Talk:Denver Airport conspiracy theories

	This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes We need more material for this page, because it's ridiculously popular (hence "HIGH" importance).

HA!

This article amuses me. A relative who works there once told me about "Concourse D" (which hasn't been built yet, and there are currently no plans to build it) which refers to a secret (and apparently invisible) runway several miles to the north where government jets and black helicopters can land in privacy.

It's also notable that private government jets, like the ones that belong to Saudi princes or other foreign government officials, are usually parked in a location visible from the highway (I remember seeing a gold-painted 747 at one time, but forgot who it belonged to). -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So you might know. When obama comes to town, does he use DIa? or one of the military bases? or what... GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

PS does the devil broco fit in anywhere? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The "devil Bronco" is mentioned in the article in passing. I haven't heard of the president using DIA...but I know he's landed at Buckley AFB (makes sense, given he's flying Air Force One). -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Close Encounters

There's a bunch of stuff at the usual places (ATS/GLP/Icke) about a set of co-ordinates in Close Encounters of the Third Kind supposedly matching Denver Airport... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread667310/pg1 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1638535/pg1 and http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=184571 Sophie^Wilder 21:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Airport shapes

And what about Heathrow Airport's layout? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What about it? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one with a layout which 'some people' think has another meaning. Anyone care to develop the airport version of [1] (and not just beasties)? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

First time I've ever heard this claim. What is Heathrow supposed to symobolise then? And did its symbolism change when terminal 4 and 5 were built? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A Google search brings up one, just one, YouTube clip which claims that the runways make a pentagram - oops, sorry, hexagram. Well, whoop-di-doo. One nutter does not a conspiracy make. Oh, and if you're prepared to waste 1:54 of your life then, yes, three sets of runways at 60 degrees to each other do indeed, when you project them further than they actually run, make a hexagram. Shock, horror! Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the animals on the underground, whilst very amusing, has bugger all to do with conspiracies. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really had better things to do with my life than search that kind of shit out. TBH if Heathrow IS part of a conspiracy then quite frankly we are all safe. It was one of the worst sites they could have chosen for the UK's hub airport when they first started building it. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

First time contributing so apologies for any errors in formatting. This section compares the number of runways and how many "available runways" there are between Denver airport and it's predecessor. As a recreational pilot I just wanted to point out that no airport utilizes ALL it's runways at once (unless all the runways are facing the same direction). On any given day, there are "active" and "inactive" runways depending entirely on the direction the wind is blowing. Most airplanes require takeoff to be in a windward direction, but can tolerate crosswinds up to a certain angle, which is why most big airports have a sort of "squarish" shape when seen from the air, with sets of parallel runways running perpendicular to each other to allow operations to continue no matter what direction the wind is blowing from (this also helps explain the alleged "swastika" design). My point is- airports do not sacrifice efficiency by having runways that cross, because unless wind speed is zero, the only runways which will be usable are runways which are parallel to each other. You NEVER see simultaneous operations from perpendicular runways in the US- or anywhere else in the world to my knowledge, in part also because of the added safety risk of potential collisions. ^{— Unsigned, by: Corrigancr / talk / contribs} 22:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added some explanation about crosswinds imposing limits on runway availability. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I like even mentioning the number of runways. It dilutes the rebuttal of "Stapleton was a perfectly fine airport" with what I consider an irrelevancy. Runway length and noise abatement issues are much more to the point. I'm tempted to cut the whole crosswind runway thing from the article.

For your amusement, a major limiting factor of an airplane's crosswind performance is rudder authority. Landing in a crosswind requires what's called an uncoordinated cross-controlled slipping attitude, or crabbing, with the upwind wing low, and the rudder applied opposite to the way it's used in coordinated flight. If the rudder hasn't got the oomph to line the fuselage up with the runway, then there is a risk of exposing the landing gear to more side force than it can stand. That could make for an exciting arrival, the kind of thing best reserved for action movies. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the number of runways something conspiracists bring up? It's listed as if it is one - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What I've found so far looks like reporting or commentary on the conspiracy theories, not original sources for the "fewer runways" part. The RW article section is a bit diffuse on the subject, not exactly a clean text pointing the casual reader directly at the core of the silliness. Maybe "eye-glazing" is the term I'm looking for. It's on my copyediting to-do list. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A sword can cut both ways

Derogative expressions like "their rants" usually doesn't signal a clear, much less a neutral mind. The author's term, "willful ignorance", boomerangs. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gj / talk / contribs}

What do you think the article is willfully ignorant about? RationalWiki doesn't have a neutral mind, it follows the orders of the lizard men who beam instructions to us from the dark side of the moon.--Marlow (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we expand this at all?

This article is pretty popular with people, gets tweeted a lot. Is there any more material we can expand it with? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we could think up some more conspiracy theories for it. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In this age of homogenized public spaces, like airports, how does 1) an organiazation get a green light for a massive art work depicting dead children and a frightening creature in a gas mask in an environment associated w/ fear & security alerts; 2) is there any public discussion about this art (other than in the conspiracy context) or is this art largely ignored by the people who come in contact w/ it? (& if so, how? ... a topic for a whole other discussion) 3). Arethere any other airports w/ similar provacative displays? Thanks. ---- columbo

theory -> theories?

This appears to be multiple theories, not a single overarching theory. Any objections to moving to Denver Airport conspiracy theories? - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

moar?

This is not a fantastic article, but might be minable for more material - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why, we have our first voulenteer! *pushes shovel at you* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The actual conspiracy

It is actually a marketing device - getting people to look at the website/coming to see the artworks etc and then using the shops/the actual planes.

And the conspiracists #do it all for free#.

This thinking also applies in other cases. 31.49.51.55 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New World Airport Commission

I find it odd that in the article it initially states that the body doesn’t exist then later in it says it was a group of local politicians and sponsors (which I believe is correct). I think that needs to be rewritten as it seems that the article contradicts itself. I think the intention was that the body is not official but an unofficial group of sponsors, but I don’t think the article puts that across well. Think it needs to be altered.—WMS (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)