Because it wasn’t his mission. Why do you even bother answering questions if you don’t have basic knowledge of the situation?
By most authoritative sources, this is a gross numerical exaggeration (for instance, this site lists a maximum of 196 countries).
Have you considered that Wikipedia (whose edits are open to everyone, including Illuminati) is misleading you? And where does that leave the rest of your theories?
Ultimately, are we not all dependent for information on sources easily infiltratable by those who wish to do us harm?
Do we even know who is really editing my posts?
Why do you think an extraterrestrial UFO crashed at Roswell?
Why do you believe that the reaction to 9/11 indicates the presence of a global conspiracy, and not simply the reaction of a panicked nation, a government that had to be seen to be doing something, and, at most, a faction within that government that cynically saw 9/11 as a chance to fulfill a long time plan: the invasion of Iraq?
I’m completely lost with your link to the shadow government wikipedia page. Can you explain using your own words why the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany reveal an Illuminati conspiracy, instead of merely being the brutal totalitarian regimes they appear to be?
These questions are in response to your reply to me in post #363.
There are powerful people who have power and influence. Some are heads of state others wield economic power. Yada yada yada. There are lizard Illuminati ruling the world. So what do you want me to think about? You are saying nothing.
So, if the Iraq War was one of the Illuminati’s goals for 9/11, why didn’t any of the Illuminatuses at some point say, “You know, we oughta plant a few Iraqis on these planes. Otherwise, we’re gonna have to gin up some bogus story about WMDs or something to kick off phase two”?
And, just for the heck of it, what’s the Illuminati’s motive for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is illogical.
Your definition of a successful terrorist attack is one that leads to the collapse of buildings. This may have been the hope, or even the goal, but it’s never any guarantee when dealing with such complicated physics and unprecedented techniques. Terrorists attacks are blunderbuss-type attacks in hoping to cause the most casualties and damage as possible with one blow, hinging on the element of surprise.
Many of these CTs seem to incorporate a type of Misleading Vividness fallacy, which it seems you’re doing here.
The fact the towers fell on 9/11 is merely indication that it takes a lot more that a truck full of fertilizer to bring down these enormous skyscrapers. The world now know what it takes:* A couple 767s with a ton of jet fuel flying into them at high speeds and taking out several floors in a catastrophic explosion on a top-heavy building supported by a steel framework which becomes very malleable at high temperatures.*
If the truck had been positioned closer to the foundation of the North Tower building it might have worked. That probably would’ve killed far, far more people than September 11th did.
Agreed, but if you are working for/with the Illuminati you have access to all the tech info and parking access you need to make your/their goal.
Capt
Kozmik do you think Alex Jones is a credible source?
The pilot of Flight 175 not crashing the plane into the North Tower indicated that they knew that the towers would fall.
It is not difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist group can hijack four airliners. It is not difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist group can aim them toward two skycrapers and the Pentagon. It is difficult to believe that a well-funded terrorist group can succeed in hitting the Pentagon and succeed in causing both skyscraper to fall.
New World Order
Because they are their pawns.
Not the world that you know. Not the world as it was at the end of the 20th century.
Because they didn’t need to.
Because The New York Times is an accurate representation of reality.
I don’t know. I have my suspicions though.
His mission was to crash the plane into one of the towers. He had the same mission as the one piloting Flight 11. At 9:00 AM on that day it appeared that the others’ mission had “failed” - the North Tower was still standing. Why wouldn’t he crash into the North Tower? Or (since you want to quibble) why wouldn’t he have crashed into the South Tower near the base of the tower with the aim of having the tower toppling over?
Yes. That leaves me with only one option - using multiple sources.
Yes.
No. We only know that your posts were edited
Because of things that happened after Roswell - Sputnik, NASA, DARPA.
