Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Alex Jones and Subliminal Messaging

I haven't been blogging much lately, and have kind of missed that special brand of nuttery that Alex Jones brings to the table.




And one point in this bit he actually accused Fox TV of taking instructions from the CIA.  Strange, I always thought it was the other way around.  I really need to get my copy of the New World Order flowchart updated.

36 Comments:

At 13 June, 2012 05:06, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

That movie "Machete" started race riots.

 
At 13 June, 2012 05:09, Blogger The Locke said...

He has it all wrong! FoxNews takes it's instructions from NSA! It's MSNBC that takes it's instructions from the CIA! And CNN takes it's instructions from the FBI!

 
At 13 June, 2012 05:09, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

The NWO trained the hijackers at an Army base on how to pilot the airplanes that they didn't actually pilot because the planes were flown by remote control.

But they were trained nonetheless... why? I do not know for sure.

 
At 13 June, 2012 06:53, Blogger Len said...

Wonder Woman and Cookie Monster! OMG! PBS and DC comics were "in on it"

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Faux News gets its instructions from the CIA? That's news to me. After all, I was under the impression that Faux News gets its instructions from the phone hacking criminal, Ruppert Murdoch, and his Republican operative sidekick, Roger Ailes. Murdoch and Ailes, of course, get their instructions from their largest shareholder, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company.

Should we expect accuracy in reporting from LeatherLungs? Probably not.

 
At 13 June, 2012 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Y'all act as if you've never heard of Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. A fine lot of nimrods you are!

 
At 13 June, 2012 11:05, Blogger "Broom Jockey" William Rodriguez Fan said...

Y'all act as if you've never heard of Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. A fine lot of nimrods you are!

Did you know they used explosive thermite to bring down the towers?

 
At 13 June, 2012 11:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag brays, "...Y'all act as if you've never heard of Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. A fine lot of nimrods you are!"

Yeah, we all know that your 100% fact-free assertions are preferable to real facts. The reality, however, is in diametric opposition to your 100% fact-free assertions, ass. Faux News is owned and controlled by three individuals: A Saudi Arabian oil billionaire (Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud), an Australian billionaire (Ruppert Murdoch) who was recently exposed as a corporate criminal, and a former Nixon operative (Roger Ailes).

Now lecture us about "anonymous internet posters" who quote themselves as an authority, while you constantly cite yourself as an authority.

 
At 13 June, 2012 11:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction: "Ruppert Murdoch" should read Rupert Murdoch. Sorry. My bad.

 
At 13 June, 2012 12:44, Blogger Len said...

"Y'all act as if you've never heard of Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. A fine lot of nimrods you are!"

Please poin to evidence Sesame Street and DC Comics were part of OM

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

By the way, I forgot to mention that there's one entity that's even more powerful than Roger Ailes, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud and Rupert Murdoch combined: The corporate interests and institutions who advertize on Faux News. In the end, the advertisers always call the shots.

"...Meaningful choices are thus narrowly limited. Similar factors limit the range of ideas and opinion in obvious ways. Articulate expression is shaped by the same private powers that control the economy. It is largely dominated by major corporations that sell audiences to advertisers and naturally reflect the interests of the owners and their market. The ability to articulate and communicate one's views, concerns, and interests -- or even to discover them -- is thus narrowly constrained as well." -- Noam Chomsky

 
At 13 June, 2012 14:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

And exactly how are these advertisers' interests different from those of the CIA?

 
At 13 June, 2012 15:15, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

The CIA work for the New World Order who wish to control us, enslave us, imprison us and eventually kill 80% of us. Advertisers want to sell product and make money. They'll mostly leave us alone if we buy product.

 
At 13 June, 2012 16:21, Blogger Ian said...

Y'all act as if you've never heard of Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. A fine lot of nimrods you are!

And who better to explain these things than a paranoid lunatic failed janitor who spends all day living with his parents and babbling on the internet about magic thermite elves and invisible widows?

Please, Brian, tell us again about the advertising-media industrial complex.

 
At 13 June, 2012 18:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So I'm clear on this...

The WTC was bombed in 1993 underlining the obvious fact it was a target for terror.

But AJ thinks we were conditioned yet conditioning would have lead to everyone being MORE vigilant/paranoid about an attack on the WTC.

Then he claims the CIA gave a story line to the floundering "Lone Gunman" series nobody was watching which detailed their nefarious plot to the world.

I need to point out two glaring omissions which prove AJ is a government disinformation agent.

1. He ignores the 1976 movie "King Kong" where a giant gorilla climbs to the top of the Twin Towers.

2. He ignores the footage edited out of the first SPIDERMAN movie where a Brink's truck is suspended between the Twin Towers in a giant web.

It's obvious Jones has gone out of his way to cover up the FACT the attacks of 9/11 were staged by King Kong and Spiderman.

 
At 14 June, 2012 18:02, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"It's obvious Jones has gone out of his way to cover up the FACT the attacks of 9/11 were staged by King Kong and Spiderman."

Finally! 9/11 has been explained and I can sleep soundly tonight!

Actually, is 9/11 twoof still alive. I used see twoofer trolls pop up on any news story vaguely related to the war on terror, now I can't even find them on 9/11 related stuff. Did they all reach puberty en mass?

 
At 15 June, 2012 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

So CD, in your mind people reach adulthood when they stop expecting real answers and instead accept silly fairy tales?

 
At 15 June, 2012 18:47, Blogger Ian said...

So CD, in your mind people reach adulthood when they stop expecting real answers and instead accept silly fairy tales?

Perfect example: Brian is pushing 60, and yet he lives at home and needs his parents to take care of him. He also spends all day on the internet calling people "girls" like an 8-year-old.

Brian certainly hasn't reached adulthood.

