Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dylan avery
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
I'm still wondering when Edx will respond to my post saying I felt he was overreacting; he mentioned it specifically, yet no response. *headscratch*
And without pulling up the list, I can estimate that there would have to be over 100,000 people at least PARTIALLY aware of the conspiracy in order for it to be pulled off (i.e. you're a member of the cleanup crew, so you know about the explosives, but you may not know about the pilots actually being CIA agents who parachuted to safety, or that the planes were actually missiles, or whatever). I've estimated that in the past, partially from Gravy's list and partially from my own knowledge of the US Intel Community. It's a statistical impossibility that THAT many people could keep completely silent for over six years no matter how much you threaten, bribe, or otherwise coerce them.
And without pulling up the list, I can estimate that there would have to be over 100,000 people at least PARTIALLY aware of the conspiracy in order for it to be pulled off (i.e. you're a member of the cleanup crew, so you know about the explosives, but you may not know about the pilots actually being CIA agents who parachuted to safety, or that the planes were actually missiles, or whatever). I've estimated that in the past, partially from Gravy's list and partially from my own knowledge of the US Intel Community. It's a statistical impossibility that THAT many people could keep completely silent for over six years no matter how much you threaten, bribe, or otherwise coerce them.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Someone here had a sig that said "Watergate Ratio: For every 12 conspirators, there is one Mark Felt." So in a conspiracy of 100,000, we're talking about 8,333 Mark Felts.
Where are they? Why has no one come forward with absolutely incontrovertible evidence of NWO involvement? If I were a Twoofer, I'd ponder on that and maybe think "could it be that it WASN'T a government operation?"
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,565
But when you bring up Watergate, a CTer will bring up The Manhattan Project (not realizing what a horribly inept analogy that is).
What amazes me most about CTers is the incredible lengths they will go to keep themselves ignorant.
What amazes me most about CTers is the incredible lengths they will go to keep themselves ignorant.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
First, remember what Guy Smith said about the show. This was a fair, objective and unbalanced investigation that went back primary sources and witness' and that they did not have a predetermined plan to debunk CTs. I dont know how any informed person, whatever their opinion on the CTs, can come away from the program and defend those statements. Bottom line is a truly objectve fair and unbalanced show would not have conducted itself the way this show did, and it would have included information critcal to understanding the topics and the arguments.
When they film the CTs they generally film hand held in their homes, when they interview Fetzer, the camera even wobbles around even though its clearly a stationary shot. When they film Popular Mechanics they use nice lighting and nice shots. Guy, you really dont need to make Fetzer look crazier than he is, just point a camera at him and let him talk, okay?. If it wasnt for the rest of the problems with the film, you might be forgiven for thinking it was just a badly setup tripod but all things considered Im sure there was a consious effort to do this. They gave about 3 minutes to Alex Jones despite being around him for a week, and although Davin Coburn wasnt in it that long either he was just one out a long line of witness' and "experts" and even a film maker they brought on to debunk the CTs while literally having no one else on or shown or even implied that could have supported, legitmately, in any way whatsoever what the CTs could have said. Theres no good explanation for any of this or the following points other than an intention to make the CTs look more ridiculous than they were. If they really are ridiculous you dont need to do that. I dont need to spin Creationism and misresent their views, all I have to do is show what they really think. I wouldnt defend a film that did that to them even if I agreed with its anti-Creationism conclusion.
1. Near the beginning Avery says either the government was A : Negligent in responce and awareness, or B: Directly involved. Someone said earlier that incomptence was irrelevant, but Avery just said that this is CT claim. So even the conclusion of the film is a CT claim! Obviously we all know Avery doesnt believe it was just incomptence or negligence, but the fact remains that it is a CT claim and its still relevant as is all the evidence for that.
2. Pancake graphic was backed away from in NIST and the graphic itself is inaccurate.
3. As I touched upon above they use 3 CTs and one Popular Mechanics debuker, but they provide over 9 others speakers denying CTs but they dont interview, show or acknowledge any witness' or people like exCIA analyst Ray McGovern, first responders like Craig Bartmer (who was even there when Guy was at Averys house) William Rodriguez, people like Danny Jowenko, pilots, Sibel Edmonds, military personel, or victems families like the Jersey Girls which I would have thought was an exceptionally interesting story, but they dont bring them on because premumably they would have given a discenting opinion to the offical events and so appear to support the CTs. Guy Smith didnt even have to agree with them, but they werent even mentioned and portrayed them as not even existing. You might say; well thats a lot of people you listed how could they have time to bring them all on? None of them were even mentioned. Not one of them, not once. Remember, this wasnt even meant to be a debunking film, it was meant to be an honest investigation.