I’ll start with the last example you give - “a faction within that government that cynically saw 9/11 as a chance to fulfill a long time plan: the invasion of Iraq”. That is believable and plausible. There’s the PNAC, members of which became members of the Bush administration. The next example - “a government that had to be seen to be doing something”. Well, the government did do something. Besides the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s the War on Terror, the USA PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, the 9/11 Commission and countless other responses by the government after 9/11. The last example - “the reaction of a panicked nation”. There wasn’t a “panicked nation” after the Oklahoma City bombing. Why was there a “panicked nation” after 9/11? Why would there be a “panicked nation” anyway?
Yes.
I want you to watch or re-watch The Matrix and think about how we can be lied to and who could do the lying. I want you to think about the possibility of Reptilians. I want you to think about the plausibility of the Anarch. I want you to think about the difference between possibility and plausibility. I want you to think about how Jean Baudrillard called 9/11, “the absolute event”. I want you to think about how heads of government give an illusion of power. I want you to think about how there could be a “power behind the throne”.
“We’re the Illuminati. We can gin up some bogus story about WMDs. Besides, it will be good propaganda.”
The same as their motive for all wars - deception and control.
No.
I hope you realize your short cyrptic answers do not make you seem deep. They show you have not thought through your ideas.
The pilot of Flight 175 not crashing the plane into the North Tower indicated that they knew that the towers would fall.
No it indicates that they wanted both towers hit for maximum effect.
It is not difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist group can hijack four airliners. It is not difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist group can aim them toward two skycrapers and the Pentagon. It is difficult to believe that a well-funded terrorist group can succeed in hitting the Pentagon and succeed in causing both skyscraper to fall.
It happened so I have no trouble believing it. If you have no trouble believing they could pull it off it makes no sense that you can’t believe it happened.
New World Order
Except that didn’t happen.
Because they are their pawns.
A nonsense cyrptic answer.
Not the world that you know. Not the world as it was at the end of the 20th century.
A total non-answer that I’m sure you think makes you seem deep. It shows the opposite.
Because they didn’t need to.
Again a cyrptic non-answer. Why didn’t they need too? What was the purpose to having the war go forward and then have the support for it collapse? There was no NWO. Bush is vilified. The US doesn’t have more oil. The Iraqi people are marginally better off now but the potential is for the country to go either way. So why not have WMDs found? They set up the whole thing in the first place why not have the narrative play out?
Because The New York Times is an accurate representation of reality.
That is crazy talk. If they are part of the conspiracy then they can not be accurate in any way. They are just feeding you what the lizards want you to see.
His mission was to crash the plane into one of the towers. He had the same mission as the one piloting Flight 11. At 9:00 AM on that day it appeared that the others’ mission had “failed” - the North Tower was still standing. Why wouldn’t he crash into the North Tower? Or (since you want to quibble) why wouldn’t he have crashed into the South Tower near the base of the tower with the aim of having the tower toppling over?
They weren’t great pilots and flying at 400 knots. They hit where they could. Hitting the base would be very difficult because of the other buildings around it. The plane that was going for the Pentagon was aiming at the largest office building in the world. And he still bounced it on the ground before impact. And the other mission did not fail. The other building was on fire. The mission was to hit both buildings.
Yes. That leaves me with only one option - using multiple sources.
And yet you use the lizard run New York Times as your main source.
I don’t know. I have my suspicions though.
Bugga bugga
Yes.
Very deep and mysterious.
No. We only know that your posts were edited
That was sarcasm of course. Are you immune?
Because of things that happened after Roswell - Sputnik, NASA, DARPA.
Roswell yadda yadda yadda DARPA. So we find an interstellar vehicle. And from that the Russians barely get a small beeping sphere into orbit using equipment derived from pre-Roswell German rockets. Look at the history of rockets. There was no big post-Roswell jump in technology. The technology evolved from Goddard through the Nazis into the space program. No need for lizards or greys.
*I’ll start with the last example you give - “a faction within that government that cynically saw 9/11 as a chance to fulfill a long time plan: the invasion of Iraq”. That is believable and plausible. There’s the PNAC, members of which became members of the Bush administration. The next example - “a government that had to be seen to be doing something”. Well, the government did do something. Besides the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s the War on Terror, the USA PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, the 9/11 Commission and countless other responses by the government after 9/11. The last example - “the reaction of a panicked nation”. There wasn’t a “panicked nation” after the Oklahoma City bombing. Why was there a “panicked nation” after 9/11? Why would there be a “panicked nation” anyway? *
Another non-answer. Either you didn’t understand the question or you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes.
