The chances of intelligent extraterrestrials being or even resembling reptiles of earth (let alone resembling any earth-like lifeform) is very unlikely, that it would be remarkable just on that point alone.
In that sense, how would you define an alien reptile (Cold-blooded? Eats insects or rodents? Scaly skin? Infrared perception? Forked tongues? Loves dry climates or heat rocks? etc.) and why the assumption that they are so?
Kozmik, if the illuminati did not rule the world, would the world be better off or not?
Why does it lead to that?
What specific evidence do you have for this? Please name two or three aspects of 9/11 that lead to the conclusion that the illuminauti was behind 9/11, and please give a coherent argument for each one.
Same question as for 9/11
I’ve watched The Matrix several times. I’ve seen the sequels and the animatrix. I can’t make head or tails out of your theories.
Whether I trust The New York Times or not, I read it every day. It is not a matter of trust - I question everything I read in The New York Times. If I happen to trust it in some situations then fine. That’s only a function of reading it every day.
Alright, fine, those are beliefs. My theory is that with respect to the Pope and the Queen and the heads of government there is a “power behind the throne”, that there is a shadow government.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Because one of the supposed traits is being Rh-negative.
That’s debatable.
Because the UFO that crashed in Roswell was not from earth.
9/11, unlike the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was an intelligence failure in addition to being a security failure. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11 - one - 9/11, the absolute event, was fundamentally different than the other three. I believe the Illuminati was behind 9/11 not just because it happened (intelligence failure) but because it succeeded. They knew that the towers would fall. Unlike the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where, of course, the towers did not fall.
9/11 - arguably - changed everything. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing led to improved security; 9/11 led to overhaul of national security. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were crimes; 9/11 was an act of war that led to at least two wars. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing resulted in legistlation, building security, discussion of the nature of dissent, and, of course, conspiracy theories. 9/11 resulted in more than that.
Apparently you can’t decide if you trust it or not. Maybe you’re going in for all this conspiracy junk because you’re bored and this lets you feel like a spy. The fact that you read the Times is not remarkable or even really interesting; people are interested in what you think and why you choose to do whatever you’re doing. The problem is you can’t even explain your choice of newspaper, let alone a global conspiracy. If you believe the New York Times is controlled by a global conspiracy, reading it is pointless because its sole intent would be to mislead and misinform you. To believe otherwise - that there is a real conspiracy that wants to remain secret but is willingly giving away hints to its own existence and agenda - is absurd, and you have completely failed to explain why you prefer the New York Times to any other newspaper. (Because they ran one of your letters once and it felt good?) If you’re just bored of your life and looking for meaning, I think you should get help and pick a different hobby.
Awesome I am an O neg, besides being a universal donor but now I am apparently eligible for membership in the Illuminati. Hope it pays well.
Thanks **Koz
Capt**
Rather than attempt to wade through the morass of waffling and non-answers you gave above, I’d just like to point out that the people who flew the planes weren’t sure the towers would collapse. They hoped for that result, but were surprised at the results. So, of the spare few verifiable facts you posted, you still got them wrong.
You’re talkin’ 'bout when the Duke of Clarence refused to take seriously the New York Times (which replaced England’s original York Times following a fire that destroyed their printing press) headline “King Richard Royally Pissed at Bro,” right?
That’s exactly what an Illuminatus would say.
It’s a “tell”.
Kozmik, are you happy, generally? I understand that is a sort of vague question. But I can’t imagine being generally happy or content knowing pretty much I’m being lied to most of the time and perhaps planning to kill or harm me (vaccinations, terrorists, insane mass murderers, etc.) It seems that would be a sad and tiring way to live.
On the other hand, perhaps on some level, it’s comforting for a CT to view the world this way. I can’t imagine why because my mind doesn’t often go there, but it’s got to be self-comforting, or affirming, or something.
Have you ever searched the NYT archives for articles on conspiracy theories?
Why?
Think about that very carefully. The way you answer that (without cryptic one word answer or cites that don’t mean what you think they say) will prove what type of person you are. If you can write in your own words a detailed answer with facts figures and data of any kind then you are a well meaning, thoughtful person who I happen to totally disagree with.
If you answer that like you have every single other question, you are a complete nutjob.
And I’ll give you a hint. Just because there are people of wealth and influence that don’t have elected jobs does not meant that the Illuminati (or lizard people) exist. Or your new favorite word, Anarch, exists. (I know you just found that one or you would have trotted that out long ago) That is just more yada yada yada logic. (Koch brothers yada yada yada Illuminati)
Although the “What’s the evidence the Illuminati were behind 9/11?” question didn’t get a useful answer, let’s press on with a related question: What was the Illuminati’s motive in perpetrating 9/11?
I’m O-positive. Which explains why I got the “Starve a mosquito–Give blood” t-shirt instead of the “Welcome to the New World Order” one.
