AT 6:11 AM-CNBC blamed Illuminati by name for Stock Market Crash, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 74 times

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 07:38 AM by TheRepublic

reply to post by Supercertari

i agree.

although i do believe this crash was caused by "The illuminati" of the world, i belive this advisor was speaking in generalities.

his exact phrase being "the illuminati if you will..."

sounds generalized to me.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 07:42 AM by Darthorious

Originally posted by xoxo stacie
Okay he was totally telling the truth or it was totally scripted and he followed it to a T without any emotion what so ever! Am I the only one who noticed that this american kept making European slang remarks in his speach here? spot on etc. Americans dont say that!
If you ask me he was made to say these things and I wouldnt doubt if people are again making margin calls; because the last time they did we all went down hill like this. But "normally" they (illuminti globalist etc) have to wait till an hour before close to make the margin calls. they are all out on this one guys get ready! America obviously knows whats going on because no matter how bad we have gotten over the last 3 months we havent hit the circuit breaker!
There is a reason other than Greenspan and OPEC out there for this. It is only a matter of time before it comes out.

lol actually they do now. There is a lot of european in hollywood whose slang ends up in sitcoms, movies ect. spot on is used a lot where I'm at and bloody is starting to be used quite a bit too.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:01 AM by eddiemaiden_80

Illuminati means enlightened. Maybe he was just referring to the people who have sound knowledge in the financial sector not reacting quickly enough before and during the crisis begun.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by eddiemaiden_80]

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:03 AM by seejanerun

reply to post by eddiemaiden_80

That could be, but I got the impression he backed up and regrouped after he said it. No one asked him what he meant, so at this point the fact it was said at all is worth noting.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:06 AM by TXMACHINEGUNDLR

Stunning. No joke. Feel free to take points for short post. I dont care. I am in shock.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:15 AM by malcr

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by JesterMan

HUH???

Write him off as a nut-job for being RIGHT???

Wake UP

OR clever enough to throw a comment in there that will get all the conspiracy theorists wound up and jumping up and down. The press distracted, the public distracted........whilst the real perpetrators, ie rich greedy individuals, go on with business as usual and not being called to account. "It wasn't us it was the illuminati and we don't know who they are".

Do not fall for a con that is intended to get these b...... off the hook.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:19 AM by Power_Semi

You know I've been thinking a lot about the current global crisis & the more I think about it the more I am sure it has all been set up for a big fall.

Think about this: I put up a post a while back about why the major banks are in trouble & on the verge of collapse, & the single defining point that set off this whole chain of panic & dramatic falls in the stock markets, bankruptcy (in real terms) of Iceland, etc was when AIG were downgraded from triple A.

That caused banks to suddenly be in breach of covenants, to be faced with huge losses, & for the governments around the World to have to start pumping money into them to keep them solvent - & also destroyed confidence in the banks & the economies around the World.

However, the people at the top aren't stupid (alright, they are), they knew what was happening & what was going to happen if AIG were downgraded, so instead of letting that happen why didn't they quietly agree to underwrite AIG & confirm that to Moodys, then AIG would still have been triple A rated, & non of the rest of it would have happened.

If the US Govt had done this instead, then there would have been no need to pump money into the markets, & in the long run it would have probably been much cheaper - the lack of panic would have saved Trillions being wiped off stocks, would have stopped the credit freeze, would have kept the banks operating freely, & wouldn't have exposed the tax payer to what will almost certainly be a total loss.

Don't get me wrong, I acknoweledge that there would still have been underlying problems, and I don't think that the greed of the people who got us here should go unpunished or be without consequence, I don't really agree with the government interfering at all, but the way that it has been allowed to play out will have severe repercussions for all of us.

It will now play out with the biggest & most blatant transfer of assets that the World has ever seen, with most people losing virtually everything that they have & needing to work until they drop since they will have no pension or other savings that are worth anything.

If you think about it, it just must have been planned - it was so easy to stop it from getting this bad, & if its obvious to me & you then you can be darned sure that it was obvious to those in power too.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:22 AM by hal4511

Has anyone read this yet ???

The Approach of the Anti-Christ

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:27 AM by Anonymous ATS

i have a feeling "they" are going to start using that word (illuminati and possibly others) more often in order to get the public used to it. it will then become a common word used to refer to politicians etc. and no longer will it hold a conspiracy type of meaning. very clever i have to say if this is indeed what they are hoping to do. it will become de-sensitized

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:28 AM by seejanerun

reply to post by hal4511

I have now. This looks too important to just skim. When it has my full attention sometime this weekend I intend to go through it thoroughly. Thanks for the link.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:33 AM by Tgautier13

Originally posted by eddiemaiden_80
Illuminati means enlightened. Maybe he was just referring to the people who have sound knowledge in the financial sector not reacting quickly enough before and during the crisis begun.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by eddiemaiden_80]

That would just be arguing over semantics though at this point. It shouldn't matter what exactly he implied, what matter is that he threw the word out there on mainstream media. People who here him say this and are interested, will go to google and type in 'Illuminati', and we all know what appears before everyone's eyes.

Either way, I have full confidence that whatever these secret orders are planning will not succeed, so maybe I'm not as surprised as everyone else here. Though I hadn't ever put any real thought to this subject before, subconsciously I feel I knew this moment was bound to happen. Be happy everyone!

