Loonie Conspiracy Theories

[D'kian]

You know many on the left (for the most part) believe the Iraq war is all about oil. It struck me as peculiar that none of the many groups on the left has come up with a tally of just how much oil have the greedy American Capitalist pigs stolen to date.

Of course they haven't because the US and her allies did not go into Iraq to steal any oil.

Still, this is far from the only widely believe loonie conspiracy on the left. During the Falklands War in the early 80s, some people thought it strange of the UK to fight at all, never mind to fight with overwhelming force, against a third-world country to preserve possesion of a handful of worthless islands. Of course there were valid reasons for Great Britain to fight. Not the least that any country that allows any other country to forcibly violate its borders, and the rights of its citizens, won't remain a country much longer.

But the conspiracy theory of the day was this:

In the year 2000 the Antarctic was to be divided among nations with land close to it. This would mean, South Africa, I suppose, Argentina, Chile, perhaps Australia and New Zeland and other small Pacific islan nations. Ah, but keeping the Falkland islands would let Britain take a piece of the South Polar continent. Therefore Margaret Thatcher had a reason to fight after all.

2000 came and went, and no partitioning of the Antarctic has occurred. Not that I was in any way surprised.

This has to be the silliest one, but hardly the most irrational. In its own way, it could have made for a reasonably good April Fool's day joke.

More irrational: the US invaded Afghanistan in order to allow Haliburton to build a pipeline (versions vary between gas an oil lines). Think of the Jupiter-sized evasions involved in such a statement.

This one is also really bad: the US entered the Balkan conflict in order to steal coal. Never mind the complete scarcity of follow up stories about massive thefts of coal deposits ni the Balkans (be it Serbia, Bosnia or Kosovo), coal is relatively plentiful and cheap (also not as useful or versatile as oil). Therefore buying it in the open market makes much better sense than bombing nations in a tribalist thrall.

Oh, and the largest reserves of coal in the world, about 33% of all known deposits, are located in, surprise, the United States of America. In fact, the coal found in America contains mroe energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia, albeit in a less usable form.

The Loony Left explanation? Well, you see, the coal has run out

[Hal]

"The US invaded Iraq because they honestly believed that they possessed weapons of mass destruction" theory seems fairly loony to me.

The "Halliburton-pipeline in Afghanistan" idea was pretty silly, but I thnk people were just trying to come up with a possible explanation why the US invaded, since it was probably the most pointless and unmotivated war in recent history. I've still not seen anyone come up with a plausible explanation of why it happened.

edit: I think the "it was a missile that hit the pentagon, not a plane" claim is probably the craziest recent popular conspiracy theory.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Hal

[Spano]

The "Halliburton-pipeline in Afghanistan" idea was pretty silly, but I thnk people were just trying to come up with a possible explanation why the US invaded, since it was probably the most pointless and unmotivated war in recent history. I've still not seen anyone come up with a plausible explanation of why it happened.

Umm, maybe it had something to do with the fact that Afghanistan was overrun by terrorists and ruled by a Taliban government that supported them. Are you saying that you honestly believe there was no reason to bring down the Taliban? If they were still in power today, and Osama still taking refuge there, you wouldn't have any problem with that? Please explain why you believe the invasion of Afghanistan was "pointless."

[D'kian]

Umm, maybe it had something to do with the fact that Afghanistan was overrun by terrorists and ruled by a Taliban government that supported them.

I think Hal is being ironic.

But I have heard people swear up and down that Bush himself staged 9/11 in order to get the Afghan pipeline to his VP.

The Pentagon missile bit is incredible. I mean, there is some video of the plane hitting, and pieces of aircraft all over the crash site. I honestly think since there was no cartoon-style airplane-shaped hole on the side of the building, some people feel (they cannot be said to think), it couldn't have been an airplane.

Oh, there's the whole Apollo hoax thing, but that one isn't exclusive to the left.

[Dismuke]

The conspiracy theories that amaze me the most are the ones that are circulating about how the World Trade Center buildings did not collapse due to the airplanes crashing into them and the subsequent fire fueled by jet fuel. Their claim is that the WTC building collapses were caused by controlled demolition and planned well in advance by agents of the Bush Administration.

