Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

3.drop out - leave school or an educational program prematurely

Primary School and Secondary(High) School would, in my opinion, be classed as an educational program. College and/or university would be an optional extension of that program. If you don't go to either, it could be classed as leaving the program.

What a stretch. You yourself said University is optional. He didnt go to University, you cant leave school or an educational program prematurely if you never went there. In fact it still wouldnt be too accurate to say you dropped out of school even if you left secondary school and were homeschooled and obtained your qualifications that way. Sorry, but in the UK dropout does not mean someone that never went to University.

Ed

 

[dbalsdon]

but at least Im open to being wrong

As is everyone else that is here. It's just that everything we've seen so far has backed up the 'official story'. When/IF the TM finds something which actually proves someone other then OBL and al qaeda were behind the attacks, we'll be willing to change our opinions.

Just curious, what does theory mean, to you?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Edx is just as bad as Dylan. He is taking a legitimate statement about someone and trying to twist it into something it isn't all to distract from the real issue here which is the intent to mislead people such as Dylan and Alex do. Dylan is a drop out. He clearly dropped out of his education and trying to twist definitions to suite your needs is shameless.

The bottom line here is that Ed is pissed about a truther getting caught in a lie. He couldn't care less about the exposure of the real lie by people touting truth and patriotism, etc etc. And the BBC isn't claiming debunking anything, they are reporting.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

I dont think they should have described him as a 'drop out' but i dont think they did this to smear him, if this was the case they would have said 'failed entry to film school'. People sometimes get described as a 'drop out' in a positive way, like Bill Gates or Richard Branson, it doesnt necessarilty connote a negative label, more a maverick. It was a mistake to describe him as a 'drop out' as he never made entry, but if you read Dylans biography about not getting into college and becoming a waiter its easy to understand the producer describing him as such.

 

[alexg]

So Alex Jones scoured the whole documentary and found a single factual error. Is that about the size of it? If there was a pattern of such errors then you might have something.

Edx, please tell me you couldn't keep a straight face when you heard Alex Jones talking about 'hit pieces'.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What a stretch. You yourself said University is optional. He didnt go to University, you cant leave school or an educational program prematurely if you never went there. In fact it still wouldnt be too accurate to say you dropped out of school even if you left secondary school and were homeschooled and obtained your qualifications that way. Sorry, but in the UK dropout does not mean someone that never went to University.

Ed

It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change. The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school. Had it not been for LC he would most likely have continued with school and not have dropped out.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here. The meaning of what the guy said would be the same anywhere.

 

[Edx]

Re: dropout - if leaving the educational system in England before attending college is not considered to be formally or informally 'droping out' then the BBC documentary is simply incorrect. It might be worth noting that Dylan seems to have had the aptitude and the desire to go to college but apparently gave up on this aspiration when he was rejected from 'film school'. If the docu is simply in error on this point the next question is how did they make this error. It may have been an innocent error or it could have been a 'hit'. What I don't see in the film is any pattern of similar FACTUAL errors or misrepresentations which would tend to support the notion that they were intentionally trying to mislead us on factual matters. I also don't think the 'dropout' tag is all that damaging.

I see a pattern of misrepresenting the arguments and misrepresenting the people that make the arguments. See my previous posts.

However, if they are wrong about this point it is important for the BBC and for us, as debunkers, to simply acknowldege this.

Well, yes that would be a good step. It would have been very easy for the producer to say "yea sorry Dylan I made a mistake", but they didnt, he tried to pretend "dropped out" meant something different in the Uk to what it does in the US but the fact is it means the same thing and implies the same thing. Coupled with the rest of their misrepresenting presentation Im not surprised they did that.

Is the whole thing a 'hit piece' or a documentary? It's somewhere in between IMHO. I think most TV documenraies fall into this category. It always seems that the starting assumptions of the film makers show through. I think this is in part due to the limitations of the medium.

I think the history channels documentary could be said to be inbetween, but not this. This was as bad a hit piece that I think there is a an example of. Like I said before the producer of the Channel 4 film on the Bilderberg Group and Alex Jones' trip to Bohemium Grove is fair and balanced.

I think edx has a point; the BBC docu was less than perfectly fair and balanced.

To put it mildly, but thanks.