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:38 AM by dgtempe

reply to post by seejanerun

Now, after this, do we wonder why people like Alex Jones have so much ammunition????

I beleive the time is getting to the point that Bush will now have a power grab quickly. Martial law will soon be necessary.
The sum of all our fears.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:49 AM by Anonymous ATS

my uncle holds a senior executive post at Raymond James, I will call him and see what he has to say about the comment and if he knows the guy personally.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:52 AM by azurite

i have a feeling "they" are going to start putting that word (illuminati and maybe others) out there more in a casual manner in order to make it a common term that no longer holds a conspiracy type of feeling. the common person will start using it to describe politicians or whatever and it will loose it's true meaning. god they are so sly. after all desensitization is an area they are so good at.....

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:02 AM by squiz

Originally posted by adrenochrome
from all i've heard, i think it's nothing more than the Rockefellers controlling the Democrats, and the Rothschilds controlling the Republicans...

Very interesting, take a look at this. I just read it right before I saw this thread. It claims the Rockefellers are the American front for the Rothschilds and they are in competition with Goldman Sachs for the control of the presidency.
Obama vs McCain or Goldman Sachs vs Rothschilds

I'll just pull out a few paragraphs. It's a must read.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps your vote really doesn't matter because whatever happens in America is being orchestrated by more powerful sources? Few people understand the power and financial influence of two of the most powerful international financial houses in world history and it may very well be they are heavily involved in cutthroat competition for control of our next president. Yet the media has not even begun to question the relationship between these international bankers and our candidates for president.....

....In 1750, 26 years before the American Declaration of Independence the Rothschild family began their journey to become the most powerful financial family in world history and though to this day the vast majority of their holdings are privately held, estimates of their family holdings are as much as $167 trillion dollars. Strategic actions over the 258 year continuous evolvement of the Rothschilds has led to control of much of the world supply of gold, oil, diamonds and many other assets.

As for Goldman Sachs, they were founded in 1869, shortly after the end of the US Civil War and at the dawning of the industrial revolution in America joining yet another family firm still around today, J.P. Morgan whose work to save the Union during the Civil War earned it many privileges during the explosion of growth in America including the opportunity to finance the Rockefeller Standard Oil empire with Rothschild money.

In time the three factions would appear to undertake the most intense competition between them for control of the global financial system ever seen but in the end, though all three groups remain the sole survivors today in terms of American influence, it became known that Morgan was serving as a front for the Rothschilds in order for the Rothschilds to maintain a low profile in America. But low profile or not they dominated what happened and how it happened.

And the candidates.... Obama tight with Goldman Sachs!

Just a little over one year after being elected as a junior senator, in 2006 Obama was the featured guest before a private gathering of the Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago, an honor unheard of for someone that politically insignificant, speaking before the most powerful financial firm on Wall Street and one of the most powerful in the world. This was quietly reported in Bloomberg News.

Lots more on that connection at the link.
McCain receives donations from Rothschilds illegally.

As for the Rothschilds and McCain, it was not until this year that they held a fund raiser for him in London hosted by Lord Jacob Rothschild and his son, Nathaniel Rothschild in the posh London Spencer House on March 28, 2008. As I said at the beginning, the Rothschilds are the oldest, biggest and most powerful of all financial houses and have long chosen to remain in the background while other firms fronted their interests.

So who is benefiting, I find it amazing that the most powerful financial family on the planet for the last couple of centuries are pretty much unknown by the average person on the street.

In spite of being foreign based the Rothschilds have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the economic crisis in America as J.P. Morgan and Barclays, firms with significant equity held by the Rothschilds, were able to gobble up Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in sweetheart deals for a fraction of their asset values in the midst of the crisis.

A lot of this is news to me, so I haven't verified much of the info. Hopefully some resourceful members can confirm some of these allegations.

But I do believe the election is a lose/lose scenario.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by squiz]

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:02 AM by infinite

reply to post by TheRepublic

Agreed, but it was an odd choice of words.

We'll never know what he was referring to, but using illuminati as an adjective to describe the US Treasury and "others" is certainly stimulating to us spectators.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by infinite]

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:08 AM by drphilxr

reply to post by eddiemaiden_80

The term 'illuminati' can be interpreted anyways you all like.

It's funny us in the proleteriat are running in circles over something

we all believe in- namely, the uber-rich run the country, and

have run it into the ground to preserve their status and wealth.

Duh. No much has changed in 6,500 years.

We are watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Gather you own resources as best you can for your families.

peace, and good luck

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:08 AM by BlackOps719

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
www.cnbc.com...

3:20

Holy crap!!!!

He really did say that.

"The illuminati of America"

I'll tell ya...these talk boxes in the media have really started to spill the beans here recently, wheather this is being done on purpose or not is irrelavent.

This will surely be all over the internet by noon, it will likely cause Alex Jones head to explode. I hope this guy from Raymond James has a good bullet proof vest and a place to hide out.

He just seriously pissed off some powerful people.

reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 09:11 AM by ninthaxis

Great find Jane. Like everyone else here, I have never encountered that word to be used in the MSM, and a very shocked that it would come out at all with the connotations it implies. Since we do not really have others instances of the words use (or than from the likes of Alex Jones), we can't really say what exactly was meant by the phrase. It is my personal belief, however, that we will begin to hear more and more things such as this and would be a good idea to pay close attention to other little 'slips.'