4. NORAD. Well, Im having a discusson about NORAD on another threat. Needless to say I am not happy with Guys simplistic reporting of their responce. An interesting point could have been brought up that NORADs official timeline changed in 2004 with the 911 Commission, but of course they didnt even mention that either. Most of the problems with this film are these very relevant ommissions.
5. At 40:35 is the most deceptively spun part. They dont quote the fact that the story was originally reported in the Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post that some were warned via instant messenger. I thought he was going back to primary sources to investigate the claims? "4,000 Jews" is of course an exaggeration, but instead of saying there was some truth to the story, they just claimed it was all nonsence. They also used emotional manipulation by showing a Jewish victems family member who asked why her husband wasnt warned. They even use sad piano music over the top. And thats it, thats all they say about that topic. They dont even interview any of the CTs to see what they said about it, could it be because neither Alex or Avery and probably Fetzer as well never actually made the claim the way they said they did? Instead its just implied this is what the argument is, its wrong and its still spread and it hurts the families and its anti-semitic. Presumably if they interviewed Alex he would have mentioned Haaretz and The Washington Post and then they wouldnt have been able to make as strong a point. How can it be fair and objective when they spin the argument?
6. We have X-Files producer Frank Spotniz. Keep in mind they claimed that they only had a certian amount of time for the show and thats why they couldnt include more actual discussion on the topics, but they had him on for 10 minutes giving his personal opinion.
7. In the united 93 section, they make out that Avery doesnt even mention Delta 1989, they show a passenger of the plane as if to imply that Avery is denying its existence and that the woman never even took that plane. The truth of the argument may still be wrong but they misrepresent their argument to make it look more ridiculous and hurtfull, maybe because I suppose they didnt think it was bad enough already. Apparently Guy Smith was also shown all kinds of official news reports that state the debris field was much wider than what it is claimed in the film, and he didnt mention any of it. Put all this together and its more than sloppy. On a side note how does an bandana from a terrorist end up found unmarked and declared to be probably from a hijacker? Even if theres a sensible answer, why no question about it?
8. They didnt talk in their section on government lies about the history of false flag operations, government sponsored terrorism and secret operations against the public. That would presumeably have given too much weight to the idea that governments are more dirty than we usually like to think they are. Any balanced documenatry would have included Operation Northwoods, but he refused to include it according to Alex, and Guys responce to defend why he refused is because he thinks it didnt prove it was an inside job. Guy, you dont need to think that. You dont need to think it proves it, and it of course doesnt, I dont know anyone that says it proves it, but not including any of this information is relevant and its something a real balanced documentary would have at least mentioned. If they had cut out all the spin and distraction they would have had time to at least touched on a few more issues.
9. The only thing the film does right is the last section, but amazingly its also something almost no one in this thread has noticed or mentioned, especially as Ive heard it denied again and again on the forum. They had prior warnings, they lied about it, they were incompetent and lied about it and covered it up. Someone said to me earlier that it wasnt relevant to an inside job. Well while I dont think it was an inside job I can sure see why it would be relevant to it in a number of different ways and its only painfully poor imagination that stops you seeing how it can be. Just because the WTC wasnt demolished, just because Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon, doesnt mean they couldnt have wanted these attacks and ignored prior knowledge in order make sure they were able to carry it out. Before someone twists that, that doesnt mean thats what I think I just think its relevant to show in reference. They had people interviewed saying "we had no specific threat", but 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said they didnt need to have that, when Norad General McKinley said that to the 911 Commission they didnt think that was a good excuse either. They could have also mentioned that FBI agents investigating suspicious activity flight schools and were telling their superiors they were concerned about the intelligence they had got. But to be fair while they dont go into enough detail on this section and theres a lot more they could have said Im glad they at least said as much as they did do and it still goes contrary to many of the beliefs Ive read in this forum by the very people defending this documentary.
10. Right at the end they get in another jab, by implying all the victems families are hurt by CTs, while of course ignroing The Jersey Girls and Bill Doyle of the Coalition of 911 Families. When asked about if he'd heard about them he said he didnt agree with them, which is moving the goal posts. The point is Guy, they exist. To imply all the family members are all upset about this is spin. if I found out about them and all this afterwards, I'd assume the Conspiracy Files was deceptive.
