[Ocelot]

From http://www.websurdit...-an-inside-job/

Quote

We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.


Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack



1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?



6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

[IamSmarterthenU]

CrimsonSun, on May 1 2007, 07:22 AM, said:

lol

Totally hillarious wherever you found that its a gem.

Actually yes, the first death star was destroyed by the Metaclorians because its prescence would tip the balance of power too far to the Drak Side.

[bodi]

I like that. However,

In order to really enjoy a movie (like Star Wars) you have to have what's called a "willing suspension of disbelief".

In order to believe that 9/11 went down in the manner the 'official story' relates, also requires a "willing suspension of disbelief'.

I'm saying no more or less than this, so here's a preemptory "don't put words in my mouth..."

[Ocelot]

bodi, on Jul 22 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

In order to believe that 9/11 went down in the manner the 'official story' relates, also requires a "willing suspension of disbelief'.

Have you read the "Official Story"

Which official story do you refer to. The NIST report or the 911 commission?

http://forums.randi....ks.php?catid=18 is a good resopurce for debunking some of the more outrageous claims of the conspiracy theorists but of course I'm not putting words in your mouth. Instead I'd suggest you take a look at these resources and see if they address any concerns you have.

If not perhaps you'd like to share.

Personally I'm a mihop or lihop sympathiser and consider all the controlled demolition theories to be highly flawed and clouding the real issues.

[Ocelot]

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 04:06 PM, said:

Oh really now??

Interesting.. We have video..

Perhaps you can explain the simple fact that nothing can fall in the 10 seconds that the buildings fell in if there is anything at all in the way, such as their own floors...?

Simple physics is denied in believing that the buildings were not blown down rather than magically collapsing at speeds higher than gravity allows.

You said that it was the Official Explanation that you didn't believe. The official explanation doesn't say that the tower fell in 10 seconds. Various Conspiracy theorists looking at video footage have concluded that the building collapsed with estimates of time ranging from 8.4 seconds to 15 seconds. 10 seconds is just smidge over the time it would take for objects to freefall the 400 metres or so. We do know for sure that the rubble ejected from the building during the collapse would be in free fall. If the tower colapsed in 10 seconds then you would the rubble ejected from the collapse falling at the same speed and hitting the ground at the same time as the rest of the building. This you do not see. We have video. We have photos.

The argument is presented in greater detail here Which is one of the sites listed on the resource I provided.

Have a look at those sites. They may answer some other questions you might have regarding the theory of controlled demolition.

[bodi]

Good references, you guys.

I'm doing my due diligence and find myself, once again, wading through tons of dirt to find a few diamonds. I try to approach this from a somewhat broader perspective, and I am by no means a "conspiricy theorist".

And yet, and yet, and yet... there is something going on here...., something sinister, and it's not so simple as either side wants to make it out to be. For that matter, there are much more than two sides to this. One of the biggest problems I have is with people who make it out to be an 'us' vs 'them' thing.

Everyone trumpets this 'lets find the truth' thing, and to be honest, I see a lot more facts, figures, diagrams, pictures, and seemingly reasonable logic from the "conspiricy' camp than the 'debunker' camp. Good link, Truth Warrior.

I see a lot more empty rhetoric from the debunkers. A scoffing cough in the throat does not an argument make... (I'm not saying they don't have their moments). Also a good link, Ocelot.

Once again, I'm not either one. I'm just a seeker who admits his own fallibilty, and anything I say or think is always subject to revision at a moments notice.

One thing I am reasonably certain of, though, and that is that there are a LOT of arguments and postures on 'both sides' that are bullshit. I guess it's all the same...

I'll get back to this once I have done some more of that wading...

[Keeping it real]

Interesting, but true? This is the question.

Here is an interesting source about the "physics" question of 9/11.

http://impactglassma...ics-of-911.html

The problem is when individuals decide to examine the information with preconceived notions of the event, one way or another.

"Debunkers" and the "9/11 Truth Movement", see they both already have preconceived notions in their titles.

Personally, I believe that an individual is capable of doing anything in his/her power. Not all humans have similiar human emotions, values, morals or empathy. In this investigation for truth, we must not have any preconceived notions of what an individual or group can or cannot do within their power or control.

So for now, I do not know the truth behind 9/11, but I am viewing and attempting to understand all the data offered. I will say though that it has been very difficult to find unbias and/or apolitical information about 9/11. Many of the mainstream "facts" I think, from my observations and understanding to date, are still in question.

[Ocelot]

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

Oh wow...