I first became aware of these theories when I heard about a February 2005 fire that completely destroyed and led to a partial collapse of one of the taller buildings in Madrid. When I googled for information on the fire, I ended up at an article that sounded very knowledgeable and scientific - until I kept on reading and it became increasingly bizarre.

Turns out that there are LOTS of people who have bought into this - it is all over the Internet.

One of the cute tactics that the conspiracy theorists attempt use when debating the issue is to throw out the following to their opponents and demand that they debunk it by providing a counter example:

"Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe."

So what? And exactly how many times in the history of high rise steel buildings has a building been impacted by a jet plane with its tank nearly full of fuel? And how many of these buildings have had a structural design scheme similar to that used on the WTC?

Somehow the obvious explanations about jet planes and how they impacted with the unusual structural design of the WTC are ignored. Why let facts and logic get in the way of one's world view? Bush is the devil. Cheney is the devil. Both stand for (at least according to the Leftists) evil capitalism which is not good like virtuous communism (which one must not openly call communism, of course. "Progressive" is a much more benign sounding term.). And since the people of the Mideast really mean us no harm and their violence is only in retaliation against our fascist imperialism, on that basis, isn't it pretty obvious that our government is telling us a lie about what happened on 9-11? It's Bush's fault. His cronies at the RNC snuck into the building at night and placed explosives on key support columns - and if you don't appreciate the wisdom of this, you are a hayseed bumpkin who blindly follows simplistic idiots from flyover country who write with crayons instead listening to sophisticated, organic food munching nuanced Leftists who write with a fine quill.

Besides, everybody knows that the planes in 9-11 were really UFOs disguised to look like regular airplanes and the fire was merely used to destroy the evidence that they were UFOs.

[Eternal]

Actually 9/11 was planned and executed by Jews, and the Palestinians dancing in the streets, were really Mossad agents in disguise...

[D'kian]

One of the cute tactics that the conspiracy theorists attempt use when debating the issue is to throw out the following to their opponents and demand that they debunk it by providing a counter example:

"Never in the entire history of high rise steel buildings, has a building collapsed completely or imploded upon itself, due to a fire, no matter how severe."

So what? And exactly how many times in the history of high rise steel buildings has a building been impacted by a jet plane with its tank nearly full of fuel? And how many of these buildings have had a structural design scheme similar to that used on the WTC?

That kind of rhetorical trap is, as you point out, best avoided.

Besides, should any borderline rational person be reading this, steel buildings do collapse due to severe fires. Some do not collapse, but are dammaged beyond repair and need to be demolished. Steel softens under intense heat, making certain types of steel structures unable to continue bearing the loads placed upon them.

Any fireman will tell you as much. So would any half-competent highschool physics course, which of course isn't what you'd call readily available these days.

[MightierPen]

Besides, should any borderline rational person be reading this, steel buildings do collapse due to severe fires. Some do not collapse, but are dammaged beyond repair and need to be demolished. Steel softens under intense heat, making certain types of steel structures unable to continue bearing the loads placed upon them.

Hell, I've seen them collapse.

Has anybody looked at the latest conspiracy video about 9/11? It's called "Loose Change" and can be found on google videos. It's doing a good job of leaving me to be the only person in my school who still believes that the buildings collapsed from being hit by planes.

[D'kian]

It's doing a good job of leaving me to be the only person in my school who still believes that the buildings collapsed from being hit by planes.

It may not work, but try to point out the outright impossibility of anything other than the plane impacts causing the towers to begin collapsing from the area the planes struck.

It is unbelievable that anyone can see the evidence for themselves, live, with their own eyes, and still go fishing for some delusion to replace it.

[softwareNerd]

Conspiracy theories often use a mix of the following:

- real observations given more weight that they ought to, because they fit "the theory"

- other observations being ignored because they don't; and,

- and lies used to bolster the theory

The supposed uncanny similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy is an example.

[D'kian]

The supposed uncanny similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy is an example.

Snopes is a marvelous resource.

