By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Illuminati Confirmed

 

Choose

I believe it. 109 45.80%
 
Conspiracy crap! 128 53.78%
 
Total:237
bunchanumbers on 14 October 2014

I don't think it is the illuminous ones. I think if anything it might be Sony or MS. The stories about the Kinects recording abilities or Sony's media manipulation seems more in line of control than a gamepad and 720p graphics. Besides with Nintendo's history it seems even less likely to be true. Nintendo used to sell rice and vacuums door to door. Not to mention the Taxi service and the Love Hotels. I think if they had any ties to them they wouldn't have had to do these things.



Around the Network
Nintentacle on 14 October 2014
sundin13 said:
Two things:
-For every single "predictive" thing posted, there has likely been hundreds of forgotten things that didn't happen. There is enough media in this world to predict almost everything. Just think about how many times something that was going to be in a show's script had to be ripped out due to similarities so some real world occurrence. Life imitates art imitates life imitates art...

-What exactly would the illuminati have to gain by parading their dominion around in Ducktales comics and Family Guy episodes? Why would such a fiercely protected secret society childishly emblazon their trademarks in so much media? Some of these examples are just silly...

-There's still a lot of things that were right.

-Maybe they want people to know.



curl-6 on 14 October 2014
o_O.Q said:

People make mistakes. The more people involved, the higher frequency of mistakes. Add in hacking, digital espionage, etc and you have an environment where a secret society controlling the globe becomes astronomically improbable."

 

really? you gave no example all you did was continue to parrot something completely unrelated to what i asked

which is ironic because here i was asking you to post contradictory evidence which you refused to do

you could learn a lot from my boy sundin

I hope one day you are able to conquer your illness and live your life free from paranoia. i wish you well.



o_O.Q on 14 October 2014
sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

"Just went back and looked at the old quote I posted to prove that I had included the bit about audio recording since the begining:

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

 

we already went through this

witnesses did indeed report hearing noises that they thought were explosions, why do i have to keep repeating this?

 

"There are some very vocal people who really like to accuse the government of killing thousands of their own people and thats about it. Some of them may be intelligent people, but they don't have the evidence they need to prove their points."


i'm not understanding this claim why would they have less access to evidence than NIST?

 

"Additionally, the collapse was not simultaneous:"


my eyes are not agreeing with that claim sorry

one thing NIST cannot argue with is the footage

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

there is no buckling whatsoever as the thing falls, it just goes straight down with no resistance as it does so meaning simultaneous structural failure

why are you letting them tell you what is happening when you can use your eyes and see that its nonsense

 

"As you can see, the method of collapse is explained in detail in the NIST report..."


from what i understand a support on the East side failed first

"The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures."

why therefore did the building not buckle to the East side as it fell down?

simple physics dictates that the building according to what is said here should have buckled to its East side since the support there failed first

however in reality both sides of the building fell at the same rate of speed downward 

 

"Once again, thermal expansion was the main factor of the collapse, not the melting of beams"


ok sorry for misquoting you

"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column"

So if i understand correctly the beams are expanding and yet one lost contact?

wouldn't expansion force the beam up against its contact?

i would've figured that the opposite a reduction/melting would result in loss of contact not expansion but then again i'm not a NIST employee

 

""also why is there no visual evidence of flames from the outside?"

Says who?

"

 

my mistake i was wrong

 

"You and others have pointed out a lot of moving parts to this conspiracy. I am not talking about the american people, I'm talking about those parts such as (PS: Feel free to ignore any involving the illuminati, its still a lot of people)"

as i said before i can't say for certain who did this and how wide the involvement spreads

but for certain governement officials have been caught in lies for various events assocated with this event that can't be news to you


"The media (how else would they be able to report things before they happen)"

good point how did that happen?

could it possibly be that their information comes from people who knew before hand that this would happen?

well it would seem so to me

 

"Teach people how to think critically, don't teach people how to think conspiratorily"

what is conspiratorial thinking?