I'm sure Alex Jones would have you believe it was all bunk yet all he seems to come up with by way of fatual error is the dropout issue. Unless I am missing something.

And the strong implication that all the victems familys hate 911 CTs and theres they implication that 911 CTs are antisemites. Stuff like that.

Thankyou for being a more reasonable than the responce Ive gotten so far which essentially amounts to apologetics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not going to bother with most of this because it's getting repetetive, but there's one thing:

Rubbish, you keep arguing that theres no legitimate people they could have used to support the CTs case. People like Bob Kerrey did say what CTs have said about Bush not doing anything and ignoring intelligence, so why wasnt he worth bringing on or talking about? Is it because they dont want someone as credible as he is to appear to support one of their arguments? Robin Cook said Blair was intentionally dishonest in order to take us to war, thats a CT claim as well, but that doesnt make him a CTer. But my point, if you'd have cared enough to think about what I was saying rather than gleefully jumping to the conclusion that I was misrepresenting you, was that there are many people that agree with small, several or many parts of the CTs case that are worth talking about. If you just pretend they dont exist is not a fair presentation of the situation.

(a) None of these people agree with the central feature of the CT, which is that the US Government knowingly executed the attacks or allowed them to be carried out. The claim that the US and UK governments were dishonest in order to provoke war with Iraq is one that's hotly debated, more on the Politics forum than here, because it's an argument that has merits on both sides. The claim that Bush was incompetent in allowing the attacks to happen is in the same category. You are therefore criticising the BBC, in effect, for not appending reasonable arguments to those of the conspiracists in order to make them appear more reasonable by association. If I'm wrong here, please point me to a single statement by Bob Kerrey or Robin Cook in which they suggest that LIHOP or MIHOP theories are in any way credible. Just one. By either of them.

(b) As I said, the conclusion of the program is that there may well have been a conspiracy after the fact to cover up incompetence. How could that be if there was no incompetence to cover up? The program not only represented the body of opinion you're complaining about it omitting, it agreed with it.

(c) However passionately you choose to believe that I'm pretending Bob Kerrey and Robin Cook don't exist, your expression of that belief is still a strawman.

Dave

 

[Walter Ego]

No, you evidently havent listened to the Alex Jones show where the producer was asked why he said Dylan was a drop out, and he said it was because "drop out" in the Uk meant someone that didnt go to Univercity not that someone took a course and "dropped out". That isnt true, it means the same thing in the UK as it does in the US.

Whether or not Dylan was mischaracterized as a dropout is irrelevant. It’s a red herring you’re using to avoid discussing the substance of the documentary. Dylan made himself look like a fool in the film. He didn’t need any help from the BBC.

Even if they were 100% right about the stuff they did include as responce to the arguments they touched on, that makes no difference as to the balanced and fair presentation that both you and they claimed the film was.

In other words even if the film completely destroyed the claims of the of Dylan, Fetzer, Jones, et al, it doesn’t matter because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout and you don’t have to argue if there was anything factually mistaken about 9-11 in the film because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.

We’re going in circles here, fella. One more time before I write you off as someone I need no longer pay attention to.

Was there anything factually wrong in the film regarding what happened on 9-11?

(And don't tell me they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.)

 

[alexg]

It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change. The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school. Had it not been for LC he would most likely have continued with school and not have dropped out.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here. The meaning of what the guy said would be the same anywhere.

Technically, if I try to get in to college but get rejected then I didn't dropout. I tried to get into some really nice schools but I was rejected so I ended up going to a OK school. I wonder how much effort Dylan made to get into some other school? Still, the term 'dropout' clealry implies you were in a certain level of education and choose to quit. In the US you do not use the term in this way. Maybe things are different elsewhere.

 

[Edx]

Edx is just as bad as Dylan. He is taking a legitimate statement about someone and trying to twist it into something it isn't all to distract from the real issue here which is the intent to mislead people such as Dylan and Alex do. Dylan is a drop out. He clearly dropped out of his education and trying to twist definitions to suite your needs is shameless.

The bottom line here is that Ed is pissed about a truther getting caught in a lie. He couldn't care less about the exposure of the real lie by people touting truth and patriotism, etc etc. And the BBC isn't claiming debunking anything, they are reporting.

