Prop more time then you have and enough time not to be closed minded to the idea that it could very well be possible...

honestly i didn't even notice that myself because i guess the date given seemed unimportant compared to what he actually says but as i said i never spoke of the date because its completely irrelevant

""But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

When you include this, it becomes clear he is not talking about some ultra secretive society who somehow feels the need to plant these obvious clues to their existance, but is in fact talking about privacy and the freedom of the press."

a. I really don't know what that video is supposed to prove. Obviously there is some sort of plan for the middle east, that has been apparent since the 90s. It has been a turbulent region for quite some time and America has clearly shown that it wishes to impart some sort of stability to the region (however it has failed at every turn)...However, to say, as a leader of this country "in order to persuade the people of America, in 10-15 years, to go to war against a region that we were already on the verge of war with and have been in and out of wars for the last decade or so, we will plan to execute a false terrorist plot, killing many important people, and in the planning of this plot, we will leave clues pointing to the fact that this is a massive scale hoax throughout pop culture." The fact that anyone can believe that what I just typed is logical astonishes me. I do think that the government used 9/11 as a means of rallying the country to war, just as the government used Sandy Hook as a means of rallying the country to gun control (unfortunately that movement failed) but that isn't evidence that the 9/11 was an inside job.

Theres this principle called Occam's razor which states the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is the one that should be selected. There is not enough evidence to make the conclusion you are trying to make, but there are so many insane assumptions that need to be made that it is impossible for any reasonable person to accept these conclusions as anything resembling fact. 

b/d. But to say "well, theres a cube there (one of the most common 3D shapes), must be the illuminati" is ridiculous, especially when there is no meaning behind the symbolism. Its just a random logic leap with no basis in the critical thinking that these conspiracy theorists claim to be masters of. 

c. I think the fact that you can compare a massive worldwide organization/conspiracy to cats says something about the validity of your claims, but not what you want it to say. Its like a villain rattling off his whole plan to the hero before killing him. It just makes no sense...

d. I think that a lot of smart men saw some ugly things in the way the country was going. Many of us see those things today without jumping to the conclusion that there must be some bogeyman pulling the strings. This isn't evidence for the illuminati, it a cautionary tale about continuing down this road of militarization and power. Many empires in the past have fallen by spreading themselves out too thin, and while the logistics of the world have changed, the same principles apply...I see some of this evidence, but there just isn't a strong connection to your conclusion.

And this is why your stance on this is wrong.

You have a preconcieved idea, and are basing what he is saying on this preconcieved notion that he is talking of this "secret society".

You need to take a step back, consider the entire picture with an open mind and really ask yourself the follow:

if the Illuminati is a real secret society, why are there so many apparent clues to their existance? Wouldn't they want to stay hidden, instead of planting hidden messages in all forms of media and even on US money?

Ask youself this logical question, and then consider again.

There is no grand conspiracy, you are not in on the secrecy, you have been manipulated by others with terrible evidence of something which does not exist.

a. "killing many important people"? what makes the people who were killed important? isn't that a matter of perspective?

why is it illogical? you posted this

"Obviously there is some sort of plan for the middle east"

"I do think that the government used 9/11 as a means of rallying the country to war"

so you know the government wanted war and needed something to use as motivation, good i applaud you for reaching that conclusion

"but that isn't evidence that the 9/11 was an inside job"

yes i absolutely agree and i never said so, however, i posted evidence earlier in this thread that up till this point no one has debunked and most don't even seem to be able to fathom how they can begin to

b. actually there's a lot of meaning contained in symbology, i actually went into some of the meaning of the pyramid earlier in this tread 

actually i'd go as far as to say that there is infinite meaning in certain symbols the pyramid being one

its simply that we are not taught these things in school or shown in the media so most people go along woefully ignorant of the deeper meaning in things

c. "I think the fact that you can compare a massive worldwide organization/conspiracy to cats says something about the validity of your claims"

why? and i'd like to add that obviously i can't claim to know for certain the mentality behind those involved here but i'm just making an assumption is all

its important to understand though that what is logical to you or me may seem hihgly illogical to someone more intelligent or aware than us

i am not perfect and i'd even go as far as to say i'm ignorant of many things but at least i can say now that i'm opening up to my ignorance so i can cure it to some degree

d. "This isn't evidence for the illuminati"

i agree by itself it is not but the great thing about all of these events is that all of them are connected like a jigsaw puzzle and piece by piece they paint a larger picture of what is going on imo

a. I say "important" because the WTC was a pretty big center for worldwide commerce, but that isn't really important in this discussion.