 

"So you are saying "think critically, but you aren't allowed to use logic!""

logic isn't letting authority figures think for you....

"witnesses did indeed report hearing noises that they thought were explosions, why do i have to keep repeating this?"

I've explained this five times now, yet you keep bringing it up...According to the NIST report, certain witnesses may have heard something that they described as an explosion, but the descriptions did not match what would have been heard if a high explosive, like what would have been required to take down the building, was present...

That quote (as I stated, yet somehow you didn't understand) was only to prove that I have included the audio evidence since the begining of this discussion.

"i'm not understanding this claim why would they have less access to evidence than NIST?"

I'm saying that they don't provide the evidence necessary to convince me. As I stated, I have yet to see any published scientific articles discussing any of the doubts you are bringing up, although I would love for you to post some.

"my eyes are not agreeing with that claim sorry"

The initial stages of the collapse were mainly internal as is explained in the NIST report. Their finding and their simulations are very similar to what can be seen on the outside of the building. You denying that holds little to no basis in fact and is only you being a skeptic for skepticism's sake.

"why therefore did the building not buckle to the East side as it fell down?"


The east penthouse collapsed beforehand, followed by the rest of the building...just for fun here is something I just dug up:

"there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions. Here are links to those that I could find and review in about 3 hours of searching (remember, these are just the papers that include support for NIST's WTC 7 model; there are many, many more that only explicitly support NIST's WTC 1 & 2 collapse hypotheses):

Also notable is that, in my search for peer reviewed articles that cited to the NIST WTC 7 report, I could not find a single paper that was critical of NIST's methodologies or conclusions. Not even one."

Some more light reading for you if you still doubt the NIST model.

"good point how did that happen?"


Well, it seems that a large amount of first responders knew it would happen so in all likelyhood, wires just got crossed. The news potentially prepared the story for when the building inevitably collapsed and aired it early or made a mistake getting some information from one of their informers. Its not a difficult stretch of the imagination that on one of the most chaotic days in history, a news station would make a relatively small mistake.

"what is conspiratorial thinking?"


Pretty self explanatory. Its when you see some phenomena, you jump to the assumption that it is due to some conspiracy like I've seen you and many others doing multiple times throughout this thread. Just because you maintain that you are open minded and that none of your beliefs are set in stone, doesn't make you assertions any less ridiculous.

"logic isn't letting authority figures think for you...."

Just as much as logic isn't disbelieving everyone on principle or letting over paranoid bloggers think for you.

Honestly, what you are doing is changing the rules of the world. Its kind of like telling somebody to do a simple math equation and then telling them that all the rules of math are wrong. They make the assumption that 2+2=4 and you tell them, "but this math doesn't follow those rules, so how can we know?". If we abandon all the rules on how the world works, we lose even more of our capability to make critical, logical decisions, yet that is what you are asking us to do.

Conspiracy theories aren't going to solve any of the world's problems...



lol that up till now you don't understand how the sound analyses you keep speaking of is flawed is sad to me

( its like calling a witness to court and after they have testified telling them "well even though you experienced this event yourself you are wrong" meaning that court cases for the most part are flawed )

furthermore using descriptions of an event for analysis is not scientific in the first place ( if that were the case then space aliens would be an accepted topic ) but whatever moving on

 

"I'm saying that they don't provide the evidence necessary to convince me"

fair enough and honestly the same applies for me with the NIST report for what should be obvious reasons

 

""my eyes are not agreeing with that claim sorry"

The initial stages of the collapse were mainly internal as is explained in the NIST report. Their finding and their simulations are very similar to what can be seen on the outside of the building. You denying that holds little to no basis in fact and is only you being a skeptic for skepticism's sake."