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own.

It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change.

"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.

The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school.

The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here.

Wow, irony.

 

[Edx]

Whether or not Dylan was mischaracterized as a dropout is irrelevant. It’s a red herring you’re using to avoid discussing the substance of the documentary. Dylan made himself look like a fool in the film. He didn’t need any help from the BBC.

Already discussed at length, if you're going to ignore it all Im not going to waste my time repeating myself for you to ignore it again. Ive already wasted enough of my time talking about this topic.

In other words even if the film completely destroyed the claims of the of Dylan, Fetzer, Jones, et al, it doesn’t matter because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout and you don’t have to argue if there was anything factually mistaken about 9-11 in the film because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.

They did far more than just call Dylan a drop out, but you intentionally wont talk about anything else I said several times and in several different ways, so you'd rather focus on this. Fine, but now I know what you're like and I know theres little need to bother talking to you if this is how you're going to act.

We’re going in circles here, fella. One more time before I write you off as someone I need no longer pay attention to.

Was there anything factually wrong in the film regarding what happened on 9-11?

(And don't tell me they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.)

Already addressed. You've ignored it.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own.

Because you're being dishonest. See note a)

"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.

Sure isn't using any dictionary defintion. See note a)

The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.

It isn't, but see note a)

Note a)

dropout
noun1. someone who quits school before graduation 2. someone who withdraws from a social group or environment
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Hm. Wonder what definition the BBC meant. Could be either way...

 

[Sabrina]

I would have to agree with alexg; I don't feel it was perfectly fair and balanced either. However, that doesn't mean I think it was wrong; I think the FACTS presented in the documentary were perfectly true. Any emotional slant placed on it via clever use of interviews, camera angles, and sob stories is, ultimately, irrelevant to the facts, and they are that the three CTers in that documentary have been proven, via quantifiable evidence, to be wrong again and again.

EDX, I think this is why people are so confused by your vehement opposition to this documentary; you (and bear in mind this is strictly my opinion based on reading your posts) seem to be promoting the idea that because the documentary was not unbiased means it was wrong, but it can be biased and still be right. Is that the right way to go about things? Absolutely not, but, as others have said, these documentarians were ultimately trying to sell a perspective by dressing it up in the nicest clothes possible while offering it's opposition in rags, to use a metaphor, solely so they could make a few dollars on it. That was their goal. They probably could care less which position is correct; they simply went with the more popular one as easier to sell and did what they could to make it more appealing than the other perspective. But the dressing-up of the story has little consequence ultimately to critical thinkers, because they are able to verify the FACTS offered in the documentary for themselves, and have done so on numerous occasions. Bearing that in mind, can you understand now why people don't seem to care that the documentary seemingly slanted the perspective to make the non-CT one more inviting?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own.




"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.


The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.



Wow, irony.

Witness all the way Ed is treating everyone who doesn't agree with him when he uses dishonest tactics from Alex Jones to misrepresent a dishonest film maker.

The point was not to smear, it was to confront. You clearly have no problem with such tactics and think everyone here is stupid enough to fall for your ********. It's not going to work buddy. Go to the LC change forum and peddle that nonsense.

And here's a blue for you, because a comment isn't a compliment, does not make it dishonest. This is a clear cut case of you not liking that it puts a dent in the truther cause and are trying to look for anything to put down the findings. It's not going to happen because those two have already been proven frauds. And if I had a dime for every one of you minions that went around pretending to be be looking for honesty and integrity while doing just the opposite, I would be rich. Run along now.

 

[alexg]

Edx, if I scour the world and find one CD expert out of thousands who thinks building 7 was a CD am I required to put this guy in my documentary? In a short documentary the best you can do is find representative samples. You cannot be exhaustive. I repeat that I do not think the docu was far from the mark here.

 

[Edx]

=Dave Rogers;3407911]
(a) None of these people agree with the central feature of the CT, which is that the US Government knowingly executed the attacks or allowed them to be carried out.

Irrelevant. CTs make arguments that says Bush had prior warnings and that Bush didnt do anything about it, CTs claim that Bush and Blair lied to take is to war. To say its irrelevant that those are supported by credible people like Cook or Kerrey just because they dont believe in an inside job or the Illuminati is a ridiculous argument. The fact is several arguments made by CTs are more true than you let on, its their interpreation of that which faulty and/or speculative. A fair documentary that was truly investigating this would have acknolwedged this.

