Oh yeah I sifted it but it's been called a conspiracy theory and inserted into the lies channel by burdturgler already. I suppose it was just misinformation and kneejerk reporting based on rumours even though they claimed it was CONFIRMED by the justice dept. Silly reporters huh?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Don't fret over Sofaking Mr. or Ms. Kisses in fact you can almost take it as a sign that you're on the right track. I cancelled it out.

I had always heard that there was something fishy about OKC and bombs in the building, but didn't know it was so well substantiated in the early reports of the day. I'm sure it was retracted, just like flight 93 landing in Cleveland.

Guess I has some googling to do. Would you dare try to Sift that clip?

In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
well.. the reporters in the video I attached stated that a 2nd bomb was diffused and they found a 3rd one. No it doesn't appear that they were in the truck since that had already exploded.... unless they were in the truck also and they were ejected into the basement of the murrow bldg and just happened not to explode. Highly improbable I would think considering the damage that the truck bomb had done. No, something isn't right here. Why, I wonder isn't this being discussed? Oh I also noticed that sofaking downvoted my comment as if I were asking some inappropriate question. Based on evidence from news coverage I would think that this topic is more than appropriate to inquire about and I'm quite surprized that this has been swept under the rug so to speak.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Whoa wait what? He said on the tapes that there was an addional bomb on the front seat he could set off with a pistol didn't he? But that wouldn't be the second larger bomb, would it? Early reporting can't generally be trusted by that's odd.
In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
What about the bombs that were found inside the building? They didn't even cover that did they? How did he get those in there? I recall news coverage on this for a couple of hours that day. Story incomplete.

J'approuve. It's not vital IMO (one, side mirrors; two, I'm usually not focused on what's happening behind me, unless I've just had to make a fast stop) but definitely nice to have. I'd shell out $50 or $100 more to have that feature in my next helmet. You?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
What do you think of this?

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.

Is that what you say to yourself in the mirror every morning??

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
He looks better without the hair.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
The troll does a troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPEWZQF-zk

The troll does a troll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPEWZQF-zk

Thanks schmawy.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
So many of the monsters are made by us. Our own weapons turned against us. The pain and suffering of the survivors is overwhelming. This has happened in Iraq a thousand times over since then, but that doesn't seem to matter to many people. I think that's what disgusts me most.

*quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

The Maryland State Police are currently issued a Beretta PX4 Storm, but the officer in the video seems to be carrying something of the Beretta type, but I cannot tell. It definitely does not look like a glock which usually have a square slide.

When he holsters the weapon his thumb appears to come up to hit a decocker, which on a Beretta is on the back of the slide and ambidextrous.

I don't know if its standard protocol to have the hammer in ready position, most pistols are double action. However it does appear that he is placing the gun on safe when he holsters the weapon, he is definitely doing something.

In this case I don't think he needed to draw his weapon. Some will say that's protocol; I say if the perpetrator was not armed then there was no need to present a weapon. In my mind the situation did not scale on the force continuum to have need for a weapon. Maybe soft physical force; the officer jumped straight to lethal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Heh, thanks Nordy. You seem to know a lot about handgun training, so if I may ask a question? Does he appear to take the safety off with his left hand immediately after drawing the weapon? Is that procedure, or is the decision to saftey off a separate event?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^schmawy:

Nope. It's not changing.


TELL EM SERIOUS CAT!
GET 'EM!

Thanks for the quality my friend!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
haha *quality. Ok Arvana, what's the story with this, is this a mashup or are there internet savvy researchers taking the piss?

That wasn't necessary, but thanks.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
*promote

Just don't say I never did nuthin' for ya

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
How very generous of you! Thanks!

In reply to this comment by calvados:
*promote!

hah the cat with the tophat made me laugh. thats quite the humourus picture.

Yer high dude...it's April Showers and her Golden Powderpuff!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
What the hell? Is it April fools in Australia already? Still March here.

who loves enoch?
my favorite kitty loves enoch!
thanks for the pq dive my friend.
very awesome of you.

turned out to be a glitch in their email system....i posted a yt link from here and it banned my acct.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
What the hell? Is it April fools in Australia already? Still March here.

I thought you might be interested in this. http://videosift.com/video/Screening-the-TSA