11. I'd also like to mention that they didnt talk about the coverup surrounding the cleanup and the air quality. All of these are CTs regarding 911. The program and producer specifically claims not to have set out to debunk an inside job as someone here claimed, but to objectively and honestly investigate the CTs regarding 911. They also dont talk about the role of the Pakistani intelligence even though he says its very interesting and that they might do a whole hour show on it.
What I find incredible is even though the films conclusion was that there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy to cover up incompetence and failure to act on intelligence, you lap it up even though its essentially the same conclusion as Press for Truth. Yet, according to what Ive read here Press for Truth doesnt provide any evidence to back up any of its claims. If on Press for Truth they had said the same thing that Conspiracy files did at the end, it would have been hand waved. The fact is many people here have literally said they welcome any attacking of a CT no matter how its done and no matter what deception needs to be done to do it. The fact is people here have supported this documentary yet not spoken out against apparently something you all disagree with, which is that there was a conspiracy to cover up their incompetence and mistakes which I suppose goes back to the other point. Because the film is attacking a CT, you have to defend it regardless of how misrepresentative and spun it is.
BEFORE YOU REPLY:
Im sure people will now try and twist this and ignore what Im saying and smear me as just another "troofer" when I am not, and probably again try and tell me to prove something I never claimed or implied and tell me my point was something other than what Ive been saying for the past 4 pages, Iin reality I have only really been saying essentially what the conclusion of the Conspiracy Files is actually saying! But just because I agree with 85% of the conclusion of the documentary that does not justify the rest of it. Im just as critical of CT films as well, but apparently everyone just assumes Im someone Im not. Well if all you can do is twist and strawman to avoid my real position, and you know who you are, then you have only proven to me and anyone awake enough to realise it what you're really like. Im aware that not everyone here is like that, and to those I'll say my frustration is not directed at you.
And because Im tired of having to say the same thing, though I know there will be people that will ignore this anyway, heres some points I'd like to respond to.
1. Equal time, equal validity: I am not saying they needed to say CTs have equal validity or more validity. They could debunk them while still being honest about it.
2. It was an inside job! In case me saying it over and over isnt enough, I am not saying it was an inside job. I am speaking about what people here have acted like, I am speaking about honesty, about what the film claimed it was about and what it delivered.
3. But you're defending CTs! You must be a troofer! For some reason some people here cant seem to get their head around the idea that you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion. You'd think for a forum like this one that prides themselves on reason they'd be able to see the logical sence in that.
4. If you're not with me you're against me! Several people have make accusations like that in this thread, and if you think thats a good argument then I have no comment as you clearly cant be reasoned with. Truth isnt black and white, its somewhere in the middle.
PS: Becuase its already been discussed for the nth time I didnt mention "drop out" here once, until now.
When they film the CTs they generally film hand held in their homes, when they interview Fetzer, the camera even wobbles around even though its clearly a stationary shot. When they film Popular Mechanics they use nice lighting and nice shots. Guy, you really dont need to make Fetzer look crazier than he is, just point a camera at him and let him talk, okay?. If it wasnt for the rest of the problems with the film, you might be forgiven for thinking it was just a badly setup tripod but all things considered Im sure there was a consious effort to do this. They gave about 3 minutes to Alex Jones despite being around him for a week, and although Davin Coburn wasnt in it that long either he was just one out a long line of witness' and "experts" and even a film maker they brought on to debunk the CTs while literally having no one else on or shown or even implied that could have supported, legitmately, in any way whatsoever what the CTs could have said. Theres no good explanation for any of this or the following points other than an intention to make the CTs look more ridiculous than they were. If they really are ridiculous you dont need to do that. I dont need to spin Creationism and misresent their views, all I have to do is show what they really think. I wouldnt defend a film that did that to them even if I agreed with its anti-Creationism conclusion.
1. Near the beginning Avery says either the government was A : Negligent in responce and awareness, or B: Directly involved. Someone said earlier that incomptence was irrelevant, but Avery just said that this is CT claim. So even the conclusion of the film is a CT claim! Obviously we all know Avery doesnt believe it was just incomptence or negligence, but the fact remains that it is a CT claim and its still relevant as is all the evidence for that.
