If you think about it, this is the equivalent to two cars hitting head on at 60 MPH each so the event isn't too far-fetched. I think this is important because it's a speed most people drive on a regular basis (Hwy Driving) and it's important to understand and comprehend the dangers of what could happen when things go wrong.

This is why you don't do your makeup or sleep while you should be paying attention to the road!

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Thanks bud

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
TWO excellent sifts man. You are awesome sauce.

I'm pretty sure he was playing fetch with her.

Cheers for the Promote m'dear

In reply to this comment by Issykitty:
That puppeteer really brought that puppy to life. : *promote

Thanks yet again dude

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*quality

You're not making any sense.

First, the building falling into "into its own footprint at freefall speed" is indication of a) structual failure, and b) that gravity was working that day. In both cases, the building collapse wouldn't necessarily be any different. So this is not evidence in your favor.

Second, it's not my job to disprove your point. You're making the positive claim for a controlled demo; therefore it's your job to provide evidence for that claim. And so far, your evidence amounts to: a) the building fell down (which is irrelevant as it applies to both scenarios), and b) there were explosions (which based on my viewing of the videos sound nothing like controlled demo blasts, plus NIST also concluded there were no indications of blasts capable of destroying a structural column). So really, you don't have any real evidence of a controlled demo. At all. And claiming the lack of evidence is part of a cover-up is just a cop-out.

Incidently, I'm not making an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity (look it up) is "I can't imagine X, therefore X is impossible". I've never suggested a controlled demo is impossible. Rather that it's incredibly far-fetched given the complications of such an event and that you need some real evidence to support that claim in lieu of the more reasonable explanation. You haven't done that.

>> ^Fade:
A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

I submitted same videos (same user on YT) and VS doesn't catch it.

>> ^dag:

Not in my experience. Are you finding it does?>> ^ant:
>> ^dag:
Agreed, that's the idea. This works for Youtube already. You can just slap in the URL and it will change it to the embed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
It would be nice if, for known hosts, you could accept the URL only and let Siftbot fetch the embed code on his own.
Or maybe accept any URL and scrape the page for possible embeds, giving the submitter a list of choices. Kind of the way Facebook hunts for thumbnails when you share a link.
It would be especially handy for non-technical types who'd like to submit a video that's embedded on a site that doesn't present embed codes.


Does VS have problems checking dupes with this iframe to embed method?

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

Not in my experience. Are you finding it does?>> ^ant:

>> ^dag:
Agreed, that's the idea. This works for Youtube already. You can just slap in the URL and it will change it to the embed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
It would be nice if, for known hosts, you could accept the URL only and let Siftbot fetch the embed code on his own.
Or maybe accept any URL and scrape the page for possible embeds, giving the submitter a list of choices. Kind of the way Facebook hunts for thumbnails when you share a link.
It would be especially handy for non-technical types who'd like to submit a video that's embedded on a site that doesn't present embed codes.


Does VS have problems checking dupes with this iframe to embed method?

>> ^dag:

Agreed, that's the idea. This works for Youtube already. You can just slap in the URL and it will change it to the embed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
It would be nice if, for known hosts, you could accept the URL only and let Siftbot fetch the embed code on his own.
Or maybe accept any URL and scrape the page for possible embeds, giving the submitter a list of choices. Kind of the way Facebook hunts for thumbnails when you share a link.
It would be especially handy for non-technical types who'd like to submit a video that's embedded on a site that doesn't present embed codes.



Does VS have problems checking dupes with this iframe to embed method?

dog has sight feels pain sorry
not quite as dumb as they seem
with or without god's poor judgment
screams just the same to me
leave it up to government
medicine speeds your life away
who shot the cat in the hat
to experiment is insane
fetching bones from the government food bowl
never was a dog's best friend
license to kill
look behind the sentient line
what's alive feels the heat of the flame
the fascist mask media blinds
what's perceived through the tunnel of pain
through slight of hand no one reprimands
the research gone astray
forgotten flesh we're bottle-fed
on a need-to-know basis
teaching lies the little dog cries
the tears of the quiet one's
license to kill
(cuts his crap?)
(cuts his dung?)
wisdom's race false delight
to kill time and time again
tube down the neck
flesh pulled back
to crawl underneath the skin
the corporate death no sentiment
the pain sustained at will
they preach on high morals lie
in this farce called vivisection
what research finds as the animal dies
never did a goddamn thing
license to kill

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

Agreed, that's the idea. This works for Youtube already. You can just slap in the URL and it will change it to the embed.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

It would be nice if, for known hosts, you could accept the URL only and let Siftbot fetch the embed code on his own.
Or maybe accept any URL and scrape the page for possible embeds, giving the submitter a list of choices. Kind of the way Facebook hunts for thumbnails when you share a link.
It would be especially handy for non-technical types who'd like to submit a video that's embedded on a site that doesn't present embed codes.

It would be nice if, for known hosts, you could accept the URL only and let Siftbot fetch the embed code on his own.

Or maybe accept any URL and scrape the page for possible embeds, giving the submitter a list of choices. Kind of the way Facebook hunts for thumbnails when you share a link.

It would be especially handy for non-technical types who'd like to submit a video that's embedded on a site that doesn't present embed codes.

fetch...

...a paper towel