Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Rampant Paranoia"

Latest revision as of 15:33, 26 October 2008

Introduction

This is the page for wacko paranoid conspiracy theories. Put your favorite conspiracy theories here, in as much detail as you like (if it starts to take over the page, make a new page for the theory and put a link here). Issuepedia editors will post any relevant thoughts or information they might have (or find) regarding each theory, and hopefully we'll be able to come up with some reasonable conclusions.

The List

Bushco engineered 9/11: not currently taking this theory too seriously, but it is difficult to dismiss
Minnesota bridge was blown up: evidence is against it; the culprit is more likely systematic neglect of US infrastructure by the Bush administration

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Introduction==
-This is the page for wacko paranoid conspiracy theories. Put your favorite conspiracy theories here, in as much detail as you like (if it starts to take over the page, make a new page for the theory and put a link here). Issuepedia editors will post any relevant thoughts or information they might have (or find) regarding each theory, and hopefully we'll be able to come up with some reasonable conclusions.
+This is the page for wacko paranoid [[conspiracy theories]]. Put your favorite conspiracy theories here, in as much detail as you like (if it starts to take over the page, make a new page for the theory and put a link here). Issuepedia editors will post any relevant thoughts or information they might have (or find) regarding each theory, and hopefully we'll be able to come up with some reasonable conclusions.
-==[[Bush II administration|Bushco]] engineered 9/11==
+===The List===
-This one is a perennial favorite among the fringe of the 9/11 Truth movement, which the media loves to put on display [[9/11 anomaly denial|as if it were the whole story]]. The theory goes something like this:
+* [[Bushco engineered 9/11]]: not currently taking this theory too seriously, but it is difficult to dismiss
-* Bushco needed a "Pearl Harbor" to galvanize America and gain support for a number of things:
+* [[Minnesota bridge was blown up]]: evidence is against it; the culprit is more likely systematic neglect of US infrastructure by the Bush administration
-** [[US justifications for invading Iraq|the war he planned on Iraq]] (many Americans still believe Saddam was behind [[9/11]], or that Iraq had [[weapon of mass destruction|WMD]]s, both of which are completely wrong)
-** [[Bush's elevation of presidential power|increased power for the president]] &ndash; the "strong executive" theory (which goes [[Bush II administration anti-democracy|completely against]] the [[separation of powers]] set up by the [[founding fathers]] in the [[Constitution (US)|Constitution]])
-** Decreased civil rights, increasing government intrusion
-** Increased freedom to spend money however he wanted (e.g. "no-bid" contracts for war-related projects), without oversight or accountability
-* As a result of this need, Bush somehow encouraged or knowingly allowed [[9/11]] to happen; presuming that Bush actually paid attention to the [[pre-9/11 warnings]] he received (rather than ignoring them, as he outwardly seemed to do) and realized that an attack of some sort was imminent, possible scenarios include:
-** Bush quietly removed roadblocks so the 9/11 terrorists would succeed
-** Bush covertly provided aid (Iran-Contra-style) to the terrorists, so that they would succeed
-** Bush had agents take over the operation, with the idea of using evidence of the original operation as a decoy -- who would think that the US government would do something like this on US soil? Only wacko conspiracy theorists, of course.
-* There may not have been any foreign terrorists on the planes; the four planes hijacked were of two different models (Boeing 757s and 767s) known to have an "emergency come-home" computer installed which allows ground control to remotely control the planes in the event of a hijacking. The fact that these come-homes were not used (or even mentioned) is suspicious enough in itself; it also removes the need for a suicidal gang of hijackers to somehow enter the US, somehow get through security, and somehow take over the plane with the limited weaponry (box-cutters) they supposedly smuggled through security, because the "come-home" could have been used to fly the planes into buildings instead of its intended purpose of landing the plane safely.
-* The collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were merely the finishing touch, to give the appropriate "shock and awe" effect