The claim that the US and UK governments were dishonest in order to provoke war with Iraq is one that's hotly debated, more on the Politics forum than here, because it's an argument that has merits on both sides. The claim that Bush was incompetent in allowing the attacks to happen is in the same category. You are therefore criticising the BBC, in effect, for not appending reasonable arguments to those of the conspiracists in order to make them appear more reasonable by association. If I'm wrong here, please point me to a single statement by Bob Kerrey or Robin Cook in which they suggest that LIHOP or MIHOP theories are in any way credible. Just one. By either of them.

Irrelevant, like I already said. See above.

(b) As I said, the conclusion of the program is that there may well have been a conspiracy after the fact to cover up incompetence. How could that be if there was no incompetence to cover up? The program not only represented the body of opinion you're complaining about it omitting, it agreed with it.

It does, about the only thing it does right. But if we look at 911: Press for Truth, whats their position? Thats an incompetence claim, but its still called a CT film that according to this forum has nothing to back up any of its claims. Again, you'll support a film like Conspiracy Files when it suits you when though their main point is theres a coverup after 911 is the same as Press for Truth!

(c) However passionately you choose to believe that I'm pretending Bob Kerrey and Robin Cook don't exist, your expression of that belief is still a strawman.

I dont know how you gleaned that out of my post. Im saying the film pretended people Ive talked about didnt exist.

 

[beachnut]

Frank Spotnitz wasnt an other, he was basically a debunker they devoted around 10 minutes to talking about how CTs were insane. You say they used experts but they didnt use anyone that could have supported the CT, not even to debunk them. But the stuff they left out is pivitol to the point. So I think its fair to characterise most of those "expert"s as debunkers, in the same way as Danny Jowenko is also an expert, but he wasnt on there. Steven Jones is a physics expert, he wasnt in there. No one one was. They could have touched on Danny just to show that he didnt believe the WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives, but oh no, if they did that they'd have to show how he thinks WTC7 was demolished. So instead, they misrepresented and smear. Why did they need to do that and how can it be defended? You should be annoyed that the film used those tactics, I would be if someone made an anti-Creationism video in the same way.

You want to know what IS a fair and balanced documentary? Is the documentary made by the Channel 4 director who went with Alex Jones to Bohemian Grove.

They are insane, on the ideas they have. So? The show let the idiots on 9/11 talk; too bad Thermite Jones was not on to show to all even PhDs have idiot ideas and make up junk.

Putting Thermite Jones on would be cruel. He is insane to come up with junk like he does.
Thermite Jones, made up his idea 4 years after 9/11 (if you need to see his very first paper/letter, I can post it)! It would be funny () to see pure nut case ideas up on the tele. To put a physicist on who said thermite did it, and expose to the world he is nuts. Nice, but other physicists would not even touch it, would they. It is embarrassing to all physicist that such an idiot exists. You want to expose an idiot and discredit him to the whole world but your are worried about "dropout" Dylan.

Walter's video is great from the OP, shows Dylan as the dumb guy he is. BBC video was too fair to the idiots in the truth movement but summed it up saying they were full of crap. Someone is trying to make a stupid point about stupid people. As he continues to do what he says other are doing. ((by reading it))

The OP video is great; BBC is good because it says the CTers are with zero evidence. Cool

 

[Edx]

The point was not to smear, it was to confront.

Not according to the producer. He said it was a fair and balanced investigation that went back to primary sources and witness'.

And here's a blue for you, because a comment isn't a compliment, does not make it dishonest.

This one was.

This is a clear cut case of you not liking that it puts a dent in the truther cause and are trying to look for anything to put down the findings.

Want me to list all the websites, videos and films Ive seen that show me most 911 Truth claims are wrong? No matter, you'd rather put me in a box and dismiss me as a "truther" in order to ignore me.

 

[Pardalis]

If I remember right Undesired Walrus made also a funny video with that BBC segment, and he added music from "Curb Your Enthusiasm" over Avery's dumbfounded stare.

That was pretty funny.