Does The Movie 'Limitless' Predict Uprising And U.S. Involvement In Libya?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Vanna

 

Japan, china and Russia were mentioned. DeNiro kinda scrunches his face at them and mentions something else about Libya. I think its just coincidence, personally.

Yes sorry, I should of elaborated..
Libya was the only country he told him to stay out of..

Yeah, I'm trying to find the exact quote now, but it's very ironic to say the least...

reply to post by miniatus


The mods are going to come in and it is going to be one and a half pages of off topic post warnings lol

Originally posted by lcbjr1979
reply to post by miniatus

 

The mods are going to come in and it is going to be one and a half pages of off topic post warnings lol

Sorry, I tried to edit my OP to make mention of how I screwed everything up.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Vanna

 

Japan, china and Russia were mentioned. DeNiro kinda scrunches his face at them and mentions something else about Libya. I think its just coincidence, personally.

Yes sorry, I should of elaborated..
Libya was the only country he told him to stay out of..

My apologies, good sir!

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


No worries my man, we had a blast waiting for ya. I think it was some much needed comedy relief on the site.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


did you see the Movie "The International"
it's all about the banks and how the banks control the arms trade and it tells how the banks don't care about which side wins it's about controlling the Debt and to make sure EVERYONE IS A SLAVE TO DEbt.
It even tells you that it goes so deep it includes USA,(CIA,) Hezbollah, Israel, China, Russia, Italy etc and nobody and nothing can be done about it.
It's about banks making sure there is war and always going to be war because war is the easiest way to put even the most powerful and self sustaining country in debt.
Seems that is just what they are doing right now.
As a side bar have always thought there was a whole lot more to the Civil War then just the freeing of oppressed people but they didn't count on Lincoln to use a provision to create money and pay it off with 0% interest thus not bankrupting or putting the USA in debt to banks hum and we all know what happened to him and i believe the was someone else i think called Kennedy that tried to rid the USA of the Fed and once again we all know what happened to him.
Just kind of funny that these powerful people can be killed so easily yet Bernie Madoff and all the wallstreeters walk freely in public.
Instead of forming Militias and starting revolutions which will end with history repeating itself why not form your own CIA and covert operations one country at a time and do what they do only to those that need to be eliminated and then they will walk in fear of being found out and not roam freely and shove it in your face.

I agre with the OP , i was thining the exact same thing, Robert also has a scene where he says , with the tectonic plates moving right beneath me.

I don't think it's a coincidence that they mention Libya in the movie when right now there is also things going on in Libya. I think it's done purposefully. I think they like to mess with people.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


OP, I have several threads along the lines of this where movies and TV shows have foreshadowed recent events. I believe the writers are not aware of what they are doing - I believe they are being used to get the message out which is that the current events are not coincidence, they are being planned, and executed by men that wish the general population of this world nothing but harm.

The link in my tag line proves how Obama conspired to justify a Libya invasion in 2009 and 12 months (nearly to the day) prior to the start of the riots.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
There are two scenes in this movie (which had finished production in 2010) where Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro) makes specific mention of his interest in getting "involved" with Libya to have an effect would that would cause stocks to rise in his favor. He also says specifically to "avoid traveling to Libya." De Niro plays an iconoclast who manages stocks and hedge funds at the highest levels.

Is this a coincidence or a hidden warning buried in the script?



***EDIT***

Due to my FAIL at creating this thread, it was left for a bit more interpretation than my final comments. Due to this, members attempted to figure out what I was talking about.

edit on 16-4-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)

Thx for the post OP, I was gonna start this thread 3 weeks ago, but I didn't have any video footage to post with it, and i'm hopeless at editing video so I didn't bother in the end up (Lazy if you will).

Anyway, I was gonna point out how De Niro mentions energy resources in Libya...I really don't think it was a coincidence! The script would have been writing when? January, February at the VERY LATEST, and then the film gets released on the same day or a matter of days after the Libya uprising?

Very suspicious to me...For one there was absolutely no need to mention a country in this film as it was about a drug that release chemicals in the brain that enables us to use the 100% capacity of our brains.And out of the HUNDREDS of countries they could have mentioned, they mention LIBYA.

It made me think too if there already was a drug like this available to the elites or a select few, who use the drug to do and plan, well, clever things like they did in relation to the film and Libya! Maybe they have it ALL figured out way in advance?

Glad you made the thread. I must watch it again.

Another film to mention that came out a month or 2 before Limitless is "How Do You Know", with Jack Nicholsan, Paul Rudd and Reese With Her Spoon...I forget most of the film but JN is a money launderer I think and he makes reference to either Libya or Egypt as well!

I believe that it really doesn't matter whether it does or it doesn't, what really matters is that the world acts as if it does. Therefore, as legends have come to be thought of as fact and fact is only accepted by the perceiver upon others perceptions then we must assume that it does exist, at least by the assumption that it was perceived by someone in the first place. I, for one, believe that just because something fits into a set pattern does not a law make therefore science can only assume something to be true within the guideline tested and anything is possible when looked at in all possibilities, therefore, The movie does.