hayek is the poster child for right wing economics. He was the darling of right wingers like Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Augusto Pinochet. He believed in deregulation, privatization and austerity, and he wasn't opposed to shedding a little blood to make it all happen.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I did, but it seemed like you said the reason we shouldn't care about Libya is because of Iraq. And then turned around and said this isn't like Iraq, even though it is clearly like Iraq. In other words, you were mad because this is just like Iraq, and because it isn't like Iraq.



I'm sorry, but equating the current situation in Libya with the almost-decade-long debacle in Iraq is completely retarded. In no way did I say the two were alike. In no way at all did I even imply that the two were alike in any way. You said that. I didn't.

Iraq was brought about by post 9/11 crazy-fervor. Donald Rumsfeld flat out lied to America by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The administration did everything they could to imply that Iraq was even somehow responsible for the World Trade Center attack and the vast majority of this country bought into it. Even supported it while somehow managing to feign complete ignorance of the whole Saudi Arabia issue. Remember the coalition of the willing? England and Poland and a long list of tiny countries with no military power whatsoever? How about the fact that there have been massive amounts of troops stationed in Iraq since the very beginning? Or that our then president Bush was informed, by God, via revelation that it was time to attack Iraq?

Meanwhile, this year in Libya, in a time of protests all over the world, we have reputable sources (not government investigators) reporting that not only are people in Libya protesting and trying to overthrow the government (a movement which never got off the ground during Saddam's regime) but that the dictator of the country is encouraging anyone on his side to kill any civilians who disagree with him. Now remember, this wasn't a secret plan carried out by word of mouth, it was a major news broadcast. And you have a problem with the fact that the president wanted to do something about it? I'd think that standing up for the basic human right to not be killed for your opinion would be seen as meritorious. Unlike the last president who needed a lame excuse.

As yet, there are no troops on the ground. The motive is not some concocted story. No one is even arguing over the motive for going in. It's been very clearly established. The US isn't even doing the largest portion of the work. Our partners include actual countries (no offense to Mauritania and the glorious country of Pitcairn Island) who are taking part in the assault as well.

Maybe this too will be proven to be a lie but the fact is people's lives are allegedly in danger NOW. And it's not like we're invading the country any time soon. We're not even trying to strike directly at troops. Sorry, but it seems like complete ignorance to me to claim that these to events are similar in any way. It seems like people are just looking for a way to blame the current president for the state of the world.

Yes, I would recommend him if you're into cynical, neurotic, angry comedy that only a Jew can provide. That all may sound pejorative, but I mean it in an endearing and honest sense. If you're into that kind of comedy, he's definitely worth seeing.

Here's some stuff, just in case you didn't look him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0IP9fQu9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThVrcnIRV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npinfttlj-c

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Marc Maron is coming to Melbourne for the Comedy Festival this year - would you recommend seeing him? I only heard of him because of that interview he did with Louis CK not so long ago...

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
O&A are sophomoric, but so am I. Also, their show is a great forum to hear a lot of my favorite comedians. Bob Kelly, Bill Burr, Marc Maron, Patrice O'Neal...and my favorite on the show, Jim Norton. If it wasn't for these rotating guests and Jim Nortons residence, I don't think I could listen to the show.

Oh and just so you guys know, Anthony was playing good cop, I don't think he gives a shit about Donald Rumsfeld.

Marc Maron is coming to Melbourne for the Comedy Festival this year - would you recommend seeing him? I only heard of him because of that interview he did with Louis CK not so long ago...

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
O&A are sophomoric, but so am I. Also, their show is a great forum to hear a lot of my favorite comedians. Bob Kelly, Bill Burr, Marc Maron, Patrice O'Neal...and my favorite on the show, Jim Norton. If it wasn't for these rotating guests and Jim Nortons residence, I don't think I could listen to the show.

Oh and just so you guys know, Anthony was playing good cop, I don't think he gives a shit about Donald Rumsfeld.

Great interview. Well played by both Jon Stewart and Donald Rumsfeld, in service to both of their views.

There's a reason why Donald Rumsfeld won't give this a straight answer: lizard people are neurologically incapable of lying. THINK ABOUT IT. (damnit, Louis CK made the same joke later in the clip...)

O&A are sophomoric, but so am I. Also, their show is a great forum to hear a lot of my favorite comedians. Bob Kelly, Bill Burr, Marc Maron, Patrice O'Neal...and my favorite on the show, Jim Norton. If it wasn't for these rotating guests and Jim Nortons residence, I don't think I could listen to the show.

Oh and just so you guys know, Anthony was playing good cop, I don't think he gives a shit about Donald Rumsfeld.