So you can explain but you won’t. How about throwing in some links that do not say anything about what you are talking about.
I want you to watch or re-watch The Matrix and think about how we can be lied to and who could do the lying. I want you to think about the possibility of Reptilians. I want you to think about the plausibility of the Anarch. I want you to think about the difference between possibility and plausibility. I want you to think about how Jean Baudrillard called 9/11, “the absolute event”. I want you to think about how heads of government give an illusion of power. I want you to think about how there could be a “power behind the throne”.
There are no reptilians. I thought about it. Its not a possibility.
The Anarch. :rolleyes: I know thats a new word you stumbled upon in your internet travels. Or else you would have sprung it on us before. So did you read Eumeswil? I hope you did in the original German. By the way it is a novel. Novel = fiction. Junger was not writing a history book. But I doubt you have read any deeper than the definition he gave the word.
As for the rest of your statement its a bunch of JAQing off nonsense.
“We’re the Illuminati. We can gin up some bogus story about WMDs. Besides, it will be good propaganda.”
Another nonsense answer.
The same as their motive for all wars - deception and control.
But according to you they already have control. In what way does it make their control more controlly?
*Kozmik do you think Alex Jones is a credible source?
No. *
Why not? He has many of the same views as you. Why would you not believe that someone who agrees with you is a credible source? He happens to be a very smart guy who can articulate his views a hell of a lot better than you. I think he is nothing more than a carny playing to the rubes but he is good at it. Right up your alley. Although I don’t think he believes in lizards. Maybe you can change his mind?
Kozmik may not view Alex Jones as credible due to the scary possibility that Jones is in fact a shape-shifting reptile.
Has anyone disproved this theory? I didn’t think so.
And the fact that we didn’t read about this in the N.Y. Times proves that the Times is part of the conspiracy.
Worse than that Donald Rumsfeld never said he is not a lizard. Therefore: Lizard.
I wrote my answers out in the same way I anticipated you would write out your replies.
So why didn’t the pilot crash it into the base of the tower, for maximum effect?
Alot of people on that day couldn’t believe that it happened.
Except that it will happen.
In your opinion.
If you didn’t (or won’t) read the book, at least read the summary.
The purpose to have the war go forward and then have the support for its collapse was propaganda. Yes, Bush was vilfied. That was the whole point. And from now on anything mentioning Iraq will mention WMD and how Bush was villified and the war was criticized. The narrative did play out.
But then I would have already anticipated for that.
The mission was to hit and destroy both targets.
NYT is not my main source. My main source is SDMB.
Ok.
I know you use sarcasm.
I knew you used sarcasm. What do you mean, “Are you immune”? Are you still being sarcastic?
Going to the moon within 10 years of NASA is a big jump in technology.
Or I didn’t understand the examples given.
I did understand the question. :mad: I will answer the question.
Wow. That was quick. Now I know how much thought you put into things.
You assume too much.
Do you have something against Jean Baudrillard?
Another well-thought-out reply.
To be in control and to make it appear to not be in control. That is deception and control. Have you read Sun-Tzu?
Because no person can be a source. I am not a source; however, the SDMB is a source.
I probably shouldn’t wade in here but I’m a bit of a …er realist conspiracy theorist I guess. Shit I’d probably entertain some theory that the CIA and narco cartels exploited 9/11 to make sure the spic…er heroin continues to flow.
Or that 9/11 was an intentional intelligence failure to allow a pretext for invasion in Iraq.
Is there a point where conspiracy theory gets too mundane to count?
Kozmik
Two things
You realize that it would be darn near impossible to hit the bases of the twin tower because they were surrounded by a bunch of big buildings.
