PDA

View Full Version : Praise to Icke and "Alice in Wonderland..."


davidbarstis
17-09-2007, 03:41 PM
Hi, all. Just thinking lately on how much credit I give David for putting out "Alice in Wonderland..." only a year after 9/11 and how much information he was able to gather so soon after the events. I've noticed how many books about 9/11 are out there and still coming out. It's a full 6 years later and there is still more and more information and revelations coming out to prove what a scam it was. Even though there is new information constantly being exposed and needs to be, think about what David wrote and how early he did it. His information holds up to this day.
Having read other books on 9/11 and any subject really, most if not all, make everything much more complex then they need to be. I am not a fan of too many authors writing styles. But, they must be read for the information because that's what is important. I've said before that David writes his books in such a clear easy to read way. He presents the information in a way that simplifies a seemingly complex subject.
Once one knows what the agenda is, it's so simple to see. There is so much great information out there that David only touches upon or doesn't mention, but what a great job he does at summerizing the whole agenda with just enough information to prove it or lead you to your own research.
Again, I just noticed that books are still coming out about 9/11 and how long it's been since 2001 and with a mixture of new info, are still saying things David wrote 5 years ago. I don't think he gets enough credit.

revolutionary_jam
17-09-2007, 03:53 PM
the first 5 chapters were a bit weak though compared to his previous material on it, i think he should have just cut them and started on chapter 6 for a smaller more focused book on 9-11

most people who read it as their intro to conspiracy stuff would be bored or not believe the first 5 chapters (no where near enough sourcing for claims)

davidbarstis
17-09-2007, 04:04 PM
the first 5 chapters were a bit weak though compared to his previous material on it, i think he should have just cut them and started on chapter 6 for a smaller more focused book on 9-11

most people who read it as their intro to conspiracy stuff would be bored or not believe the first 5 chapters (no where near enough sourcing for claims)

In chapter 2 he lists 60 sources mostly news articles; chapter 3 he lists 97 sources; chapter 4 he lists 49 sources; chapter 5 he lists 31 sources.
Not enough sources? And an introduction and background into the people who were telling everyone what the official story was is not necessary?

revolutionary_jam
17-09-2007, 04:13 PM
maybe coz i'd already read a couple of his books i found it a bit dull,
he made a lot of calims that weren't sourced
personally i thought it would do more to put people off reading further than introduce them to the people involved