I never grew up with the Sex Pistols, I was generally a Zeppelin and Zappa kid, but the words that come from this guys mouth are sweet nuggets of truthy goodness and pure music to my ears.

What a guy

Very truthy. *lies

upvote for truthiness

I've heard it rumored that he had an astigmatism, which contributed to his characteristic renderings of form. I wonder if there's any truthiness there.

Grimm, I'm glad someone here tried using Hulu because I thought about using them too, so I won't be using them now that I know that it's a US-only service. If we're down on Comedy Central for blocking just 1 nation, then we should probably be a little harsher with Hulu if they're blocking 190 nations. That, however, is just one man's humble opinion.

I hope more people weigh in this so that we can establish a consensus.*

*The new "truthiness" word here at the sift.

>> dag:
I too felt that the consensus was 2 days. But consensus is a moving target. We can only do our best to interpret, and also add our own judgment... No matter how popular a change is perceived to be- there will always be people unhappy with the outcome.

monsieur, vous etes un homme tres colbert, l'expression de la "truthiness" vraiment frappe le nail sur la tete.

I like the Onion because it has a much higher level of truthiness then FOX or CNN.

I like. The confidence made the math truthy. (Says the 'D' student...)

Come on, Gordon, get with the program, dude! Just kidding. I'm just starting shit.

Jeez, everyone is getting pissed about this. Let's slow our roll, shall we? It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with all this. We're not going to solve anything in this little video message board. I commend MaxWilder for taking the first step in doing research, and, although, I'm pretty sure his point-of-view won't be changed, at least he's trying and he's listening. That's huge.

And, to you, TomStall, I'm a bit disappointed by your comment above because you seem to be speaking in absolutes. I'm not altogether sure your comment is true when you write, "The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it". Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

I don't care enough to convince you to go dig up all the research or expert's names that oppose the conventional perspective of 911, but they're there. All you have to do is scratch the surface, and please understand you will see a lot (and I mean A LOT) of unlikely and implausible perspectives of 911 (such as the remote control birds I spoke of earlier). Those are par for the course whenever a government's theories are questioned.

Notice how all these clips always show the same edited segment of the WTC7 collapse, from the same convenient location? That's because:
* The building was very much on fire at that time.
* As noted above, there was no detonation or explosion.
* It actually took 30 seconds for the building to collapse.
* It actually spread debris over 150 meters.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile?

While we're at it, here's some actually researched information on the subject (as opposed to edited clips of footage found on Youtube):
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
(This is not the first time these two websites are brought up on Videosift. Apparently some are much more comfortable with having an opinion than with having the actual facts)

The problem with these "911 Truthiness Movement" people, is that even though every one of their claim ends up being debunked (not a single hard evidence thus far), they eventually come full circle and re-dig up some "clue" that actually got proven wrong so long ago they forgot about it. And then you'll have to start all over again. With them, everything is about beliefs and dogma, nothing is about facts. Reminds you of another kind of people? That's right, they're behaving just like creationists.

Don't a lot of Truthy's refer to themselves as Truthers? I didn't realize it was a derogatory term.

I would appreciate it if one of the "truthers" would lay out a general summary of what they think happened that day and why.

For example - for those pointing to the BBC video - do you think their entire staff was "in on it"? Every cameraman? Every tech guy? And nobody talked? And, after all that careful orchestration, they didn't wait until the tower fell before they started? What? It doesn't even pass the vaguest, most forgiving laugh test. I don't know what the explanation is (though I can imagine several without straining credulity) - but the idea that the government told them about it before is, by itself, ridiculous.

I mean, why would anyone want them to be "in on it" in the first place? Why not just let them report on it naturally after the building falls down? What would be the point? If they can be made to report on a building that hasn't fallen yet, certainly they could be trusted to "go with the official story" after the building falls.

People are discussing this like there's two scenarios here and we're evaluating facts to decide which is right. But the alternative "truthy" scenario is never fleshed out - there's nothing to evaluate. I've seen a lot of people make lists of 100 things that they think are suspicious, but they never seem to write up an explanation that resolves all (or even many of) those 100 things. Often those 100 things themselves point to wildly different scenarios.

Write up a scenario that fits the facts better than the "official" story - tell me how many new "suspicious coincidences" arise and how many "unanswered questions" there are with the new theory.

Hmm...sounds like truthiness is in play here. In other words, *lies.

lol.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
ooooh... Maher looks PISSED!

heh heh - yeah, I was waiting for him to sit back down and say, "Did you see me laying down the law? I am the LAW-GIVER!"

wow, bill maher throws out some truthies, one million votes.
RAF in afghanistan, 10 votes, needs a save.
says it all really.