2. Pancake graphic was backed away from in NIST and the graphic itself is inaccurate.
3. As I touched upon above they use 3 CTs and one Popular Mechanics debuker, but they provide over 9 others speakers denying CTs but they dont interview, show or acknowledge any witness' or people like exCIA analyst Ray McGovern, first responders like Craig Bartmer (who was even there when Guy was at Averys house) William Rodriguez, people like Danny Jowenko, pilots, Sibel Edmonds, military personel, or victems families like the Jersey Girls which I would have thought was an exceptionally interesting story, but they dont bring them on because premumably they would have given a discenting opinion to the offical events and so appear to support the CTs. Guy Smith didnt even have to agree with them, but they werent even mentioned and portrayed them as not even existing. You might say; well thats a lot of people you listed how could they have time to bring them all on? None of them were even mentioned. Not one of them, not once. Remember, this wasnt even meant to be a debunking film, it was meant to be an honest investigation.
4. NORAD. Well, Im having a discusson about NORAD on another threat. Needless to say I am not happy with Guys simplistic reporting of their responce. An interesting point could have been brought up that NORADs official timeline changed in 2004 with the 911 Commission, but of course they didnt even mention that either. Most of the problems with this film are these very relevant ommissions.
5. At 40:35 is the most deceptively spun part. They dont quote the fact that the story was originally reported in the Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post that some were warned via instant messenger. I thought he was going back to primary sources to investigate the claims? "4,000 Jews" is of course an exaggeration, but instead of saying there was some truth to the story, they just claimed it was all nonsence. They also used emotional manipulation by showing a Jewish victems family member who asked why her husband wasnt warned. They even use sad piano music over the top. And thats it, thats all they say about that topic. They dont even interview any of the CTs to see what they said about it, could it be because neither Alex or Avery and probably Fetzer as well never actually made the claim the way they said they did? Instead its just implied this is what the argument is, its wrong and its still spread and it hurts the families and its anti-semitic. Presumably if they interviewed Alex he would have mentioned Haaretz and The Washington Post and then they wouldnt have been able to make as strong a point. How can it be fair and objective when they spin the argument?
6. We have X-Files producer Frank Spotniz. Keep in mind they claimed that they only had a certian amount of time for the show and thats why they couldnt include more actual discussion on the topics, but they had him on for 10 minutes giving his personal opinion.
7. In the united 93 section, they make out that Avery doesnt even mention Delta 1989, they show a passenger of the plane as if to imply that Avery is denying its existence and that the woman never even took that plane. The truth of the argument may still be wrong but they misrepresent their argument to make it look more ridiculous and hurtfull, maybe because I suppose they didnt think it was bad enough already. Apparently Guy Smith was also shown all kinds of official news reports that state the debris field was much wider than what it is claimed in the film, and he didnt mention any of it. Put all this together and its more than sloppy. On a side note how does an bandana from a terrorist end up found unmarked and declared to be probably from a hijacker? Even if theres a sensible answer, why no question about it?
8. They didnt talk in their section on government lies about the history of false flag operations, government sponsored terrorism and secret operations against the public. That would presumeably have given too much weight to the idea that governments are more dirty than we usually like to think they are. Any balanced documenatry would have included Operation Northwoods, but he refused to include it according to Alex, and Guys responce to defend why he refused is because he thinks it didnt prove it was an inside job. Guy, you dont need to think that. You dont need to think it proves it, and it of course doesnt, I dont know anyone that says it proves it, but not including any of this information is relevant and its something a real balanced documentary would have at least mentioned. If they had cut out all the spin and distraction they would have had time to at least touched on a few more issues.
9. The only thing the film does right is the last section, but amazingly its also something almost no one in this thread has noticed or mentioned, especially as Ive heard it denied again and again on the forum. They had prior warnings, they lied about it, they were incompetent and lied about it and covered it up. Someone said to me earlier that it wasnt relevant to an inside job. Well while I dont think it was an inside job I can sure see why it would be relevant to it in a number of different ways and its only painfully poor imagination that stops you seeing how it can be. Just because the WTC wasnt demolished, just because Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon, doesnt mean they couldnt have wanted these attacks and ignored prior knowledge in order make sure they were able to carry it out. Before someone twists that, that doesnt mean thats what I think I just think its relevant to show in reference. They had people interviewed saying "we had no specific threat", but 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said they didnt need to have that, when Norad General McKinley said that to the 911 Commission they didnt think that was a good excuse either. They could have also mentioned that FBI agents investigating suspicious activity flight schools and were telling their superiors they were concerned about the intelligence they had got. But to be fair while they dont go into enough detail on this section and theres a lot more they could have said Im glad they at least said as much as they did do and it still goes contrary to many of the beliefs Ive read in this forum by the very people defending this documentary.