The Apollo Missions were an engineering triumph but it just a extension of 1940s tech, there was no woo or alien intervention needed. The Germans who developed the V-2 dreamed of space and figured out what it would take to get to the moon, ya know the math. There is nothing here but a ton of hard work and solid engineering. Why don’t you come down and check out the Johnson Space Center down here in Houston, I will happily go on the tour with you, it’s been a while.
Capt
You’re resorting to sophistry to disguise your lack of coherent reasoning. It’s not working, and you are contradicting yourself all over the place.
I’m not sure that would have been more effective, and crashing a plane into a big building is a lot easier than crashing it into a building at ground level in a dense area. The plane that hit the Pentagon skipped off the ground at least once, and it did less damage to the building as a result.
It won’t, because it’s made up. This is obvious because you have no evidence and the reasoning you are using is a mess.
I wrote my answers out in the same way I anticipated you would write out your replies.
You were mostly answering questions from other people not me. So why answer them the way I would reply? Why not answer their questions in detail?
So why didn’t the pilot crash it into the base of the tower, for maximum effect?
Because they managed to hit higher up. You question their ability to pull it off. Then you question why they didn’t pull it off perfectly. You are contradicting yourself. JAQing off.
Except that it will happen.
Why? Show your work.
If you didn’t (or won’t) read the book, at least read the summary.
What kind of idiotic response is that? I was responding to your non-answer of “Not the world that you know. Not the world as it was at the end of the 20th century.” You said nothing about a book. Are you having conversations with me that are not appearing in print? Because that was a total non sequitur.
The purpose to have the war go forward and then have the support for its collapse was propaganda. Yes, Bush was vilfied. That was the whole point. And from now on anything mentioning Iraq will mention WMD and how Bush was villified and the war was criticized. The narrative did play out.
Why? Makes no sense. After the fact you can always says “Thats how they meant it to happen.” Doesn’t mean it makes sense. Maybe it comforts you to think there is that much order in life. The rest of us live on Earth.
But then I would have already anticipated for that.
So you anticipate that everything you read is false. Then why read it?
The mission was to hit and destroy both targets.
And?
*NYT is not my main source. My main source is SDMB. *
The SDMB is mostly a collection of opinions. It is not a primary source except in very rare occasions in GQ.
I knew you used sarcasm. What do you mean, “Are you immune”? Are you still being sarcastic?
It wasn’t me that was being sarcastic. I am not the only one replying to this thread. Are you immune to sarcasm?
Wow. That was quick. Now I know how much thought you put into things.
The fact that you think contemplating about lizard people needs to take a lot of time means you are batshit crazy. If there was even the smallest hint of a hint of proof that it could possibly be real I would give it some deeper thought. I’m waiting.
You assume too much.
What part?That I assumed that it comes from a work of German fiction? No thats true. That I assumed it was a new discovery of yours? Well you only pulled that term out of the air recently so I’m pretty confident. But if you can show where you used it earlier I’ll admit to being wrong. You misinterpreted the novel earlier than I thought.
Do you have something against Jean Baudrillard?
Never met the man. Seems like a big windbag. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t believe in lizard people. But I know you are using what he wrote to somehow fit in with your loony opinions. I really doubt he would agree with you on anything.
Another well-thought-out reply.
Exactly what it deserved. You are shoehorning motives of fictional people to fit your “theory” without a hint of proof. And answering questions with non-answers.
*To be in control and to make it appear to not be in control. That is deception and control. Have you read Sun-Tzu? *
Yes. And? Did he say anything about the Illuminati or Lizard People? Talking to you about scholarly works reminds me of a Fish Called Wanda.
Or The Princess Bride: I do not think it means what you think it means.
Because no person can be a source. I am not a source; however, the SDMB is a source.
Do you realize that makes no sense? Of course a person can be a source. Where do you think information comes from? It just doesn’t appear out of thin air. But I’ll rephrase the question. Do you think infowars.net and prisonplanet.com are credible sources?
A Pos. I’m fucked.
Yeah what he said. The math was able to be done on slide rules. The rockets had much less computer power than your phone. We had our own group of Nazis that helped their program. There was no Lizard tech involved. Unless you believe science fiction as fact.