Why, God, why do you believe that? Loopy conspiracy theories

A general thread for crazy conspiracy theories you've found that don't warrant their own thread. Here's an old favourite: HAARP's rainbow aerosol's (sic).

This lady believes rainbows to be a conspiracy. Particularly the "phenomena" of "rainbow's near the ground". Apparently, stuff has been added to the water to make rainbows in sprinklers.

Go nuts, guys. I bet you can find something way weirder.

Oh god! The rainbow woman. O_O Before I knew who she was (and how very batshit she is) I got in an argument with her. She saw a video of a bug wiggling and was comparing it's movements to 'chem trails' and thinking that the government 'made' the bug.

rae wrote:

Oh god! The rainbow woman. O_O Before I knew who she was (and how very batshit she is) I got in an argument with her. She saw a video of a bug wiggling and was comparing it's movements to 'chem trails' and thinking that the government 'made' the bug.

Blimey, I had no idea she existed outside of her odd misconceptions about rainbows. So bugs are made by the government, too?

Does she ever go outside?

I think the most disturbing conspiracies of all are the 9/11 conspiracies, with university-educated scholars publishing a book that claims the US government is responsible, and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the burning fuel of the aircraft.

The disturbing part is, they make a very convincing case in their book.

Manny wrote:

I think the most disturbing conspiracies of all are the 9/11 conspiracies, with university-educated scholars publishing a book that claims the US government is responsible, and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the burning fuel of the aircraft.

The disturbing part is, they make a very convincing case in their book.

Some of the theories for that are pretty convincing. The only thing that truly makes me doubt is that I can't ascribe that much skill to government bureaucracy.

I had a professor who liked to spout 9/11 conspiracy theories during class. Then he'd always go "I'm not saying I actually believe this, but it just goes to show that you have to question the mainstream media!1!!one" which sounded like him attempting to justify soapboxing during a class that had little to nothing to do with crazy conspiracy theories.

myeerah wrote:

Manny wrote:

I think the most disturbing conspiracies of all are the 9/11 conspiracies, with university-educated scholars publishing a book that claims the US government is responsible, and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the burning fuel of the aircraft.

The disturbing part is, they make a very convincing case in their book.

Some of the theories for that are pretty convincing.

Except for the part where a controlled demolition doesn't look like that.

But seriously I LOVE the 9/11 deniers, especially the ones who are all WELL IF A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON WHERE'S THE REST OF THE PLANE????? They don't realise that commercial jets are made of tinfoil and glue and get totally fucking destroyed when they crash into things.

A friend of mine has a coworker who's convinced that the Freemasons are deliberately poisoning us with e-numbers and fluoride to reduce world population. Also, there's going to be a new currency called the amero and then the UN will control us.

Cyberwulf wrote:

A friend of mine has a coworker who's convinced that the Freemasons are deliberately poisoning us with e-numbers and fluoride to reduce world population. Also, there's going to be a new currency called the amero and then the UN will control us.

Because it's worked so well, so far.

In another forum I frequent, I met a guy who seriously believed that Bush was signing bills for a North American Union that would come together in 2010.

This guy was also a hardcore Paultard who had a ReLOVEution avatar for an insanely long time.

Manny wrote:

I think the most disturbing conspiracies of all are the 9/11 conspiracies, with university-educated scholars publishing a book that claims the US government is responsible, and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the burning fuel of the aircraft.

The disturbing part is, they make a very convincing case in their book.

If you've ever watched one of the movies of the 'collapse' of the towers, you'll see why they make such a good case. That's no collapse, that's an implosion. One of the reasons they make such a good case, is because there's so much evidence in their favour.

If you think that the government wouldn't do such a terrible thing, you don't know human beings and their willingness to do just about anything for money.

BTW, did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction?

Building are pretty fucking solid bastards because they sit on the ground and go hundreds of feet into the sky and stay there because of steel and concrete and suchlike. Planes are hollow, and light, and pretty much made of tinfoil (seriously, they are built to be as light as they can possibly be), because they fly. They're not designed to collide with anything tougher than a little turbulence. No commercial jet could cause the complete and total collapse of buildings the size and strength of the Twin Towers. If a plane collided with a Twin Tower, if anything it would be the plane that was totally destroyed. NOT the building.

You have brains, don't you? Watch a few of those YouTube videos and USE the bloody things.

This cannot possibly end well.

Harley, shut the fuck up. :bitchslap:

Harley, seriously, shut up in this case.

The planes crashing into the towers isn't what made them fall--it was the resulting fire.

EDIT: Google ftw. Why the towers collasped.

Besides. Skyscrapers are structured so that they collapse inward, so as to save surrounding areas from damage.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Manny wrote:

I think the most disturbing conspiracies of all are the 9/11 conspiracies, with university-educated scholars publishing a book that claims the US government is responsible, and that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than the burning fuel of the aircraft.

The disturbing part is, they make a very convincing case in their book.