The Loncoln/Kennedy "similarities" remind of the following exhaustive description of one individual: "he had two eyes! and a mouth right below his nose!"

Let me back up a little. A conspiracy defined as a group of people acting covertly in concert to achieve an illegal and, are real. Any two street hoodlums who case a bank before robbing it are engaged in a conspiracy.

The thing that can't possibly be real are these massive conspiracies that aim to fool or deceive the entire world, carried out by veritable armies of operatives, accross countries, and sometimes continents, leaving no clear evidence behind.

Consider what would be needed to place explosives in the Twin Towers in order to bring them down, without any of the thousands of poeple who work there ever noticing! Or the moon landing hoax theory. It requires that a great many scientists who have examined and expetimented on samples of moon rocks, never notice what they have are garden variety terran pebbles.

And these are just two easy points. There are literally a myriad more subtle points that would need to be refuted inorder to prove a hoax or a conspiracy in either case (never mind other cases).

In short, I define a loony conspiracy theory as "A political agenda mixed with ignorance and gullibility."

[dondigitalia]

I don't remember where I got this from, but it really stuck with me:

"Conspiracy theories are unique in that they are the only theories whose entire basis is the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever." -- Unkown

[Felix]

I've read a funny one on that:

How come UFOs only abduct complete idiots?

[D'kian]

I've read a funny one on that:

How come UFOs only abduct complete idiots?

UFO freaks are closely related to conspiracists (some inermarry, thus Area 51, Hangar 18, etc etc).

What I really don't understand about those who believe in abductions, is how backwards technologically their aliens are. Supopse you're an alien who wants to learn about human physiology, where would you start? Me, I'd start at a medical school library. If that option were not available (stealthy invasion mission, for example), I should think aliens who can transverse interstellar distances would have even better non-invasive imaging and measuring tools than we do. Compare an MRI scanner to a plain X-ray unit. Ultrasouns, CAT scans, PET scans, and if we go minimally invasive all that we can learn from a little blood, minute tissue samples, even urine.

[Dismuke]

How come nobody calls them "flying saucers" anymore?

- - -

On a different note - I can actually claim to have had a real-life "UFO sighting." I was very young at the time, however, and my memory of it is rather vague.

What I remember is seeing flashing lights in the sky and my parents being puzzled by it and acting like it was a big deal. I was way too young to have had any idea what flashing lights in the sky meant or to have considered them to be especially questionable. I think the only reason that I have a memory of it was because of my parents' puzzled reaction to it.

Later on in my childhood, my parents made mention of the event on a couple of occasions - and I suspect that might have helped me keep my memory of it.

A few years ago, I asked my parents about various very early memories that I have (my first strong memories are from around age 2 or so and I have a few very vague snippets of memories from even earlier than that - mostly of events which would have been pretty traumatic for a small child). My parents were able to confirm some of my memories. Others had become somewhat distorted according to them. In a couple instances, my parents flatly denied that what I remembered had ever happened. When I asked them about the flashing lights, however, they both immediately confirmed that it had happened and told me about the details.

It happened in rural central Kansas where my father grew up and where my grandparents still lived. One evening just after sunset we were out somewhere and my parents spotted a flashing light in the northern half of the sky well above the horizon. What was unusual about the light was that it constantly changed its position. One instant it would flash at one point in the sky, the next instant it would flash at a very different point in the sky and it continued to keep flashing at various points in the northern sky in a completely random pattern for a number of minutes. My father said that all they saw was the lights and that it was impossible to make any sort of guess as to how far away they were. What completely baffled him about it was the fact that, however far away they were, the distance between the points where they would appear from one moment to the next would have had to have been a good number of miles. If what they saw was a single object, it would have had to have been moving at a great rate of speed - and he could not think of what type of object would go from point to point across the sky in such an erratic pattern.

They never found out what it was and did not hear of any news accounts of other people seeing the same thing. At the time, the USA was still in the Cold War with the USSR and the military often used to do various flyovers in that part of the country. My father's best guess as to what it could have been was perhaps the military was perhaps doing some sort of experiments or tests on new weapons systems or something.

So, on that basis, I can actually say that I saw a UFO.