Hilarious Alex Jones Parody Site
Over here (moderately NSFW). Lots of amusing takeoffs on Old Leatherlungs, like these:
Labels: Alex Jones, Parody Sites
posted by Pat @ 8:49 AM
40 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Previous Posts
- Sibel Edmonds, 9-11 Truther
- Amusing 9/11 Blogger Comments of the Day
- How Are Truthers Like Rubber Duckies?
- KSM Trial Moving from NYC
- Korey's Response
- Just Alex Being Alex
- Deadbeat Dylan?
- Not All Debunking Is Created Equal
- More South of Citgo Witnesses Ignored by CIT
- Charges Dropped Against 9/11 Suspects
View My Stats
Allies:
40 Comments:
"How one man turned America's confused youth into a multimedia empire"
It's about time someone parody that charlatan.
i'm an actual "truther" whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean
my view is that whether a bunch a dipshits were covering asses or if it was a "inside job" we'll never know because the 9/11 commission did such a great job of explaining what went wrong
why it went wrong
and who in the military, faa, or intelligence fucked up
because the point wasn't to place blame on anyone who didn't do their job.
in any event i think i may buy the alex jones one, it's pretty fucking funny, i hope it comes in poster size:)
btw any more debunking of kurt haskells "well dressed man"?
"btw any more debunking of kurt haskells "well dressed man"?"
Nobody cares.
btw any more debunking of kurt haskells "well dressed man"?
Uncorroborated eye witness reports don't need to be debunked since they're notoriously unreliable; they can simple be dismissed out of hand.
If Haskell did see something criminal it's too late because he's already been on Alex Jones' show thus eliminating all of his credibility. I'm sure Alex will make a mountain out of a mole hill as usual and spread endless volumes of disinformation (AKA bullshit) about this subject.
Seriously, who needs COINTELPRO when you have people like Alex Jones?
That's "Sharp Dressed Man" to you. Completely debunked by Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill, and Frank Beard in 1983.
in any event i think i may buy the alex jones one, it's pretty fucking funny, i hope it comes in poster size:)
I also want that one. It's pretty awesome.
I really, really want to see the trailer for Obamageddon. It sounds so much like a title A.J. would really make, doesn't it? I think that's the best thing on there, though the ad color makes it kinda blend in with the background.
If you did deep enough on that parody site you'll see it's run by one of those "Alex Jones is a Zionist shill" types.
"For peer-reviewed research and open discussion of all conspiracy issues, check out Above Top Secret.
For information on precious metals and emergency preparations, you can visit Gold Is Money."
http://fallofalexjones.com/the-911-commission-report-was-a-fraud-and-so-is-alex-jones/
Even if the site is run by a conspiretard... its still funny.
...however it also links to http://conspiracyscience.com/ which is a debunking site. There's no indication this site is run by antisemites, just people who really don't like Alex Jones, which is to say anyone with half a brain who's listened to him, conspiracy theorist or otherwise.
If there is a conflict with Iran, this article will be the equivalent of PNAC in twooferdom.
"NWOlovesAlex said...
btw any more debunking of kurt haskells "well dressed man"?
Uncorroborated eye witness reports don't need to be debunked since they're notoriously unreliable; they can simple be dismissed out of hand.
If Haskell did see something criminal it's too late because he's already been on Alex Jones' show thus eliminating all of his credibility. I'm sure Alex will make a mountain out of a mole hill as usual and spread endless volumes of disinformation (AKA bullshit) about this subject.
Seriously, who needs COINTELPRO when you have people like Alex Jones?"
detroit news has a great story on how our government knew the the underwear bomber was coming and wanted him on that plane.
abc news also ran a story that corroborates kurt haskells account, but of course you have to wait for the last few sentences of the peice to get this gem: As part of the additional scrutiny, federal agents are conducting extensive background checks on every passenger who flew to Detroit on the Northwest flight in case one of them might have been sent as a "spotter" on the mission.
Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.
Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet."
'btw any more debunking of kurt haskells "well dressed man"?'
Bear in mind that by 'truther' standards a 'well dressed man' is someone who has actually washed his clothes.
unfortunately i couldn't find a way to buy that alex jones poster, it was hot....
"detroit news has a great story on how our government knew the the underwear bomber was coming and wanted him on that plane."
Where exactly in that article did it say "they" wanted him on that plane you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
Where exactly in that article did it say "they" wanted him on that plane you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
When asked about why the State Department wouldn't revoke the visa despite indications he was involved in a terror plot, Kennedy reiterated his assertion that intelligence agencies sometimes request visas not be revoked "for the purpose of rolling up an entire network, not just one person."
i'm guessing you can't read, so please get a grown up to read this to you....