1) If I offered a video that was in extraordinarily bad shape and showed it fall in 20 seconds, then the "skeptics offered video range" would be from 8.4 to 20 seconds. The video that I watched had voice evidence revealing that it was no where near delayed to that degree. This supports the conspiracy theorist concern.

The collapse speeds quoted are figures used by proponents of controlled demolition. http://www.911myths...._estimates.html

May I see the video to which you are refering? What do you mean by voice evidence?

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

2) The distraction of your focus - "a free fall in a vacuum..." Who cares about a free fall in a vacuum? NONE of this is about free fall in a vacuum. But the numbers make it appear better for the "conspiracy". Free fall in air of large objects for 400 meters is noticably slower than in a vacuum. This supports the conspiracy theorist concern.

Free fall in a vacuum is revelevent as it presents a lower bound for the time of the collapse. Free fall with air resistance will be slower but not vastly so. Calculating the freefall speeds is clearly relevent to an investigation of the claim that the building fell at near freefall speeds.

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

3) The "free falling rubble" is not identifiable. Explosions have NO free falling debree except the very tiny bit that happens to have been blow directly parallel to the ground. Explosions blow particles down as well as up. This "rubble" supports the conspiracy theorist concern that the building was even close to the speed of the objects that were blown downward by explosions.

Actually all the rubble falls freely. I agree that rubble ejected downwards would have a head start but by how much? What proportion of it should have been ejected downwards, upwards or approximately parallel. Rubble is clearly identifiable in many shots. Much work has been done on examining the speeds and distances covered by the debris to see if it provides evidence of explosive force.



http://www.911myths....sive_force.html

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

4) Missing investigation - If the offered videos were in question, why didn't the government have one tested and verified as either slow or not? It is easy to do and would have definetly proven the issue. No need for argument. But instread, they simply say that many were offered that had different speeds (which I don't believe in itself), and then proceed assuming that any such evidence must be ignored. "Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely." - Oh. it is too hard for THEM to calculate so no need to get into details, but they are certain they (the defendants) are right. Keep it complicated so that truth can be lost in the cloud of confusion.

Hang on now. The analysis on the site I linked to is not the NIST report or the 911 commission. I'm not aware of either of these saying any such thing. In fact if you read the page again it does not say that different videos show differerent times. It says that different people watching the same scenes report different timings. If testing such a video is so easy to do why don't you do it?

The 911 myths site claims to have used the audio recordings to test the timing as and found times in excess of 14 seconds.
However your claim that the offical investigation did not test video footage is erroneous. NIST Examined over 7,000 pieces of video footage

Quote

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse

How is this a missing investigation?

Siau, on Jul 23 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

5) And note the "switch". The videos were to be ignored because they "show a range of 8.4 to 15 seconds". The "unprovable" stance was that the 15 seconds was more likely. Problem is that such a building would take, again by video of other intentionally demolished buildings, that the building could at best fall on its own in 19 seconds (and that assumes that the floors were designed to give way under stress - why would they have been?). So where did the other 4 seconds go?
As YOU once said, IT IS ALL IN THE DETAILS.

Again, nobody is saying that different videos show differerent times. What is clear is that different people watching the same scenes report different timings. This is due to difficulties establishing the start and endpoint of the collapse.

15 seconds or more is indicated by 911review.com and other supporters of controlled demolition. It is indicated by seismic evidence, audio evidence and video evidence. 15 seconds is far less "unprovable" than 10.

However you sugest that 19 seconds is the miniumum time you'd expect for evena controlled demolition.

So are you suggesting that the building collapsed not only faster than the catastrophic failure as described in the NIST report but in fact faster than you'd expect for controlled demolition> If not controlled demolition then what? A giant invisible ACME anvil dropped from space? It sounds risible but I've seem equally ridiculous theroies suggested in all seriousness. Dr Judy Wood seriously sugest microwave, particle or laser beams from space or antimatter weapons.

I suggest that the 19 second figure of which you speak is unsubstantiated. I'd like to see where it comes from. Dr Frank Greening comes up with a minimum figure of 12 seconds without assuming that the floors are designed ot give way. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

NIST abandoned progresive collapse and concluded that the collapse occured due to bowing of the support columns separating them from the floors. This would allow for a faster collapse still.

I'm therefore intrigued by this 19 second claim. Where does it come from?

[Keeping it real]

Siau, on Aug 1 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

Follow the money/profit to see who is behind what.[/b] What great power would the conspiracy to show false evidence gain compared to the horrendous power already gained and used by the socialist US government segment?

