The truth about 4/29 the government doesn’t want you to know

Date:August 6, 2007 / year-entry #287
Orig Link:
Comments:    11
Summary:With the loss of the Weekly World News, I'll have to rely on the trustworthy Internet to keep me informed of government conspiracies. I happen to be partial to 4/, which uncovers the strange coincidences and inconsistencies in the "official" explanation of the tanker crash and fire on April 29, 2007 that destroyed a highway...

With the loss of the Weekly World News, I'll have to rely on the trustworthy Internet to keep me informed of government conspiracies. I happen to be partial to 4/, which uncovers the strange coincidences and inconsistencies in the "official" explanation of the tanker crash and fire on April 29, 2007 that destroyed a highway overpass in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This site is so noteworthy, even The Los Angeles Times sang its praises.)

My favorite factoid: The only way Governor Schwarzenneger could have gotten to the scene in time was if he was already en route when the explosion occurred, proving that the explosion was no accident.

Comments (11)
  1. ace says:

    I’d really like to know can anybody who believes this stuff explain where’s the proof that Arnie’s photo shooting wasn’t done on some following night after the crash.

    Like, elementary…

  2. Scot Boyd says:

    Or perhaps he didn’t drive from Sacremento.  Maybe the governor can get a helicopter ride when he needs one.

  3. James Schend says:

    This is like Slashdot, people commenting without reading the link.

    Ace, Scott Boyd: Perhaps, and JUST PERHAPS, the linked-to site is a spoof of conspiracy sites? And the "evidence" for conspiracy is specifically chosen to be ridiculous? Just maybe!

  4. mcgurk says:

    Don’t laugh.  Already presidential candidates from both parties have pandered directly and indirectly to the Truther movement.

    Every red blooded American… strike that, human… has the right to be fucking stupid.  But there comes a point when that stupidity, whether natural or willful, reaches evil.  The point where nonfeasance becomes malfeasance.  

    The sad thing about all of this is that the website may very well be a spoof.  However, it is done 100% straight, making it impossible to tell apart from other Truther sites.  If I had to guess, I’d guess it was a spoof.  But only because it directly matches the tone and paranoia of other conspiracy sites over such a non-event.

  5. mgroves says:

    It’s totally a spoof, and well done, too.  I had a good laugh.

  6. T Man says:

    Another debunking of the "official" explanation of the sinking of the Titanic.  I give you, Unfastened Coins:

  7. Balaji says:

    That site is hilarious. It was practically required reading in my office for weeks after the accident.

  8. Cooney says:

    "Witnesses say it did not feel like an earthquake. Instead of the familiar rolling and shaking of seismic waves, there was one sudden jolt. Exactly 13 minutes after “4/29″."

    Yeah, this has gotta be a spoof. Of course, I’ve run into people who actually think this is a good argument.

  9. Reality is a commodity says:

    It is interesting to think that people honestly believe that thousands of people could remain quiet on all these conspiracies: a controlled demolition of the WTC would have taken hundreds if not thousands or people to accomplish, and then there is the planning and oversight.

    Let alone assuming that the government is even competent.  When was the last time it did something well?

  10. Leo Davidson says:

    Whichever explanation of the WTC you believe you’re believing a conspiracy theory of one form or another. It’s interesting that most people accept, without question, the conspiracy theories handed to us by our governments and mainstream media without even realising they are conspiracy theories most of the time.

    Remember that the media is stone-cold wrong whenever they report on a subject you know about in detail. Ask other people about subjects they know about and it seems easy to extrapolate that the media is wrong most of the time about just about everything and, while interesting and a good starting point to discover what’s going on in the world, not particularly trustworthy or reliable when it comes to explaining things. (Whether it be because of laziness, bias, agenda, worrying about ratings rather than facts, or taking things from other sources at face value when things may be different in reality. I think it’s a mixture of all of those things.)

    This isn’t to say I believe all the conspiracy theories. I don’t. I simply believe that we should be consistent with what we label a conspiracy theory and that we should be cynical about all media, stories and explanations where anyone has anything to gain from spinning or twisting the truth.

  11. eye5600 says:

    Leo, yes the media is always wrong, but not 100% wrong. I would say they seem20% wrong, but of that 20%, they are right half the time, and you are right half the time. So, the media manages about 90% right. That’s on the facts. On opinions, there is no telling.

    Most of these theories carry the notion that "the government" is a closed organization and did something in secret, but government in the US isn’t closed at all. A citizen can talk to most anyone about most anything with a little persistence. In fact, with a little persistence, he can become part of most any government activity. And the government can’t keep secrets worth a damn. Do you remember Congress having public debates about "covert aid to the contras"?

Comments are closed.

*DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN THIS CONTENT. If you are the owner and would like it removed, please contact me. The content herein is an archived reproduction of entries from Raymond Chen's "Old New Thing" Blog (most recent link is here). It may have slight formatting modifications for consistency and to improve readability.

WHY DID I DUPLICATE THIS CONTENT HERE? Let me first say this site has never had anything to sell and has never shown ads of any kind. I have nothing monetarily to gain by duplicating content here. Because I had made my own local copy of this content throughout the years, for ease of using tools like grep, I decided to put it online after I discovered some of the original content previously and publicly available, had disappeared approximately early to mid 2019. At the same time, I present the content in an easily accessible theme-agnostic way.

The information provided by Raymond's blog is, for all practical purposes, more authoritative on Windows Development than Microsoft's own MSDN documentation and should be considered supplemental reading to that documentation. The wealth of missing details provided by this blog that Microsoft could not or did not document about Windows over the years is vital enough, many would agree an online "backup" of these details is a necessary endeavor. Specifics include:

<-- Back to Old New Thing Archive Index