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100128/NATION/1280403/1020/NATION/Terror-suspect-s-visa-kept-valid-for-larger-probe--hearing-told#ixzz0eUSFWQWx
"When asked about why the State Department wouldn't revoke the visa despite indications he was involved in a terror plot, Kennedy reiterated his assertion that intelligence agencies sometimes request visas not be revoked "for the purpose of rolling up an entire network, not just one person.""
So, care to explain how you "roll up an entire network" using a dead terrorist, you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
And why the State Department would want an entire plaeload of dead Americans, you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
Lazarus Long asked:
So, care to explain how you "roll up an entire network" using a dead terrorist, you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
And why the State Department would want an entire plaeload of dead Americans, you crazy piece of shit fucktard?
well to answer you're first question, i would start by changing the approach that is in effect. terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement matter, not as a war, since technically we're not at war.
to answer your second question; you have to realize that you might be wrong. i have no idea what you think but, those who think that the underwear bomber failed are wrong.
the goal of the terrorist isn't to blow up a single plane or take down a building. the goal of the terrorist (or maybe the state department as you suggest) is to create panic and fear.
guess what?
mission accomplished!!! weeks turn into months turn into years of coverage and terror color codes.
how do we know that kid even had an actual chance to blow himself up? he spent about 20 minutes in the bathroom before he returned to his seat and tried to detonate, why didn't he do it in the bathroom where no one could have stopped him?
seriously, is this the extent of debunking? calling people fucktard?
a few weeks back the smart people we calling kurt haskell "fucktard" when he came forward about the "well dressed man" but no debunking.
i think i know why....
since technically we're not at war.
"Technically" we haven't been at war since WWII but we clearly have been at war many times. War is a nebulous and evolving concept. It no longer requires state-actors. We are currently at war with non-state actors. War has changed since the days of Clausewitz, but it doesn't make it less of a war.
Whether to treat terrorism as a military or law-enforcement issue is an ongoing debate with (in my opinion) valid points on both sides. But the fact that congress hasn't declared war (which is what I'm guessing you mean by "technically") is irrelevant.
the goal of the terrorist isn't to blow up a single plane or take down a building. the goal of the terrorist (or maybe the state department as you suggest) is to create panic and fear.
I'm going to agree with you on this one, but I still think they wanted dead Americans, not just scared ones. It was a half success for the Jihadis and another epic failure on the part of our government.
Everything you've posted suggests a fucked up counter-intel operation, not deliberate malice on the part of the government. For example, from the Detroit news article "Allowing Abdulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort."
If there is a scandal here, it is that the government risked innocent lives to take out a "bigger fish" which it presumably does all the time not just in cases of terrorism but also with regards to gangs and organized crime and even white collar crime, where they might not necessarily risk lives but risk a successful prosecution of a low level operator in an attempt to get at the higher-ups.
how do we know that kid even had an actual chance to blow himself up? he spent about 20 minutes in the bathroom before he returned to his seat and tried to detonate, why didn't he do it in the bathroom where no one could have stopped him?
Presumably he was preparing his explosive jock strap in the bathroom. Maybe he was nervous and clueless. These are all valid questions but none of them suggest or prove malice on the part of the government.
"well to answer you're first question, i would start by changing the approach that is in effect. terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement matter, not as a war, since technically we're not at war."
Wrong, fucktard.
al Queda is at war with us. WE are merely reciprocating.
"the goal of the terrorist isn't to blow up a single plane or take down a building. the goal of the terrorist (or maybe the state department as you suggest) is to create panic and fear."
You're accusing the State Deapartment of treason.
FOAD, retard.
"how do we know that kid even had an actual chance to blow himself up?"
He had explosives stuffed down his pants, retard. The kind that blow up.
"a few weeks back the smart people we calling kurt haskell "fucktard" when he came forward about the "well dressed man" but no debunking."
Nobody cares, you crazy piece of shit fucktard.
Lazarus Lame said:
"FOAD, retard."
"He had explosives stuffed down his pants, retard. The kind that blow up."
"Nobody cares, you crazy piece of shit fucktard."
I'm proud of you, Laz. Best debunking ever.
I can debunk shit faster than that fucktard Mark Roberts. Read my posts and cringe, losers!
"Dingbat Curley said...
Lazarus Lame said:
"FOAD, retard."
"He had explosives stuffed down his pants, retard. The kind that blow up."
"Nobody cares, you crazy piece of shit fucktard.""
Notice that the America hating fucktard does not try to refute any of my statements.
You're easy, Krazee.
Stupid and you hate America.
