America ! Fuck yeah !

[Gjest Jester]

Sam Harris på Joe Rogan show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-IBb6NdZtg

Spesielt gira jeg i allefall som liker Sam Harris og UFC så her får vi ateisme, religion, bjj og kampsport i skjønn herlig forening!

[Gjest Jester]

Islam's evolution problem | Rationalist Association

Dr Usama Hasan seemed clearer about his position on Qur’anic literalism. He told me that “excessive literalism is a serious problem for Muslims”, particularly when it comes to reconciling science and Islam. In a piece for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free, Dr Hasan wrote, “One problem is that many Muslims retain the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue and lo! it became a living human. This is a children’s madrasa-level understanding and Muslims really have to move on as adults and intellectuals.” His views have made him unpopular with some and he made headlines in the UK in 2011 when his life was threatened by extremists who objected to a lecture he was giving about how Islam and evolution could be reconciled.

[andersbob]

Bare jeg som har merket at antall skoleskytinger i amerika har gått drastisk opp i det siste?

Stats: School shootings leave legacies, but not on the rise | wtsp.com

http://i.imgur.com/oYB7z.jpg

[Lame Nordstrom]

[Lars85]

Viral Video Shows the Extent of U.S. Wealth Inequality

[Gjest Jester]

[Gjest Jester]

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/03/03/nyheter/utenriks/den_katolske_kirke/26039108/

"Fights to stop gay rights, is gay....."

[Gjest Jester]

First documented case of child cured of HIV

Spennende! Første tilfelle av at noen er kurert for HIV

[SlayerDad]

[Gjest Jester]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-qn4wB8WzY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwLT_8S_Tuo

Er dette i samme gata som "loose change" konspirasjonsgalskapen?

Har du mulighet å skrive noe kort om hva det er før jeg setter av 4 timer?

[Kirill W.]

Nei Konstantinovs, nei neeeeei neeeeeeeeeeei.

Hurr durr durr the guvernment did it.

[Gjest Jester]

Nei Konstantinovs, nei neeeeei neeeeeeeeeeei.

Hurr durr durr the guvernment did it.

Jeg tolker det som at de er like objektive som "loose change" og kan karakteriseres som sølvfolie-underholdning?

[Kirill W.]

Åherregud. Så 20 minutter av den første videoen så klarte jeg ikke mer. Først så var det ikke varmt nok til at stålet skulle svekkes, også begynner dem å prate om smeltet metall som drypper ut av tårnene.

[Gjest Jester]

Innrømme at jeg føler meg litt dum, har jo sett Fahrenheit 9/11, kobla ikke Michael Moore.

Den andre er litt for "truther" for meg

[Kirill W.]

Jeg tolker det som at de er like objektive som "loose change" og kan karakteriseres som sølvfolie-underholdning?

Yup. Jeg kunne ha påpekt i alle fall 10 ting iløpet av de 20 minuttene som var helt tilbakestående.

[Gjest Jester]

Film review: Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 | Film | The Guardian

The guardian sin review av Zero...

Som sagt at noe ikke er forklart (ref WTC7) betyr ikke at man kan dra slutninger som denne karen....

[Kirill W.]

Og hva var det som traff Pentagon forresten?

mordi

[Gjest Jester]

Fahrenheit 9/11 vant gullpalmen på den internasjonale filmfestivalen i Cannes. Men du vet jo mye bedre, hurr durr hurrrrrrrr.

Og hva var det som traff Pentagon forresten?

There is no conclusive video evidence that any aircraft hit the Pentagon

The one video camera on the scene that was actually trained on the site of the crash was a time-lapse camera that flipped from a vague shot of the beginning of something incoming to a full-blown explosion. 9/11 truthers have argued that without a direct image of an airplane in the security footage, it can't be proven that what hit the Pentagon was actually a plane. They back up this claim by saying that there was no plane visible in the post-crash pictures. Adherents of this theory are sometimes called "no-planers," though the term has generally come to be associated with the biggest cranks in the movement who believe no planes hit the WTC either.[3]

Rebuttal: There were six frames from a security camera showing impact released after a FOIA request.[4] Furthermore, there is photographic evidence of wreckage on the scene and eyewitness accounts of plane wreckage and damage consistent with a plane crash.[5] Essentially, the problem for no-planers is that the plane did not just hit the outside of the Pentagon, but actually penetrated some distance into the structure, some of which actually collapsed on top of the plane. Numerous witnesses saw it approach, the plane's wings took out several light posts on a nearby roadway on the way in, and plane components were scattered all over the Pentagon lawn.

Also, although inconclusive—and "personal commentary"—a photo was presented on a 9/11 truther website claiming that the "round" debris observed was not possibly the wheel of the alleged jetliner. However, it clearly was, albeit stripped of its outer edge.

In any case, why would anyone expect a high-res video camera to be pointed at the exact spot where the plane hit? The intrinsic improbability of such a circumstance would make it direct evidence of a conspiracy, and no self-respecting conspiracy would allow evidence of its existence to remain.

The damage at the Pentagon is not large enough to have been caused by a passenger jet

Rebuttal: These claims rely on the remote assessment of nonspecialists against the on-site investigation of experts on structural engineering. The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building with blast-resistant windows. It was struck by an aluminum-skinned commercial aircraft that had already lost a wing before hitting the building. The damage is consistent with this scenario.[6]

If people driving near the Pentagon who apparently were witnesses of the plane actually saw it, it would have blown them off

Rebuttal: Not proved, and insignificant. (See rebuttal to the next point.)

Other evidence suggests it was a missile that hit the Pentagon

Rebuttal: The preponderance of evidence suggests that a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. An aircraft is known to have gone missing, the wreckage of the same aircraft was found at the Pentagon, and the damage was what structural engineers expected from such a strike. If the alleged conspirators went to this level of effort to create the illusion that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon, why then use a missile? Using a plane would be simpler (as you already have one ready for the task), and there wouldn't be the risk of discovery.

9/11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki

Because....ALIENS!

[Tor]

America, jeg elsker det. Hvem trenger mainstream underholdning på tv'en?

[Kirill W.]

mordi

Kødda, da hadde skadene vært mye større!

<3