 

yeah sure...

them saying that the structure failed on the East side first and then travelling to the other parts of the building is an infallible ascertion to blind people i'm sure

that expansion of steal caused the beam to disconnect is also an infallible ascertion i suppose

 

""why therefore did the building not buckle to the East side as it fell down?"


The east penthouse collapsed beforehand, followed by the rest of the building."

 

that a bit of the building at the very top fell in doesn't answer my question if we conclude that the structure was weakened on the east side then when the structure came down it should have buckled to that side as it fell

instead what actually happened was that it buckled slightly to the center and then the whole structure goes right down the NIST report does nothing to explain this or again why the entire structure effortllessly falls cohesively as if all support is removed instantaneously

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI

again its there for all to see

the report you posted goes against what can be seen to happen in footage

 

"there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions."

with regards to all of the supposed support NIST appears to have

do a google search for "NIST buildng 7" scanning the first page quickly i can find no page that supports the NIST report

all mention flaws and omissions related to how the report was conducted

this just comes down to who you believe

because of what i see in the footage i cannot accept the NIST report

i did physics back in school i understand how forces and support works

 

" Just because you maintain that you are open minded and that none of your beliefs are set in stone, doesn't make you assertions any less ridiculous."

i agree 

 

""logic isn't letting authority figures think for you...."

Just as much as logic isn't disbelieving everyone on principle or letting over paranoid bloggers think for you."

again i agree

 

"Honestly, what you are doing is changing the rules of the world. Its kind of like telling somebody to do a simple math equation and then telling them that all the rules of math are wrong. They make the assumption that 2+2=4 and you tell them, "but this math doesn't follow those rules, so how can we know?". If we abandon all the rules on how the world works, we lose even more of our capability to make critical, logical decisions, yet that is what you are asking us to do."

that is ironic since you are telling me that the physics principles i was taught are wrong

you are basically telling me that i'm supposed to believe that if i have weight held up with supports and i weaken the supports on one side 

that in the event of a collapse the weight won't have the tendency to drift to that side

anyone who understands physics knows that that is folly

 

the same applies to the fact that the  building fell at freefall speed

that can only be possible if all support for the building failed simultaneously 

if we look back at the NIST report

it states that some of the supports failed which led to a chain reaction of failure causing global collapse

that is not what is shown as i keep saying there was no buckling no indication of weight being shifted all of the weight just went straight down



o_O.Q on 14 October 2014
curl-6 said:
o_O.Q said:

People make mistakes. The more people involved, the higher frequency of mistakes. Add in hacking, digital espionage, etc and you have an environment where a secret society controlling the globe becomes astronomically improbable."

 

really? you gave no example all you did was continue to parrot something completely unrelated to what i asked

which is ironic because here i was asking you to post contradictory evidence which you refused to do

you could learn a lot from my boy sundin

I hope one day you are able to conquer your illness and live your life free from paranoia. i wish you well.

wishing that i resort back to relying on those around me to weigh in on the conclusions i reach about things

as opposed to coming to conclusions as an individual

is not wishing me well 

 

however since i genuiniely care about you i'll give you a warning

the ebola problem that is occuring now was done intentionally

both AIDS and ebola were made by the government as a  form of population control

there are several mentions of the need for population control by world leaders and people associated with them

for example there's henry kissinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFwhJY3oIs

 

that's just a little nugget of knowledge i felt i should offer to you beause i actually care about your wellbeing



Around the Network
WagnerPaiva on 14 October 2014

I am pretty sure evil is using video games as a form of brainwashing humanity at some level.

To be fair, if you are going to make a movie about attacks on america, mount Rushmore, the Liberty Statue and the Twin Towers are the obvious choices.

Like, if you make a movie about Brazil you are probably going to show the Cristo Redentor statue...



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Jumpin on 15 October 2014

Nintendo is a Japanese company existing in the 20th and 21st century, so no, not illuminati at all.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Cobretti2 on 16 October 2014

I believe.

Great wise man named Charlie Sheen has all the answers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPsPdpwbn2s