-* The collapse of [[WTC7]] may have been to hide some key pieces of evidence; the most popular theory is that the planes were being remote-controlled from Rudy Guiliani's specially-hardened "emergency command center" in WTC7. After all the planes had crashed, the team blew up the command center -- and then had WTC7 "pulled" to hide what would have been a suspiciously isolated explosion in an otherwise largely-unharmed building.
-There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to this theory, or at least indicating strongly that the administration had something serious to hide; some more details are in the "Further Investigation Needed" and "Circumstantial Evidence" sections of the [[9/11 anomalies]] page.
-One of the main flaws in this theory is the large number of people (at least a large handful), including a number of non-political people (technicians and engineers). Perhaps this objection is partly overcome by the extreme vehemence of much of Bush's support -- dissenters being called "traitors", for example; could this vehemence perhaps have convinced a roomful of people of the ''need'' for a terrible calamity to "strengthen the country"? Especially if those people were hand-picked believers hoping to hasten the second coming of Christ by [[apocalypticism|starting an apocalypse]]. Apocalyptics have always been among Bush's strongest supporters, and the feeling seems to be mutual.
-'''Conclusion''': Unlikely, but this theory can't be ''fully'' laid to rest until there is a believable explanation for the [[9/11 anomalies|anomalous events of 9/11]].
-==the [[wikipedia:I-35W Mississippi River bridge|Minnesota bridge]] was blown up==
-''this is an original hypothesis which I haven't yet seen anywhere else, as of 2007-08-03; it is very likely wrong. -[[User:Woozle|W]].''
-The bridge was destroyed as part of a campaign to discredit science and engineering in the US. The Bush administration has always been [[Bush II administration anti-science|anti-science]]; this was exacerbated by reputable scientists and engineers finally getting involved in the [[9/11 anomalies|9/11 Truth movement]], which threatened to make such inquiries respectable and worthy of being taken seriously.
-Evidence:
-* One short section of bridge collapsed separately from the water span. How could this happen naturally? (Possibly horizontal strain from the main span collapsing... but it ''feels'' suspicious.)
-* The suddenness of the collapse seems wrong. You would expect one join to start tearing first, or something... (again, a completely non-engineering, non-scientific observation...) The [[googlevideo:-7067607397492145389|only video]] of the collapse doesn't show the side which apparently failed... but the bridge collapses ''straight down'' (echo of the descriptions of WTC collapses -- or just tired old conspiracy hack-phrase?) (On closer inspection of the video loop, it looks like what may have failed was the very top of the arch, at the center of the span, which might explain the north-south symmetricity of the collapse but not necessarily the east-west.)
-Main flaws in this theory:
-* The one known video of the collapse shows clearly that there was no noticeable dust prior to the roadbed hitting the river; if structural members had been severed by explosions, there probably would have been. (Perhaps explosion dust was trapped on the underside and only emerged after the air was forced out by impact with the water? The video was slightly above the level of the roadbed, and might not have been able to see anything happening underneath)
-* The Department of Homeland Security stated that they believed the collapse was an accident; if they had wanted to "use" this explosion for some larger agenda, surely that would have included claims of terrorism? (Paranoid second-guessing: maybe they're waiting until later to come back and bring up "new evidence" showing terrorism... conveniently timed to coincide with an election or something...)
-* Bridge collapses not caused by any external force (earthquake, flood) or impact do happen every few decades; this is the first such collapse since 1983, which followed one in 1967. A 1991 evaluation of the bridge cited several serious structural problems. "The report also noted a concern about lack of redundancy in the main truss system, which meant the bridge had a greater risk of collapse in the event of any single structural failure." A 2005 report stated that the bridge was in possible need of replacement. So... this is not an unprecedented event.
-'''Conclusion''': Accident waiting to happen, not malice.

Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Rampant Paranoia"

Latest revision as of 15:33, 26 October 2008

Introduction

The List

Navigation menu

Search