10. Right at the end they get in another jab, by implying all the victems families are hurt by CTs, while of course ignroing The Jersey Girls and Bill Doyle of the Coalition of 911 Families. When asked about if he'd heard about them he said he didnt agree with them, which is moving the goal posts. The point is Guy, they exist. To imply all the family members are all upset about this is spin. if I found out about them and all this afterwards, I'd assume the Conspiracy Files was deceptive.
11. I'd also like to mention that they didnt talk about the coverup surrounding the cleanup and the air quality. All of these are CTs regarding 911. The program and producer specifically claims not to have set out to debunk an inside job as someone here claimed, but to objectively and honestly investigate the CTs regarding 911. They also dont talk about the role of the Pakistani intelligence even though he says its very interesting and that they might do a whole hour show on it.
What I find incredible is even though the films conclusion was that there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy to cover up incompetence and failure to act on intelligence, you lap it up even though its essentially the same conclusion as Press for Truth. Yet, according to what Ive read here Press for Truth doesnt provide any evidence to back up any of its claims. If on Press for Truth they had said the same thing that Conspiracy files did at the end, it would have been hand waved. The fact is many people here have literally said they welcome any attacking of a CT no matter how its done and no matter what deception needs to be done to do it. The fact is people here have supported this documentary yet not spoken out against apparently something you all disagree with, which is that there was a conspiracy to cover up their incompetence and mistakes which I suppose goes back to the other point. Because the film is attacking a CT, you have to defend it regardless of how misrepresentative and spun it is.
BEFORE YOU REPLY:
Im sure people will now try and twist this and ignore what Im saying and smear me as just another "troofer" when I am not, and probably again try and tell me to prove something I never claimed or implied and tell me my point was something other than what Ive been saying for the past 4 pages, Iin reality I have only really been saying essentially what the conclusion of the Conspiracy Files is actually saying! But just because I agree with 85% of the conclusion of the documentary that does not justify the rest of it. Im just as critical of CT films as well, but apparently everyone just assumes Im someone Im not. Well if all you can do is twist and strawman to avoid my real position, and you know who you are, then you have only proven to me and anyone awake enough to realise it what you're really like. Im aware that not everyone here is like that, and to those I'll say my frustration is not directed at you.
And because Im tired of having to say the same thing, though I know there will be people that will ignore this anyway, heres some points I'd like to respond to.
1. Equal time, equal validity: I am not saying they needed to say CTs have equal validity or more validity. They could debunk them while still being honest about it.
2. It was an inside job! In case me saying it over and over isnt enough, I am not saying it was an inside job. I am speaking about what people here have acted like, I am speaking about honesty, about what the film claimed it was about and what it delivered.
3. But you're defending CTs! You must be a troofer! For some reason some people here cant seem to get their head around the idea that you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion. You'd think for a forum like this one that prides themselves on reason they'd be able to see the logical sence in that.
4. If you're not with me you're against me! Several people have make accusations like that in this thread, and if you think thats a good argument then I have no comment as you clearly cant be reasoned with. Truth isnt black and white, its somewhere in the middle.
PS: Becuase its already been discussed for the nth time I didnt mention "drop out" here once, until now.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
So that means they pretend he doesnt exist by not even mentioning him. Good honest investigation there. But of course theres also the issue of trying to justify ignoring ever other person I have listed that they could have got in touch with and in at least one case with Craig Bartmer, directly ignored.
If I claimed to be making a program like Guy Smith did, yes. And yes, I wouldnt misrepresent Holocaust Denial because I dont need to, and to do so is even more dishonest because you already have truth on yourside. I dont get all this trying to justify dishonesty on this thread.
EDIT: And btw I never once claimed that the show should have said that there was good evidence on both sides. I know you might think that from reading all the strawmen of my position.
To everyone else I think my long post responds to all of you. If you still think you need a responce after reading it, then let me know.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Once again, you are completely missing the point of the show. The conspiracists have already made their case in hundreds of websites, dozens of videos, books, speeches, and conferences. This show was to examine the validity of some of those already-made arguments by conferring with people who were involved. And it gave some prominent conspiracists significant time to speak for – and make complete fools of – themselves. Exactly what more do you want out of an hour show?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Why do I get a sneaking suspicion that Edx Is going turn out to be a false flag operation himself?