If you've ever watched one of the movies of the 'collapse' of the towers,

Fuck your movie, I saw them collapse LIVE ON TELEVISION.

Quote :

you'll see why they make such a good case. That's no collapse, that's an implosion.

It is a collapse. It starts from the top, above the point where the plane hit. A controlled demolition starts from the bottom. It is also preceeded by flashing lights up the length of the building as the charges are detonated.

Quote :

If you think that the government wouldn't do such a terrible thing, you don't know human beings and their willingness to do just about anything for money.

BTW, did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction?

If you're claiming that the Government did 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, what was with all that "Al-Queda did 9/11" bit in Afghanistan?

Quote :

Building are pretty fucking solid bastards because they sit on the ground and go hundreds of feet into the sky and stay there because of steel and concrete and suchlike.

AAAAH HAHAHA

AAAAH HAHAHA

AH HA HA

THAT MUST BE WHY BUILDINGS IN EARTHQUAKE ZONES DON'T HAVE TO BE SPECIALLY BUILT TO KEEP FROM COLLAPSING AND WHY THEY'RE SO EASILY DEMOLISHED WITH WRECKING BALLS AND EXPLOSIVES

MY GOD HOW STUPID ARE YOU

Quote :

Planes are hollow, and light, and pretty much made of tinfoil (seriously, they are built to be as light as they can possibly be), because they fly. They're not designed to collide with anything tougher than a little turbulence. No commercial jet could cause the complete and total collapse of buildings the size and strength of the Twin Towers. If a plane collided with a Twin Tower, if anything it would be the plane that was totally destroyed. NOT the building.

Physics was just a school subject to you, wasn't it? Probably one you didn't take. You might've heard of this thing, it's called force, it's what happens when you multiply the mass of an object by its acceleration?

Seriously, did you see the HUGE GAPING HOLES in the towers? Because there's this other thing, it's called structural integrity, it's what helps support the floors above, and there's this third thing called gravity which is a lot like force except it goes straight down.

Also there's this stuff, it's called jet fuel, and it makes the plane go. It tends to go up in flames after a plane crash and burns like, really really hot? Also seriously have you SEEN the size of these jets?

Quote :

You have brains, don't you? Watch a few of those YouTube videos and USE the bloody things.

What a good idea! Watch this.

NEVER!

By which I mean, I saw several of those videos of the collapse, and I used my brain (despite conspiracy theories going around, I do have one) and thought, "No, buildings don't fall over like that."

South Tower Collapse

It collapsed. INTO DUST. LOOK at it.

911 Call

Very, very hot. LISTEN to it. Please. Listen to what that woman is saying, and what the 911 woman is saying to her. There is something WRONG there, and it's NOT the plane crash.

That woman died.

A little something else

When something collapses, it falls over. It doesn't collapse into dust. And what was that other, smaller explosion? You know, the one very near the bottom?

No, Harley. Once again, SKYSCRAPERS ARE BUILT LIKE THAT SO THEY'LL COLLAPSE IN ON THEMSELVES IN THE EVENT OF A STRUCTURAL BREACH

You do realise it's collapsing UNDER ITS OWN WEIGHT, don't you Harley?

Classical mechanics, learn you some. All that steel and concrete you're lauding as OH SO HEAVY? That pulverises everything in its path as it comes down. The further it falls, the greater its force (F=ma where m=mass and a=acceleration which = velocity over time = distance over time squared) or weight (w=mg where m = mass and g = acceleration due to gravity). I say this not only as someone who's actually studied physics but also as someone who's studied materials science.

Yeah, it's just coincidence that the towers were insured against terrorism a matter of weeks before their destruction.

Thing about terrorists is that when they commit acts like this, they are keen for as many people as possible to know they did it. You know, to spread terror. Why would Bin Laden deny involvement? It's not like it's gonna change the bounty on his head.

Collapsing under it's own weight? Cyber, do you have ANY idea how STUPID that sounds?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Yeah, it's just coincidence that the towers were insured against terrorism a matter of weeks before their destruction.

OH MY GOD YOU'RE SO RIGHT IT'S NOT LIKE THAT WAS FUCKING NORMAL OR ANYTHING, GIVEN THAT AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO BLOW THEM UP IN 1993 OR GIVEN THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

Quote :

Thing about terrorists is that when they commit acts like this, they are keen for as many people as possible to know they did it. You know, to spread terror.

Harley, on September 11th 2001, I was kicking it round my parents' house because the semester didn't start till October. My sister texted me from school wanting to know if something had happened in New York. I flipped on Sky News and the first tower had been hit. I saw the second collision live on air. I can tell you Hamas and Hezbollah were fucking falling over themselves to claim responsibility.

Quote :

Collapsing under it's own weight? Cyber, do you have ANY idea how STUPID that sounds?

Harley. Look at the building. How can you NOT SEE where a huge chunk of it has been destroyed by the collision?

