They are. I remember laughing so hard at one, but then I remembered I'm probably laughing at the lunatic and that made me sad.
Easy for me to say, but he should have stayed independent and tried to avoid dependence on one platform. He could really have put a dent in the MSM model, probably ultimately made even more money and not be answerable to anyone.
Eg, there was the Pizzagate thing where he apparently claimed that there was a child sex trafficing ring with political involvement in some pizza shop, but the actual child sex trafficing ring was Epstein. Or the war in Afghanistan was a disaster because it was an inside job when it turned out to be a disaster for more mundane reasons.
So on the one hand he's wrong about everything, and on the other hand it is entertaining trying to keep score of which bits of the madness turn out accurate. There is a hilarious argument that someone starting from his position and then taking a levelheaded approach to policy could get a better outcome in many instances than what actually happens.
But none of the bits in your example turned out to be accurate? Afghanistan was a disaster for a long time, and child sex traffiking rings involving the powerful have been around for a long time (Dutroux). He just adds conspiracy nonsense to these old stories?
Something that seems incongruent to me might be a product of those intuitions. Intuitions I can't build from reading alone.
Alex Jones served a function.
Apart from exposing the global alien-reptilian-humanoid conspiracy to enslave man/woman-kind in a prison planet mined for loosh--
he made amazingly entertaining content. Bring Back BadAlex!