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

You betcha - though I watched the training video first.

I have a question. How much does John Oliver make compared to Chelsea Handler?

shouldn't they make exactly the same amount?

Or we could even compare how much he makes compared to every other person who works as a talking head at his network...shouldn't they all make exactly the same amount? I doubt they do.

How about NBC, which hired Chelsea Clinton? Did she make more money because of her last name? You betcha.

Oliver should stick to showing monkey videos, at least they are legit.

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

You betcha - Choggs. Whatever you say.

OK there Midnight Oil, I wasn't even born yet when that all happened.

But the tar sands, you betcha, that's on my shoulders.

offensive? possibly
awesome? you BETCHA!
this is a mandatory sift!
lets get to voting people!
*promote!

Thats a complicated answer which i could go on and on about. I kill lots of videos before they sift. Multiple weird reasons. I think the video would better be served sifted by someone who has a better understanding of what this guy is referring to. You could sift it
In reply to this comment by dag:
You betcha. This is great - why the kill?>> ^eric3579:

@dag sound familiar?

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

You betcha. This is great - why the kill?>> ^eric3579:

@dag sound familiar?

*do si do, what goes around comes around, ya sure you betcha.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^deathcow:
How can I see this flick?

Thanks for the spelling correction.
I also what to see this.

I'm not going to say it : )


Want? I don't see want your talking about.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^deathcow:
How can I see this flick?

Thanks for the spelling correction.
I also what to see this.


I'm not going to say it : )

>> ^deathcow:

How can I see this flick?


Thanks for the spelling correction.

I also what to see this.

>> ^blankfist:
I'm worried this may be another "British filmmakers come to America to make fun of the simple, small-town folks" kind of video.


Nahh, I'm British and I can tell you we're a bit more subtle than that

Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.>> ^shponglefan:

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?
For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions" . So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.
If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.
And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.
You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?

For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions"**. So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.

If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.

And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.

** You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.

>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up