Buildings like that only stay up because they're supported from below. Destroy part of that support and it comes down. I mean do you understand that at all? Do you understand that if you destroy a supporting wall in your house the upper floors are in danger of collapsing?

gaijinguy - OMG A MISSILE HIT IT IF IT WAS A PLANE WHERE'S THE REST OF THE PLANE

Alternatively

- OMG THE PLANES FLEW SOMEWHERE ELSE AND DROPPED OFF THE PASSENGERS WHO WERE ALL PAID TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT IT AND THEN THEY FLEW IT INTO THE PENTAGON

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Planes are hollow, and light, and pretty much made of tinfoil (seriously, they are built to be as light as they can possibly be), because they fly. They're not designed to collide with anything tougher than a little turbulence. No commercial jet could cause the complete and total collapse of buildings the size and strength of the Twin Towers. If a plane collided with a Twin Tower, if anything it would be the plane that was totally destroyed. NOT the building.

Physics was just a school subject to you, wasn't it? Probably one you didn't take. You might've heard of this thing, it's called force, it's what happens when you multiply the mass of an object by its acceleration?

Seriously, did you see the HUGE GAPING HOLES in the towers? Because there's this other thing, it's called structural integrity, it's what helps support the floors above, and there's this third thing called gravity which is a lot like force except it goes straight down.

Also there's this stuff, it's called jet fuel, and it makes the plane go. It tends to go up in flames after a plane crash and burns like, really really hot? Also seriously have you SEEN the size of these jets?

Cyberwulf just won this thread. And an internetz.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

911 Call

Very, very hot. LISTEN to it. Please. Listen to what that woman is saying, and what the 911 woman is saying to her. There is something WRONG there, and it's NOT the plane crash.

That woman died.

A little detail: Those planes were full of fuel. The people who hijacked them chose planes that were making cross-country flights so they would be full of gas to maximize the destruction. The woman was inside the tower; of course she wouldn't be talking about a plane crash (unless she saw it happen), she'd be talking about the gigantic fire that the plane crash caused, like it was supposed to.

Also, where does the Pentagon figure into this little theory of yours?

Jet fuel burns, yes. But it doesn't burn hot ENOUGH. Not enough to melt through solid steel beams, which is what skyscrapers are built with.

A fire could NOT bring down the Twin Towers. Not even the magical jet fuel. Skyscrapers are built to withstand pretty much anything - except a specially controlled explosion to bring them down.

What was that small explosion near the base?

Who REALLY blew up those towers?

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Jet fuel burns, yes. But it doesn't burn hot ENOUGH. Not enough to melt through solid steel beams, which is what skyscrapers are built with.

A fire could NOT bring down the Twin Towers.

And the force of an aluminium and steel jet crashing into them at speed, smashing up the concrete and steel beams? Just because the planes are destroyed doesn't mean the building escapse unscathed. In fact, if you would FUCKING LOOK at the damn videos you're linking to, you might see the MASSIVE GAPING HOLES in both towers. You might also see how FUCKING HUGE the jets are and how their wingspan compares to the width of the towers.

Not to mention jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the towers. I'm pretty sure furniture and people were on fire too.

RE: the article you linked:

Quote :

"We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones.

This is what kills me about 9/11 deniers. You'd swear planes had never been hijacked before. You'd swear terrorists had never been able to plant bombs before. You'd swear terrorists had never been able to carry out precision attacks before. I'm especially disgusted when this kind of shit comes from Europeans. Hello, IRA? ETA?

The only difference between 9/11 and other hijackings was that the hijackers flew the planes into buildings, killing thousands of people in a spectacular fashion. That's all. There's no conspiracy, except the one hatched by the nineteen hijackers and their superiors to hijack four jets and use them as missiles.

Edit:

From the article you posted:

Quote :

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse.

Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.

If you'd look at the gaping holes and think about the fact that it's being claimed that COMMERCIAL JET AIRLINERS made them, you'd be concerned too. Compare a jet airliner to a building the size and strength of the Twin Towers.

Wait, and you are claiming that BURNING FURNITURE helped to bring down the towers? Jet fuel couldn't, so it needed the help of BURNING FURNITURE?! Christ almighty, HOUSES are still standing after fires, even bad ones. Those buildings crumpled into DUST. Within seconds.

A housefire

Look, it's still standing, despite all the flames.

I know why people don't want to listen to these theories. It's because it's simply HORRIFIC to have to acknowledge that your own government, the people you trust, would do such a thing to incite a war, just for money. That they would put a monetary value on human life.

This is because you are a good person and don't want to believe that somebody you trust could and would do such a thing, so you'll believe the explanation that it was somebody else.

I'm not such a good person, so I can believe it. Also, I'm not American, which helps.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I know why people don't want to listen to these theories. It's because it's simply HORRIFIC to have to acknowledge that your own government, the people you trust, would do such a thing to incite a war, just for money.

You're awfully quick to assume that we trust the government to get anything done properly. :lolinsane: