Satire: Prominent demolition firm threatens popular radio personality for defamation and trade libel.

Satire, post your own Press Releases here:

A professional controlled demolition company is threatening to sue popular radio and Internet personality Alex Jones for an article making false and specious claims.

Mr. Jones wrongly claims that the recent demolition of the Landmark Tower in North Texas was similar to the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:

In fact, the demolition of the Trade Centers was much more professional and well-done.

Professional Demolition Company spokesman John Imhoff said "Consumers of demolition services would wrongly believe from Mr. Jones' remarks that the services we provided on 9/11 were not professional. In fact, 9/11 was a difficult job, and we did it as instructed and with minimal damage to surrounding structures."

Imhoff went on with some specific examples: "While the building tipped over substantially in the Landmark demolition, we were able to halt the rotation in mid-air on September 11th. Moroever, we simulated a top-down collapse with perfect precision and timing. We are, in fact, one of the industry leaders, and we don't take Mr. Jones' disparaging remarks lightly."

oh, it's satire.. you really

oh, it's satire.. you really had me going there for a minute. :)

wait a minute..whats going

wait a minute..whats going on? AJ didnt say anything about landmark being the ones who brought 9/11 and what is the response? is this satire or is this real?

Yea SBG, I think you should

Yea SBG, I think you should take this down dude, because if this is fake the headline looks real and it might damage the reputation of the site.

I was hoping it was

I was hoping it was real!!

Imagine Court TV covering the case LOL!

Below is real satire. It's a

Below is real satire. It's a real gem. It gets to the heart of the matter of the boot-lickers who charge "conspiracy theorist" in order to shut down inquiry, by turning their own charge against them.


Pres. Bush Sees "Vast Conspiracy"

(Conspiracy Nation, 10/20/01) -- U.S. president George W. Bush is calling the Sept. 11th terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a "vast, global conspiracy." But less paranoid observers scoff at the notion.

"This is a common American reaction to what are in reality merely random events," stated professor G. Steadfast of Oberlin college. "President Bush is exhibiting paranoid symptoms, part of what I call 'the paranoid style' in American politics."

Author Gerald Poser concurs: "What you have on September 11th is just three, random, lone nuts, who simultaneously hijacked planes. Because of the chance synchronicity of the events, which according to Chaos Theory, *can* happen, president Bush has jumped to paranoid conclusions. Case closed."

But conspiracy theorists throughout the world, drinking gallons of coffee and with tired eyes glued to the Internet late at night, aren't so sure. Some even venture beyond what president Bush has said. "I see an evil man with a towel wrapped around his head, sitting in a cave, as being the ultimate mastermind of the plot," said one of these caffeinated theorists.

Chirp Ballet, noted writer, laughs at the multiplying theories born from president Bush's original theory. "Of course, there are no conspiracies," he chuckled. "But beware of the crypto-fascists," he added, as an afterthought.

Also dismissing notions of a "conspiracy" behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks is Umberto Eco, author of "Foucault's Pendulum." Eco offered his own scholarly perspective on the Bush conspiracy theory: "Ever since Nietzche dethroned God, with his statement 'God is dead,' there has been a 'God vacuum.' People such as president Bush seek to fill that void by creating a new 'God,' in the form of a vast conspiracy," he proselytized. "Hence, Mr. Bush *needs* to see a 'vast conspiracy,' as a security blanket against God's demise."

But president Bush is adamant. "The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the acts of crazed assassins, coordinated by the Devil," he insisted.

And, Bush adds, "What about that fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania?"

"Merely a random event, allowable in the framework of Chaos Theory," responded Poser.

Yeah, its satire, I just

Yeah, its satire, I just made it more obvious. Sorry for the confusion.

As the guy who wrote this, I

As the guy who wrote this, I didn't mean to imply that the same company did both demolitions. Just that "Professional Demolition Company", which did 9/11, wasn't happy being compared with the "inferior" job at Landmark tower.

BTW, if you do submit your

BTW, if you do submit your own press releases, please make them at least as good (and hopefully alot better) than mine.

Mine tried to be understated so it would "fly under the radar" and get approved, which it did.

If you are too obvious in being satire, they won't approve it:)

That was excellent GW,

That was excellent GW, hopefully someone will see it.

However, press releases stating Charlie Sheen is questioning 9/11 does not have to be satire and doesn't have to fly under any radar. It is a fact, maybe some member of the press will pick up on it.

OK, stop laughing, it could happen.

Somebigguy, good point.

Somebigguy, good point. Apparently, the Drudge Report linked to it for a while:

cant even find charlie sheen

cant even find charlie sheen in the old headlines section on drudge

so much for a free press, drudge has done this before

israel shot down syrian migs 3 days after 9-11, and it wasnt reported until november 2004, after bushes second win

try finding that one on drudge

i got harrassed over that one, big time

I'm here stating what I wish

I'm here stating what I wish would be obvious, but lying isn't the way to promote the truth.

If you want to do satire, then do it in such a way as to leave no doubt that it is a joke. Trying to craft so-called "satire" so that it gets on press-release websites as a factual article doesn't do the cause of truth any good.

The genuine way to do justice with the truth is to just put it all on the table in a matter-of-fact way and let the chips fall where they may.

"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."--Jesus Christ, Luke 8:16,17

Psychology teaches that many

Psychology teaches that many people screen information which conflicts with their already-formed beliefs.

I am all for pushing the facts straightforwardly and openly.

But satire -- and fiction -- can sometimes work on people who don't want to hear ANY facts that 9-11 was an inside job.

Once 9/11 Truth becomes

Once 9/11 Truth becomes common in Pop Culture, it will become the target of jokes, newspaper comics, etc. Think what Letterman will do with it.

Nothing wrong here I don't think, if humor gets through to some people, then go for it.

It is certainly no worse than quoting biblical passages. We are trying to eradicate myths here, not promote them.

GeorgeWashington, people do

GeorgeWashington, people do indeed often mentally block out the truth.

My objection is in crafting satiracal press-releases, etc., in such a way that they pass for attempts at factual articles. Doing that will hurt the cause of truth more than it could help, as then people will be even more weary of taking seriously such topics as we deal with.

The best way to deal with people in denial is to give them what I call intellectual shock-therapy (not to be confused with so-called "shock therapy," which involves electrical shocks). That is, simply state the facts in a matter-of-fact way without being mealy-mouthed or wishy-washy.

Most people don't really know how to speak properly when it comes to winning over others, since we've all been indoctrinated into epistemological relativism--which is a great benefit to governments, since 2+2=4 may be true for Sally, whereas 2+2=5 is true for Johnny. The point is to not leave people in denial an "out"--since if you leave them an "out" via muddled thinking or muddled statements, people will take it.

People pick up on your leadership cues. If you act like you have a deep and dark dirty secret when you speak about the truth, or you crouch your staments with things like "I know this may sound crazy, but ..." then people will pick up on that. You give them ammunition because they can sense your fear of their rejection. It's like a wolf smelling blood.

But if you're bold and proud, and simply speak matter-of-factly without fear, then people will pick up on that, and sense that they can't shame you into conformity.

You've got to talk about the hated truth as if you were making a statement on the sky being blue. You've got to shame the people in denial for their attempts to believe the fallacies they cling on to.

You may not convert them on the spot, but you will have sown a seed.

James, your approach seems

James, your approach seems like a good one for you (in all sincerity).

In working with alot of different 9/11 activists and writers, I find that different styles work for different people.

GeorgeWashington, my "style"

GeorgeWashington, my "style" is the style of truth.

Intellectual shock-therapy is the most direct method of imparting the truth, for if the truth one is imparting is shocking, then one can't get around shocking another. Best to get it over with at the get-go. Let those in denial be shocked; for in intellectually shocking them in said manner, one will have at least planted a seed of doubt in their psyche.

Ay, humor is an excellent

Ay, humor is an excellent tool...just ask the late Bill Hicks.

i agree with james..

i agree with james..