What?!? "...the socialist US government... -Siau" By placing socialist with the US government in this context, you have again demonstrated that you do not understand what socialism or socialist actually means.

It seems you are confusing socialism with facism or authoritarianism.

By the way, this is a major logical fallacy in your argument. "Appeal to Fear"; "Red Hearing"; and "Straw Man".

[Ocelot]

Keeping it real, on Aug 1 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

What?!? "...the socialist US government... -Siau" By placing socialist with the US government in this context, you have again demonstrated that you do not understand what socialism or socialist actually means.

It seems you are confusing socialism with facism or authoritarianism.

By the way, this is a major logical fallacy in your argument. "Appeal to Fear"; "Red Hearing"; and "Straw Man".

Actually Siau did me the honour of demonstraiting this trick. Whilst you I agree that the US is one of the least socialist governments in the western world I suspect that this is indeed a red herring. If so its purpose would be to distract from the fact that I asked where the 19 second claim came from and his answer was somewhat insubstantial. Some demolition team on some video reckon it was a controlled demolition. I cannot think of a group more likely to see it as such. As the old saw goes: if the only tool you ahve is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.

[Keeping it real]

Siau, on Aug 2 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

"Least socialist" and "not socialist" are very different things.

And are you saying that to ask a scientist of the make of the universe is foolish fore he can only see what he has already been programmed to see - nails?

Ocelot,

Definitely a "red herring". I concur that the US is one of the least "socialist" countries in the modern industrialized world. FYI, I am an US citizen who has traveled extensively in Western Europe.

BTW Siau, what does socialism have to do with the scientific discussion of controlled demolition and physics?

Andrew

[Ocelot]

Siau, on Aug 2 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

"Least socialist" and "not socialist" are very different things.

What this has to do with the nature of a building collapse is anybody's guess.

Siau, on Aug 2 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

And are you saying that to ask a scientist of the make of the universe is foolish fore he can only see what he has already been programmed to see - nails?

No I'm saying that if you show a video of a building collapse a demolition expert would be able to tell you if it looked similar to a controlled demolition. It does. No argument. Their value in assessing whether it also look similar to another form of collapse is not guaranteed.

Their value as a remembered quote from a video about which you do not remember enough to find again is greatly diminished.

I'm ready to be convinced and I've seen anumber of such videos. So far I've enoucntered a number of lies and misrepresentations in videos and articles claiming, controlled demolition, orbital space weopons, holographic planes, cruise missiles and a variety of fanciful conspiracy theory. I was once very interested in thermite theories and read widely prof Stephen Jones however he is happy to admit that noe of the evidence he presents is conclusive. His question was to support the requirement for a independant investigation. This was prior to the investigation publishing its report. the report is now published and I beleive it makes a more convincing case than Jones with many of his queries being answered elsewhere.

If you do mange to find the video which convinced you I'll consider it on its own merit.

There need be no conspiracy to create conspiracy theories.

There are theories surrounding, Roswell, the Moon landings, the death of Princess Diana. These are the "exhaust fumes of democracy" according to Chris Hitchens. If there weren't conspiracy theories surrounding 911 I'd be suspicious.

However if Negligence, LIHOP or MIHOP are true it's certainly plausible that outlandish conspiracy theories play a part in the cover up. I hope we can agree that no-plane and space weapon theories fall into the outlandish camp. controlled demolition seem borderline. Of major importance is the question of motive.

However it seems to me that such outlandish theories serve to distract from the fact that on Bush's watch 15 saudi arabians and 4 other arabs hi-jacked four fully fueld Jumbo Jets and attempted to fly them into buildings. I consider that suffience texplanation for the death toll and structural damge we all witnessed on live TV.

The question should be who were they working for, what were their motives? Why was it allowed to happen with only 3 arabixc speaking analysts in the CIA when Al Quaeda were already considered a major threat. Why the reaction was so poorly targeted encompassing reduction of civil liberties in the US, war in Afghanistan but not Pakistan, war in Iraq over non-existant WMD, concentration camps being set up for holding political prisoners without charge or trial and governmental support for torture.

When Harold Shippman was tried they charged him with only 15 sample charges of murder. The penalty for which was suffiencet to keep him in prison for the rest of his natural life. These charges were sufficient despite the fact that he was thought to have killed over 200.

Arn't the charges I've detailed above agsint the Bush administration enough for you? Isn't proving complicity or conspiracy a pointless distraction?