Shut the F*** Up, I have people that can take care of you
To your upthread question. To debunk Truthers I actually read the NIST report on WTC 9, the one NYFD let burn due to lack of water. It took forever and the meaty engineering parts were very difficult to understand but it is clear to the layman what happened.
Short Version
Flaming debris lights fires
Given time and no water, horizontal beams on floors 7,9,11&13 expand due to heating and come disconnected from vertical beam #79, under “penthouse”
Collapse
The really telling thing in the report are the recommendations particularly this one
Reevaluate open plan floors that are possible because of long horizontal beams and or connection to vertical beams systems.
Now I am pulling that all off my head and may have some misstatements but generally this is correct. Also I recognize that CTers are sure the NIST is in on the conspiracy, a logical fallacy in itself, but really!!!
On one hand, you have a crappy website and some you tube videos
The other hand, you have the Engineers, Materials Scientists, Architects etc, that built the modern world. You know that pretty safe place we in the developed world, where buildings, bridges and dams rarely fail. Also is the same group that investigates the rare failure that does happen and finds out why and how, cause and prevention. In every day life the NIST, NFPA, ASME etc keep us safer and we rely on them but the moment we have the most spectacular terror assault they are suddenly suspect and infiltrated by the Illuminati
:dubious:
Sorry for the long rant
Capt
So, are we talking the Visitors from the television series “V”, or Sleestaks from Land of the Lost?
I hope it’s Sleestaks, because they had groovy crystal tech and LotL had the better theme song.
“Them” of course. Want to buy a pair of sunglasses or contacts?
Capt
If its sole intent is to mislead and misinform then at least I am aware of what I can be mislead and misinformed about.
Then why didn’t the person who flew Flight 175 crash it into the North Tower?
Yes.
Yes.
Because I look at how the world is divided politically. You want facts, figures, and data? Wikipedia lists 242 countries by population. I know what that cite means; it is clearly stated in the beginning of article - “This is a list of countries by population.” You want to dispute the definition of “country” and argue that some of those countries do not belong on that list? Go ahead.
So I look at the world divided politically and I see China - with over one billion people, The United States - the world’s sole superpower, Russia - the former Soviet Union, Germany - in the recent past Nazi Germany, the United Kingdom - in the distant past a worldwide empire, North Korea - one of the few remaining Communists states, and, last but certainly not least, the Vatican - pre-Reformation directly or indirectly the center of power over the whole world.
And I think about how power is divided in the world. I think about how the President of China has influence if not control over one billion people. I think about how the President of the United States is perhaps the most powerful person on the planet. I think about how the dictators of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany - Stalin and Hitler - were no different than any of the other dictators in modern times – in power, out of power. I think about how the British royal family is among the most preeminent families on earth. I think about how Kim Jong-un, one of the youngest dictators in world history, is decidedly a 21st century dictator. I think about how Pope Benedict XVI is besides being the successor to Saint Peter, the successor to Pope Julius II who, in 1504, actually created precedence among the kings of Europe.
I consider all this and I accept the plausibility of a shadow government and a power behind the throne. You can disagree with those conclusions. Just because power existed in the past, exists in the present, will exist in the future does not mean that there couldn’t be something that supersedes power. Think about that very carefully.
The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War.
Why would that matter? Both towers were hit within 17 minutes of each other causing catastrophic damage that escalated in both collapsing.
It was a coordinated terrorist attack. Why is it so difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist group can hijack four airliners (which is largely precedented) and aim them toward two sky scrapers, the Pentagon, and presumably the US Capitol?
Yet, instead, secret reptilians from lightyears away orchestrated the US government and Al Qaeda (unless you believe the hijackers were somehow part of the ruse?) to stage these attacks to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan? Why? To what end?
Hate and violence are hallmarks of humanity at its worst. If history is any clue, it’s all so random, chaotic, and frankly, unsurprising that such a thing would eventually happen.
People come into and go out of power by vastly different means, circumstances and over vastly different populations and wealth. Why would a shadow government or aliens need to orchestrate this? People and cultures are hugely different and gregarious, and notoriously xenophobic and/or conservative. Religion only adds gas to the flames.
So, without your Illuminati and the influence on TPTB which you describe, what kind of purely human world do you think would crystalize?
But, after 9/11, invading Iraq made absolutely no sense in that regard. If you’re going to coordinate an elaborate, unholy conspiracy, why not make it look like Hussein had nukes or bio-weapons armed and ready? Or shit, even detonate one over the US?
You could be misled or misinformed about anything. Figuring out what you might be misinformed about (without knowing what the truth is) could not possible be worth this much time and money. So I don’t think this is a real representation of your beliefs. Why the New York Times, and why bother?
Kozmic, which SDMB posters are illuminati?