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I encourage you to read my analysis of William Rodriguez's claims, and then tell me if they are defensible or not. He won't even answer questions here, although he's a member. Do you really think he wants to be exposed on the BBC? And why do you think he agreed to do a Hardfire show with Ron (pomeroo) and me and then back down? I know why, and you will also when you read my paper.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
They didnt examine them "fairly and unbalanced" like they said they had, they didnt perform an "objective investigation" into CTs surrounding 911. They misrepresented and ommited key information in order to make it look like the CTs were more ridiculous than they were, because apparently they didnt think it was ridiculous enough. Because they did it too Miss! is not an excuse.
I also doubt you read my entire reply before you posted that.
As I have already pointed out before, Rodriguez could have been mentioned that then explained that strangely his story has kept changing. Thats what an honest investigation would have put in they're reporters not dishonest debukers, right?
And btw it doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible, if that was an reason not to include a CT argument then according to you they shouldnt have included anything. Please try and focus on my actual point for a moment, please?
Last edited:
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
The same thing they want out of a new investigation, a statement that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition/missile/laserbeam/Bush blowing on it really, really hard.
Because anything less means when we call one of these liars a liar we have the high ground... and not giving lies the same weight as the truth is being unbalanced.
For the record I'm declaring the Detriot Lions the Super Bowl Champions this year, and if any of you rotten Giants fans try to show me pictures of Eli holding the trophy I'll just photoshop Kitna's face onto it and claim the news reports are being unfair and unbalanced to fans in the Motor City.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
They didn't? Then which conspiracist claim did they examine and get wrong?
Why the hell would you mention a minor character whose story keeps changing and is not supported by the people who were there?
It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?
Last edited:
HawksFan
Muse
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
OK, Edx has now proven beyond any doubt that he is 100% full of crap.
He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue, especially considering the woo movement manufactures them at a daily rate. And then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show. As if somehow the Twoofer claims such as the distance between the 93 crash and the lake being 6 miles is somehow true because they left out Mgz's conspiracy about a missile taking down the WTC 7, etc.
Now I can understand peopel who have issues with things, but Ed is the worst kind of Wooer there is. He's one of the usual ones who goes around pretending to be something he isn't (and doing a very bad job of it). Why is it the truth movement has to be so dishonest?
He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue, especially considering the woo movement manufactures them at a daily rate. And then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show. As if somehow the Twoofer claims such as the distance between the 93 crash and the lake being 6 miles is somehow true because they left out Mgz's conspiracy about a missile taking down the WTC 7, etc.
Now I can understand peopel who have issues with things, but Ed is the worst kind of Wooer there is. He's one of the usual ones who goes around pretending to be something he isn't (and doing a very bad job of it). Why is it the truth movement has to be so dishonest?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Holy moly. You ignored my entire reply.
Because its a story? Because its relevant? Because a 911 hero is going around saying he heard bombs before the plane hit? If Im documenting an honest journalistic investigation, Im meant to ignore that because his story keps changing? And yet according to you its valid to totally ignore him, not just mention him and say that his story keeps changing, its valid to do that because he's not a credible "minor character" and yet they spend a whole section on a strawman position and deception of the jews being warned and using a jewish family member for emotional support. And its okay to make it seem like Avery is denying Delta 1989 even existed or that the passenger they interviewed was even on the plane. Thats all okay, I suppose.
Why did you snip the rest of my post?
"And btw it doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible, if that was an reason not to include a CT argument then according to you they shouldnt have included anything. Please try and focus on my actual point for a moment, please? "
Oh and its nice to see the misrepresentations and strawmen happen in only a few minutes after me posting! Good job JREF!
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Edx's false flag is getting more worn out with every post he makes.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I dont know why Im bothering, but I think the worst offender of misrepresentations is Jonny.
Lies. I never said that.
Im not defending them.
Again, lies. How do you glean this out of my posts?
Lies, again. You're not even make any sence now.
Wow, impressive, so Im the worst even though Jonny has to pretend Im saying things I never did nor even implied!
Lies. I never said that.
Im not defending them.
Again, lies. How do you glean this out of my posts?
Lies, again. You're not even make any sence now.
