Anyone watch either of these two documentaries? I'm interested to hear what others think.

I think there is a pretty damn compelling case being presented.

Wake up? or keep drinking the kool aid? I woke up.

Terrorstorm second edition is the best version - it covers state sponsored terrorist acts, both in past history and recent.

Endgame is just scary - it covers a secretive group, which is meeting this weekend in Greece, called the Bilderberg group. A collection of persons in positions of perceived power - heads of media, government officials (violation of logan act for US officials). These people get together and ....shoot the shit?????? They have straight talk on how to steer the world in desired directions. They denied they existed for years, until the cat got out of the bag.

I'd say youtube it, but youtube is cracking down on freedom, since it does not jive with tptb. As such - Alex Jones material is no longer available........or is it?????????

I'd love someone to debunk what's shown in either of these documentaries. Go bit torrent, it's legal with these, they are made for public distribution - burn them to disk and get it out there - with claims as big as what's being made, we all need to to take a look and see if it's rubbish or truth. I lean towards the latter.

Hi There,

Yes I have watched these films and more besides I have also done some research that has confirmed some of the information.

I also know that for the past 30 years perhaps longer that a man presented as the worlds foremost intellectual has been doing something just like Alex Jones and telling us very smiler facts, yes he presents facts.

The mans name is Noam Chomsky just one of his films is called Manufacturing Consent not only does his books and films back up what Alex Jones is asking us to believe but also adds more food for thought that does not strike me as junk food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

so you've confirmed 'some' of the information, eh ?

If you did reach as far as 'some', chomsky too would be surprised

both of these kooks deserve their bananas and
cages in a local zoo.

jones is truly the less stable of the two. he
lacks all the polish and sophistication the other creep sports.

have a skip through this link if you care to understand chomsky ---> The TOP 200 Chomsky Lies

@ syzygy; have you actually read the document you linked to everyone else? The whole thing is crap; it nitpicks tiny errors in wording at best, and at worst is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Chomsky is saying. It seems to have been compiled by your fellow ostriches with their heads in the sand.

@ Plan 9: Ultimately, you must believe what you think is right. I will tell you right now that Alex Jones is quite fiery (and you should know by now), and will tend to stretch a few things, but on the bottom line, he does indeed reference facts. In addition, he is spot-on about recognizing trends in our society today. You should always trust your own judgment; independence of thought is what is lacking in this world, and it is precisely that lack that is causing horrible things to happen.

You will always recognize closed-minded individuals by qualities syzygy manages to illustrate quite well:

1. Overwhelming criticism of opposition, while blindly accepting information from sources on 'their' side. Generally accompanied by snide remarks, sarcasm, general hints at your inferiority.
"so you've confirmed 'some' of the information, eh ? "

2. Simplification of situation into name-calling and derogatory comments with no logical basis
"both of these kooks deserve their bananas and
cages in a local zoo. "

3. Ad hominem attacks, arguing against the person rather than the logic. This is an elementary argumentation error, yet is exhibited very often by the closed-minded.
"jones is truly the less stable of the two. he
lacks all the polish and sophistication the other creep sports. "

4. Reinforcement of their views using generally long-winded, professional-sounding documents or references that, once analyzed, turn out to be nothing but outdated textbook-statements, misrepresentations and misguided, agenda-driven, weak argumentation.
"have a skip through this link if you care to understand chomsky ---> The TOP 200 Chomsky Lies "

Note that you and quickfirst both had something to say, yet syzygy's comment basically stated, "Oh, did you really check out these crazy people? They're both insane, here's a badly compiled document."

no offense, syzygy, but please address the argument and try to maintain an open mind.

Good day, sirs.

hey! I'd say put his politics aside, Chomsky is a well know and accepted linguist.
But anyway, I'll keep that "lie list"...

P.S.: I wanna say that there is a difference between telling a lie deliberately and what one said does not conform to facts (in other words, he doesn't know that he is lying). But if the latter is made by an intellectual, that just a poor mistake!

Ok all of you lot get this, "no education is neutral" and if you want to do something useful then go and find out who said it.

and, here's my none neutral education for you, "there's always enough for need but never enough for geed" so the Builder Burgers, Rothschild and Rockefeller family's are no different meaning that there is no honour amongst thieves and the biggest problem we face is each other with this lot included.

While we squabble amongst each other we will never get on and yet others who do not get involved will always reap benefits from our dysfunction.

Thanks guys have a nice life, Gareth.

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Dontcare:
syzygy; have you actually read the document you linked to everyone else? The whole thing is crap;

Good day, sirs.

The worse part is not so much that you cut and paste like a good schoolboy some of the more
popular rules of logical argumentation. No, the issue is - not surprisingly if not predictably -
that you can't follow any of them yourself. As an acolyte of Chomsky, you should know by now
that logic is for him more a creative tool with situational application than timeless rules
that govern all statements. He's a simple relativist, so its understandable that he flops all
over the place.

The work you logically sum-up as 'the whole thing is crap' contains only 200 of his more
colorful statements. Its designed to give you an impression of his sick bent. But even with 200,
you don't cite even one. Spock, that took talent

There are 'tiny errors' ? Which one specifically ? Care to clarify. I dare you. Pick one
at random. Any one . . .

I'll have to look into Chomsky, did he write Society as a Learning Tool? That was a pretty crazy paper!

Anyways - during my travels of checking in on some of this stuff, topic related, in End Game AJ says there's a call to waste 80% of the population (my words, exterminate is his choice) - I thought, 'where / who says this??

I found a document called NSSM_200, and have not made it all the way through which seems to be something related to the 80% reduction claim. The paper was commissioned by Kissinger, what I've read is pretty shocking - yet it rings true. Seems yes indeed population was a concern for governments a long time ago. We've missed target after target outlined in the paper.

So I thought, surely this was never implemented as policy. Wrong. The following year it was implemented as U.S. policy and from what I have found - it has never been withdraw from U.S. policy.

and yeah, Alex Jones sometimes is a bit melodramatic, however he has brought alot of verifiable topics to light.

I recall a couple reports this year that were deemed 'fake' until the issuing agencies had to issue statements on them. MIAC and a DHS, guess what? I'm a right wing extremist terrorist because I support Ron Paul. At least that's what the DHS document says.

You could be too! If you have a strong opinion on abortion, immigration ect...

...And Justice for All by Metallica has a whole new meaning to it for me now. Sorry for the drifting off topic.