Title: Alex Jones Smacks Down a 9/11 Kool-Aid Drinker Source:
. URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMjgyzKoXy4 Published:May 12, 2008 Author:. Post Date:2008-05-12 22:12:16 by Artisan Keywords:None Views:1779 Comments:40
From The Alex Jones Show, February 24, 2008. Alex takes a call from a caller who finds it incredulous that the government could stage an attack against itself. The caller tries to talk down to Alex, but Alex schools him on the basics of false flag terror. A must-watch for all 9/11 Kool-Aid drinkers and those who love to see them smacked down. For even more reasons to doubt the official story, visit Alex's sites, including:
That's a funny video, but Alex at his own conference in L.A. had Jimmy Walter, (a no planer) and Jim Fetzer (a no planer) on his panel., and has interviewed Morgan Reynolds, (a no planer) on his show probably several times.
I do understand why he now wants to disassociate with no planers though. But he did not in the past.
There is a lot of finger-pointing going on. Some of it could be COINTELPRO, but much of it relates to the informal nature of dissent. I think we have to be very careful about these accusations. Facts and rational analysis are the only friends we have.
There is a lot of finger-pointing going on. Some of it could be COINTELPRO, but much of it relates to the informal nature of dissent. I think we have to be very careful about these accusations. Facts and rational analysis are the only friends we have.
Alex has never advocated the no plane theories that I know of. But to say he never associated with the no planers, well, when Jimmy Walter was at Alex's conference in LA in June 2006 I spoke with him briefly, and he was saying he believes they were holograms. But he did not say it onstage, . Jim Fetzer , who is on the C-SPAN program as one of Alex's panelists, also did not mention the no planes theory at all, at that point..
On the vid nobody posted, alex says that the no-planers talked about credible things for a few years and then started on the no planes to discredit the movement. thats possible, or i suppose its also possible that they really could believe it.
A lot of people bash dave von kleist and his pod footage, but i still think that in plane site is one of the best 911 videos there is. the pod footage is only a small part of it. the film is not too long, its simple , shows a lot of footage of the bombs and people talking about bombs, and also has a half hour segment on OKC. Have you seen 911 IN PLANE SITE?
I've seen in Plane Sight, and I've also read some criticism. Bottom line: discussion is good. I don't believe that it's the lack of consensus about what really happened that's keeping us from using the doubts effectively in a political context.
There is one incontrovertible fact that is typically not discussed in the media: reaction to 9/11 was misdirected for the benefit of the Likud's Clean Break policy. Period.
Going after Saddam's WMD was always about defending Israel, and never, never, never was about preventing another 9/11. We'd have stopped illegal immigration if we were really serious about that.
That leaves a lot of questions, and they're all worth media attention that they're not getting by the Jewish-influenced press.
The press (and the blogosphere) should stand and fall based on the quality of its ideas. If a no planer has a point to make in public, it'll either work or it won't from a logical perspective. Law enforcement is a separate sphere.
Wasn't really deputizing you, I'm just a civilian, but to the unbiased bystander in you I would ask how long are you going to encourage idiocy as if it's dialogue when you could just say nothing and be glad someone's finally saying it's idiotic for you?
Not an airliner. By all evidence available to me it was a smaller jet-powered aircraft, in all likelihood un-manned. If it had wings as opposed to fins, then they apparently weren't very wide wings. So, many, if not all, of the light- pole knockdowns were apparently rigged, which is a disturbing thought even at this point.
Not an airliner. By all evidence available to me it was a smaller jet-powered aircraft, in all likelihood un-manned. If it had wings as opposed to fins, then they apparently weren't very wide wings.