It is illogical because there is far to large of a leap between the evidence and the conclusion. 

Forgive me for not reading all of this thread...its fairly crazy at times.

b. I didn't say symbols are meaningless, I said that if they are put in a meaningless context, then they don't always hold that meaning. An image isn't always a "symbol"...not every pyramid holds the context of the illuminati's pyramid and not every cube holds the symbolism of the masons. Cubes and pyramids and triangles are immensely common shapes, so we cant impart this meaning unto them every time they appear. 

c. Most of the evidence these illuminati supporters follow is propagated by youtube conspiracy theorists. If the Illuminati actually exists, I'd be willing to bet that it is nothing like what most people think. I am not going to dispute the possibility that the illuminati exists, I am just saying that a lot of this stuff is ridiculous and most of this "evidence" is strung out of context (as has already been shown a few times in this thread). 

d. Using the puzzle metaphor, the illuminati is like a one hundred puzzles mixed together, with a bunch of paranoids yelling that all the pieces fit into some crazy picture, when really you are just jamming pieces of cardboard together and pretending everything fits. As I said before, what the illuminati actually is (if it exists) is just one of those puzzles in the mix, but it has been blurred beyond meaning by all these crazy conspiracy theories. The illuminati cannot be debated as a whole, because theres too much extraneous junk mixed in and labeled "illuminati" to figure out what anything actually is. 

Most of these conspiracy theorists are making tremendous leaps of logic and as a self proclaimed "critical thinker", that just isn't logical. The quickest way between two points is a straight line, not some ridiculous twisted pattern, embracing all of the world's problems. 

a. well there's various evidence out there here i'll give you a taste

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PY_qM28rnA

"It is illogical because there is far to large of a leap between the evidence and the conclusion. "

based on what? your own investigation or what you have been told?

b. fair enough that's true that's why i said with regards to the symbol, comic, 911 memorial that obviously i could not be sure that they really are connected

but i'm more inclined to believe they are but that's me

c. "Most of the evidence these illuminati supporters follow is propagated by youtube conspiracy theorists. If the Illuminati actually exists, I'd be willing to bet that it is nothing like what most people think. "

i personally don't claim to understand how this whole thing works all i'm saying is that there is evidence that shows that what we are led to believe is false

"most of this "evidence" is strung out of context"

can you give an example?

d. "Most of these conspiracy theorists are making tremendous leaps of logic and as a self proclaimed "critical thinker", that just isn't logical. "

looking at evidence and deriving a conclusion based on the evidence is logical

you may not always reach the right conclusion but imo its the right process

A. Based on the evidence that I have been presented in this thread I find the conclusions illogical. 

Heres a pretty definitive article about Building 7 citing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who is a pretty big deal in the scientific community:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

"Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. "

 C. Just look up. You can see a few cases where someone posts a quote out of context which someone else provides context to. If fact, you just posted a quote not too long ago, which someone pointed out was in the context of the cold war. People see these quotes and say "oh, it must be a conspiracy!" and pass them around without validating their own facts. 

D. Looking at a twinkling light in the sky and concluding "it must be aliens" is not logical. I don't see much of a difference between a lot of these claims. There needs to be a logical continuance between the evidence and the conclusion and a lot of times with this type of thing, that just isn't there. Additionally, you have people passing around these "undisputable facts" without looking at the other side. 

a. well ultimately i guess it comes down to which engineers you choose to believe and i can already point out lies in the report

the main premise with this report is that 

"Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse"

and therefore no explosions occured, however, the video i posted for you does show people who reported hearing loud explosions

if they are willing to lie about that why would you trust the report?

even you can look with your own eyes and see that the collapse is anomalous and comparable to controlled events

all of these videos are around 2 minutes long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nco5hmi3OmU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qyYZe-R3p4

and what do they report as the cause of the collapse?

d. "There needs to be a logical continuance between the evidence"

yes i agree

but ultimately evidence is not enough for some people some people have to hear information from their authority figures in other to consider it as being true

this even extends to events that they experience themselves

you did the same thing yourself assuming that you watched the video i posted because if you did you would have seen numerous people talking about hearing explosions or seeing their effects on 911 yet because an authority figure told you that you are mistaken you overrided what you experienced and chose to be controlled by the authority figure

if you did not actually watch the video i retract what i said and apologise

i'm quite sure that had CNN come out tomorrow and told everyone that indeed it was done by the governemnt most people would be swayed even if they weren't provided with adequate evidence to corroborate the claim