 
At 15 June, 2012 20:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian's mental issue keeps him on the short bus.

Pi is an irrational number: 3.1415926535.....to infinity. Yet Pi falls between 3 & 4. In Brian's world we can't count to 4 because Pi has no end, or we have to write out Pi until we discover an end before we can get to four.

Everyone else understands that to make things add up you leave out the irrational stuff.

Each year since 9/11 prominent university engineering departments have released papers detailing their take on the collapses. They don't all agree, in fact G.P. Cherepanov's 2008 paper argued against a progressive collapse, and proposed a hybrid-collapse theory which is radically different than NIST, the Japanese crew, and K.A. Seffen.

Yet at no point do any of these papers claim any other initiating cause than the planes combined with fire.

 
At 16 June, 2012 09:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you do a nice job of constructing a silly argument equivalent to Reboring's statistical argument or ButtGale's legal evidence argument, but then you attribute it to me. 22/7 has always done just fine for me as Π, or 3.14. It's Reboring and GutterBall who have to indulge in specious reasons to end the discussion.

For you to apply the mathematical definition of irrational in the place of the logical definition of irrational is unintelligent.

Note that Cherepanov says the conventional wisdom about progressive collapse is impossible.

 
At 16 June, 2012 09:20, Blogger J Rebori said...

I realize the first week or so of Statistics class would be diffiult for you and you want to call it specious, but the only reason it shuts down the discussion is because it so clearly proves your claims wrong.

"Reality, what a concept."

 
At 16 June, 2012 09:21, Blogger Ian said...

I see Brian is going to spend another glorious weekend babbling about invisible, silent explosives and magic thermite elves.

So how many more decades of posting dumbspam here before the widows have their questions answered, Brian?

 
At 16 June, 2012 09:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...I see Brian is going to spend another glorious weekend babbling about invisible, silent explosives and magic thermite elves."

You forgot to add thread hijacking to the list.

 
At 16 June, 2012 10:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Reboring, your statistical argument is specious because it is irrelevant. Your argument that because the number is imprecise, therefore it is meaningless, is invalid.

Isn't it interesting that all the jackshit drips who constantly accuse me of thread hijacking are themselves changing the topic to a discussion of me.

 
At 16 June, 2012 16:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"For you to apply the mathematical definition of irrational in the place of the logical definition of irrational is unintelligent."

So why do you do it all the time?

"Note that Cherepanov says the conventional wisdom about progressive collapse is impossible."

Yes, and then he offers his theory which includes progressive collapse as part of a series of events bringing the towers down.

Nowhere does he suggest controlled demo

 
At 16 June, 2012 16:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you make stuff up and you lie.

There was no reason for Cherepanov to suggest controlled demolition. The subject of his paper was a fracture wave theory, not controlled demolition. There was no reason for him to discuss controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that he says the conventional progressive collapse scenario is impossible.

 
At 16 June, 2012 17:05, Blogger J Rebori said...

Your claims about what numbers that have no meaning mean is hilarious. But enough hijacking.

Anyone who doubts my position can read it for themselves and with about a half hour of study refute all your claims. So I'll leave it to the interested to see for themselves.

As I said when I started this, it was nice of you to provide all the evidence needed to show anyone who cared your utter lack of understanding of statistics.

 
At 16 June, 2012 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Reboring, your belief that imprecise numbers have no meaning is highly unintelligent. Your statistical argument is immaterial, and your inability to see that discredits you. You may as well argue that if I can't tell you exactly how many stars there are, then there are no stars.

 
At 16 June, 2012 19:04, Blogger J Rebori said...

All statistics are imprecise. I didn't claim that made yours meaningless.

I said yours are meaningless because they are gathered by a method that is invalid. I also pointed out that the method's uselessness is something that is taught to students in the first days of a statistics course.

But you can rant to yourself now. I've pointed out your errors and explained them. Anyonewho is reading your claims and still believes them is hopeless. As I said, an hour or so of reading will educate most anyone to the details.

 
At 16 June, 2012 21:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"There was no reason for Cherepanov to suggest controlled demolition"

Because there was no CD.

"However, the fact remains that he says the conventional progressive collapse scenario is impossible."

Yes, he says it was a hybrid collapse combining progressive collapse with all the other funky things the WTC had to offer.

So he's explained it. You should be happy.

 
At 17 June, 2012 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, I bet you don't even know what the point of our discussion is. You just want to impose an irrelevant "gotcha" to shut it down.

MGF, Cherepanov says the conventional progressive collapse scenario is impossible. He never said controlled demolition was.

I want an honest and thorough official investigation. Some obscure scientist's theory is not it.

 
At 17 June, 2012 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Cherepanov? The concept of "fracture wave" was proposed by Cherepanov over 40 years ago. There's only one problem. Not one scientist or engineer has EVER used Cherepanov's "fracture wave" theory. Zdeněk P. Bažant, moreover, tore Cherepanov's theory to shreds at the symposium on WTC collapse in Boulder Colorado on 6 June 2006.

Cherepanov is irrelevant.

 
At 17 June, 2012 13:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I want an honest and thorough official investigation. Some obscure scientist's theory is not it."

So we have to listen to some obscure college drop-out sex stalker?

 
At 18 June, 2012 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, if you want to listen to some obscure college drop-out sex stalker, by all means go ahead. I wouldn't want to speculate on who is telling you what you must or mustn't or needn't do.

 
At 18 June, 2012 10:19, Blogger Goat Fucker's Advocate said...

Allow me to introduce myself, I'm Brian B. Good. My motto:

The Internet: the final frontier. These are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception, to seek out new underwire bras and women's underwear, to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.

 
At 19 June, 2012 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR didn't know what the point of discussion was. He just wanted to draw a red herring across the trail.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home