So FOAD, you inbread mouthbreather.
I have to admit that part of me respects Alex Jones' business acumen.
I have to admit that part of me respects Alex Jones' business acumen.
I hear ya. He knows his audience, he knows how to push their buttons, he knows how to keep them interested, he knows how to market them to advertisers. He really is quite good at what he does.
ok, no debunking of kurt haskells account? just half thoughts of fucktards and debunkers telling me i have vaild points?
There's nothing to debunk. All you have is speculation. No evidence of wrongdoing by the government.
It's possible the government let Mutallab onto the plane as part of a counter-terrorism operation the details of which are classified. Do you have any evidence the government let him on because they wanted him to kill Americans to justify... what, the invasion of Yemen? Sale of panty-scanners?
There's nothing to debunk. All you have is speculation. No evidence of wrongdoing by the government.
It's possible the government let Mutallab onto the plane as part of a counter-terrorism operation the details of which are classified. Do you have any evidence the government let him on because they wanted him to kill Americans to justify... what, the invasion of Yemen? Sale of panty-scanners?
really?
last month kurt haskells account of seeing a "well dressed man" help the underwear bomber on the plane without a passport was featured on SLC, now not a peep from pat or whoever runs this site.
the evidence is that not just anyone can put people on planes without passports, either kurt haskell is lying or he's not, his story hasn't changed but the official statement from the government has changed.
THINK
How could Haskel know that the "well dressed man" was helping Mutalab bypass security just by watching from afar? How could he know that the WDM put him on the plane?
Even if the "well dressed man" helped Mutalab bypass security, what does that mean? That there was another terrorist? That he was a fed trying to ensure that Mutalab got onto the plane? It could mean many things. All you have is unanswered questions and speculation based on ONE MAN'S eyewitness account. It proves nothing, absolutely nothing.
FURTHERMORE Mutalab was given an attourney almost immediately and is going to trial. He's being treated as a criminal under civilian law and afforded rights as such. He is going to trial and presumably we will get more details then.
How could Haskel know that the "well dressed man" was helping Mutalab bypass security just by watching from afar? How could he know that the WDM put him on the plane?
Even if the "well dressed man" helped Mutalab bypass security, what does that mean? That there was another terrorist? That he was a fed trying to ensure that Mutalab got onto the plane? It could mean many things. All you have is unanswered questions and speculation based on ONE MAN'S eyewitness account. It proves nothing, absolutely nothing.
thats just it we don't know who the "well dressed man" is, from the start when kurt haskell gave his account, the well dressed man was denied to ever have existed. now many other people on his flight corroborate his story, so many so it's reported by cnn.
i can't say who was helping him or why, but it is obvious there is much more to this story than we're being told.
this whole sad episode really highlights either
a: at best our nations safety is no better, probably worse, than before 9/11
or
b: something far more sinister is going on.
in any event, i don't think allowing the people who make the mistakes or commit the crimes to conduct the investigation is a sound practice.
now many other people on his flight corroborate his story, so many so it's reported by cnn.
I'd like to see the links to these stories.
in any event, i don't think allowing the people who make the mistakes or commit the crimes to conduct the investigation is a sound practice.
You have to keep in mind the possibility that there are counter-terrorism operations going on and that the secrecy is to preserve the sources and methods of these operations. I know this is difficult to believe but it is as plausible if not more so than the notion that the government is actively sponsoring terrorist acts against its own citizens. How many state agents would go along with such acts knowing they were treasonous? Very few. I'm much more sympathetic to the suspicion of the government held by "truthers" than most people on this site (the ones who shout "fucktard") but there are other slightly less sinister explanations to events like these that are worth consideration.
Was the well dressed man north of Citgo?
Why don't you two fucktards pick some names so it doesn't look like one ultra crazy fucktard having a conversation with himself?
Fucktard Patrol said...
Why don't you two fucktards pick some names so it doesn't look like one ultra crazy fucktard having a conversation with himself?
sorry, that would defeat the entire purpose of the disinfo op
Any moron can distinguish between the two writing styles.
"Any moron can distinguish between the two writing styles."
So what you're saying is troofers lack the ability to alter their writing style?
So what you're saying is troofers lack the ability to alter their writing style?
... the ones on this site do. At least Krazee and petgoat do.
One anonymous didn't capitalize and was challenging us to debunk Haskell's account and the other capitalized and was trying to debunk Haskell.
Any moron can distinguish between the two writing styles.
Writing styles can be imitated.
How is anyone supposed to a conversation with you when they can't be sure who they're talking to from one post to the next?
Pick a goddamn name, would you please?
Post a Comment
<< Home