Luke’s Change

Speaking of conspiracism, here’s a send-up of the 9/11 Truther movement in general and “Loose Change” in specific:

An examination of some questionable events and circumstances leading up to the destruction of the Death Star, through the eyes of an amateur investigative journalist within the Star Wars galaxy. The focus is mainly on the connections between the people who created and operated the Death Star and those responsible for destroying it.

Via io9

For Sale: Purity Ring, Slightly Used
Being Agent Scully
So Long, And Thanks For All The Memories (From Dan)
Romance at Mars Hill
  • -in

    I always thought that people who just accepted the government’s version of what happened on 9-11 were just like religious folks who buy into the Jesus story because “Hey, so many people were involved for so long, it can’t be a conspiracy; someone would have spilled the beans if it were a lie by now.”

    It takes faith to believe the government’s 9-11 story, especially in spite of what your own eyes saw. I don’t know what the truth is, but I know enough not to trust the government, the media, or the military. As for trusting the over one thousand engineers and architects who question the official story, well, I’m a little more inclined.

    • johan

      Nonsense. The “government” version is actually the science version, informed by actual engineers (not the fake engineers you brought up who tend to be electrical engineers spouting off about mechanical engineering.) People like you have to claim that Popular Mechanics is part of a vast conspiracy and that the well understood properties of steel as a function of temperature are actually false. Conspiracy theorists ignore that vast majority of the information in order to highlight irrelevancies and misrepresentations. I’m guessing that you will come back with some trashy website as a source, if you provide sources at all for any crazy brand of nonsense you happen to have fallen for. I’ll skip that step and give you some vital information: your sources are often liars and frauds. They generally wind up claiming that any molten metal seen falling from the twin towers MUST have been molten steel when the reality is that they can’t tell the difference between molten steel and molten aluminum. They’ll pretend they can, but they can’t. They’ll pretend that the melting point of steel matters when what truly matters is the way that structural steel loses strength as it is heated, which is such a well understood concept that you can just google a graph of it. They pretend building 7 wasn’t harmed despite a vast supply of photos that show otherwise. They claim no plane hit the Pentagon when there are so damn many photos of plane wreckage on the ground while the first responders are still there. They will claim that so-called nanothermite is present when nanothermite exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. They will claim things and when confronted about their falsehoods they will delete comments on their websites, they will accuse anyone who presents scientific facts as if they were part of this conspiracy, they will lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

      Don’t fall for their lies. If they believe those things honestly they will never need to delete dissenting opinions in their forums, they will never need to deny scientific fact, they will discuss their opinions honestly and openly and change their minds when shown to be wrong on any given point. They don’t behave that way and I’m certain you won’t behave that way.

      Google “crank magnetism.” It might help you start to see reality more clearly.

      • Revyloution

        Don’t forget the best response to any conspiracy theorist, our lord and savior Benjamin Franklin.
        “Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead.”

    • Sunny Day

      Is it opposite day where you are?

    • PsiCop

      Re: “I don’t know what the truth is, but I know enough not to trust the government, the media, or the military.”

      If you “don’t know what the truth is,” and don’t trust anyone ever to tell you what it is, then how would you ever know it, if you ever should happen to come across it? If you’re so obsessed over who is telling it to you, versus what it is they’re saying, and if you automatically dismiss anything coming from certain sources, then you quite literally can never, ever find out “what the truth is.”

      Remember, even a broken clock is correct, twice each day.

      • kessy_athena

        Wouldn’t that also apply to folks like the Truthers or Londo and Von Daniken and assorted others who are, shall we say, overly enthusiastic about various subjects?

        • LeftWingFox

          Yes, Yes it would.

          Trust is nothing more than a filter. It’s not a substitute for understanding, but in our incredibly complex world, it’s a useful shortcut. Trustworthy people can still make mistakes, untrustworthy people can be truthful on occasion, and sometimes our biases misalign our sense who who is trustworthy.

          I.e. I do not find the local tabloid to be trustworthy. They might still get a story correct, but I would not believe any story reported or mentioned by them without corroboration from an independent source. At the same time, I’d be foolish to continue to disbelieve information corroborated by multiple sources, just because it was reported by the local tabloid.