Now on ScienceBlogs: The Festival Recognizes Our First "Featured Fan"!
"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience, history, and pseudohistory (and anything else that interests him)
Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)
Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.
« Suzanne Somers = Mike Adams | Main | Is Bill Maher really that ignorant? (part IV): Bill loves him some cancer quackery »
Category: Entertainment/culture • Humor • Movies • Skepticism/critical thinking
Posted on: September 20, 2009 10:00 AM, by Orac
Three Imperial stormtroopers discuss the destruction of the Death Star on the first anniversary of its exploding:
Of course Palpatine must have known! The logic is inescapable. Why else would Darth Vader have been in his Tie fighter and not in the Death Star when Luke Skywalker blew it to kingdom come? Personally, I always thought it was because he was needed as the villain for the next couple of movies and so he had to escape, but that's just me.
Politics
Comments
This clip seems to be floating around a lot. I always did think it ironic that from a certain point of view, the destruction of the death star was essentially a group of desert-based rebels flying planes into an important governmental structure, leading to it's destruction...
Posted by: Lab Rat | September 20, 2009 10:27 AM
ROTFLMAO! Very funny, especially the end when they tried to drink. I was waiting for that through the entire clip.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | September 20, 2009 10:42 AM
the destruction of the death star was essentially a group of desert-based rebels flying planes into an important governmental structure, leading to it's destruction...
Specifically, a bunch of religious fanatics flying planes into a government structure because they were upset about the government's deviation from the "true path"...
Posted by: Dianne | September 20, 2009 11:30 AM
I can't stand Storm Truthers!
Posted by: Aaron | September 20, 2009 11:52 AM
I had my first lengthy discussion with a 9/11 conspiracy nut the other day. It was pretty weird. I started off by mentioning to him that I know a guy who was in the pentagon when the plane hit and another who saw the plane -- and then the "truther" proceeds to tell me all about how it wasn't a plane and that my friends must be part of the conspiracy, too. Al Jazeera, too? Yep! Even Bin Laden was part of the conspiracy. I was awestruck by the stupid. I still am.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 20, 2009 12:12 PM
I love it, right down to aunt Baroo's blue milk.
Posted by: Pareidolius | September 20, 2009 3:12 PM
I remember a long time ago when, on the JREF forums, someone started ridiculing a twoofer by starting up this topic. I wouldn't be surprised if this video was born from that joke going viral.
--- Haven't watched it yet, since my weekly virus scan is underway, and it makes YouTube stutter. I'll be sure to check it out when it's done.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 20, 2009 4:32 PM
@1 The significant difference being the massively overkill retaliation against an uninvolved entity was _beforehand_, rather than after.
Posted by: Snoof | September 20, 2009 8:25 PM
That is pretty awe-inspiring.
If you wanted to see him froth at the mouth for hours on end, a mention of the Popular Mechanics debunkings would have done the trick.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | September 20, 2009 11:09 PM
I always find 9/11 troofers to be the ultimate 'rubber duck' arguers amongst the spectrum of pseudoscience. Even hardcore creationists will occasionally acknowledge that you actually said something, but troofers seem utterly resistant to engaging in a two way discussion of any kind.
The most bizarre claims I've seen are around the temperature of the rubble weeks after the collapse. Apparently this is obvious evidence the explosives were used.. if anyone can work out how this argument is meant to work even in theory I'd like to know!
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | September 21, 2009 3:57 AM
Darth Vader, watching the last seconds of "loose change":
"ahh... ::wheeze:: the stupid is strong in this one"
/Cue Imperial march.
Posted by: DLC | September 21, 2009 5:46 AM
The question is: How are they going to drink that blue stuff with their helmets on?
Posted by: Kausik Datta
| September 21, 2009 1:33 PM
Watch to the end of the clip - they can't figure that out either.
I liked Mel Brooks' approach to that question. It just works - somehow?
Posted by: Scott | September 21, 2009 1:51 PM
The most bizarre claims I've seen are around the temperature of the rubble weeks after the collapse. Apparently this is obvious evidence the explosives were used.. if anyone can work out how this argument is meant to work even in theory I'd like to know!
No, that's supposedly evidence that thermite was used to melt the steel columns (ignoring the fact that thermite melts down through metal, and so can't be used to melt vertical columns). The theory goes that there wasn't enough oxygen underground to sustain fires for weeks/months (ignoring the history of underground coal fires that burn on for years), so it was tons and tons of molten steel radiating heat that kept the rubble warm.
But there are many claims that are a lot weirder than that:
1) Exotic energy beam weapons were involved in the destruction of the towers.
2) That the dust clouds trailing behind falling chunks of rubble were actually the rubble being turned into dust by said energy beams.
3) That the towers had already been packed with powdered rust, and that when the planes impacted they instantly turned to aluminum dust and mixed with the rust dust to form thermite.
4) That the Boeings used by commercial airliners would have gone *splat* against the towers like a bug against a windshield since they were made of aluminum, which means that the Boeings which hit the towers must have been military ones which are made of much stronger stuff than aluminum.
5) That the towers had had explosives placed in them when they were built. According to this theory, the towers didn't have cores made up of steel columns, but a conventional concrete core, with the concrete's rebar being coated with C4. There was a documentary about the concrete cores made sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, but then the Conspiracy erased the documentary from existence and made up the lie that the cores of the towers were just steel beams.
Posted by: Matthew Cline | September 21, 2009 5:07 PM
But there are many claims that are a lot weirder than that:
1) Exotic energy beam weapons were involved in the destruction of the towers
That would go hand-in-hand with the theory that no actual planes crashed into the towers, and that what people saw flying over New York City and into the towers were actually highly-sophisticated holograms.
Posted by: Loren | September 22, 2009 3:08 PM
Has Luke Skywalker released his birth certificate yet?
Posted by: A wåmpå once bit my sister | September 22, 2009 4:25 PM
Aw, shucks. When I saw "A wampa once bit my sister" I was hoping for a good Holy Grail reference.
Posted by: Scott | September 22, 2009 4:27 PM
Well, that didn't backfire at all. Now I shall go away before you tauntaun me a second time.
Posted by: has | September 22, 2009 6:58 PM