Wow, impressive, so Im the worst even though Jonny has to pretend Im saying things I never did nor even implied!
The fact you have to lie about me just so you can say this is so sad its almost pathetic.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
That's because you didn't show a single claim they got wrong. So, which is it?Holy moly. You ignored my entire reply.
He began making that claim in 2005, along with exactly no one else. Next.
I suggest you check with Muslims overseas to learn how much of a "strawman" position that is.
The plane that landed at Cleveland was Delta 1989. Flight 93 didn't land there. Simple.
Because I addressed that part with my response. Please read it again.
Please show a misrepresentation of your argument that I've made or a strawman argument that I've made.Oh and its nice to see the misrepresentations and strawmen happen in only a few minutes after me posting! Good job JREF!
So, Edx, of the claims made by the three prominent conspiracists who were interviewed, were any correct?
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
They claimed no Jews got warned, as for the rest they didnt really cover a helleva lot else.
But like I keep telling you which apparently you arent listening to, it doesnt matter if I agree with their conclusions. Whats so hard to understand about this? You want me to defend claims I dont even agree with, why? If someone says Michael Behe is a sexist racist bigot and he's also wrong about Intelligent Design, according to the way you've been arguing, Im not allowed to say lying about him is wrong because factually he is still wrong about Intelligent Design being science.
I never denied that, and I agreed with you, you keep ignoring that for some reason.
But again, you arent listening. He exists. This is a documentary documenting a journalists claim to be on an honest investigation going back to primary witness' and sources. Even just to point the bizzare oddity of it all that someone like Rodriguez a 911 hero is going around saying the were bombs in the building, even just to then point out that his story keeps changing, thats what you'd find in an honest investigation but it simply wasnt even mentioned.Its not like he's the only example.
Theres plenty of other people they could have talked to, but again all ignored completely. It wasnt what the producer claimed it was, it wasnt fair and balanced it wasnt an objective investigation into 911 CTs. Thats what I claimed from the start so if you can accept it wasnt then we have nothing left to argue about.
But they acted like it was a general CT claim and they claimed that there was no truth in at all which there was. So factually, thats wrong and they used emotional manipulation in order to imply that CTs are Jew haters.
What the heck does that have to do with what you're replying to?
Me: It doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible,
You: It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?
So you're saying that the stuff they did include was consistent and supported by others. Is that right? I dont even think thats true. Theres so many CTs about the WTC , Pentagon and U93 yet according to you, thats consistent and supported because it was included?
Of course that wouldnt make a blind bit of difference to my point anyway, one which you keep ignoring apparently despite me stating it and restating it again and again.
Sorry that was a general remark to the thread posters, EG, Jonny, Drudgewire etc. You yourself I cant quite remember having specifcally misrepresented me but you have twisted the argument Im making either consciously or not.
You are again seem to be trying to spin the situation. Creationists are 99% of the time never right about anything, yet I again have to remind you that I would never defend a documentary that used the same tactics that this one did. It doesnt matter if they werent right about anything. Second, they were more reasonable than they appeard and the producers went out of their way to portray the CTs as more hurtfull and ridiculous than than they are.
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
1. WRONG. They are talking about the difference of simply doing a bad job and ignoring the warning signs, Vs the conspiracy claims of them intentionally ignoring the warnings knowing very well what is going to happen with the intent of using it to their advantage. Hence criminal.
2. WRONG. The initiation of the collapse being pancaking was backed away and was never an argument by NIST, it was FEMA who made a quick on the spot guess of the cause. The building most indeed pancaked just as the drawing showed. They ALSO showed what caused the collapse to initiate. Everything in it was completely accurate despite your bogus claim here.
3. Most of the people you mention have no relevance on the issue and are simply people you chose because of their names. And many of them have indeed already appeared in other such documentaries. They can't include everyone and your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part. This isn't critical thinking, this is childish nonsense on your part.
4. Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything. No matter what they chose to cover, your argument could always be made. Thus it not being possible to make a fair and balanced documentary based on your absolutely absurd standards. They chose the ones they felt were most popular. Had they covered the issues which you feel they should have, then they would have shown the same things. They would have shown the holes in those conspiracy claims as well. But they only have so much time.
5. There was not a single shred of truth to the story what so ever. The people that run the company even state the warning had nothing to do with the WTC what so ever and they can't even conclude it was a warning at all. It just happened to coincide on the same day. The whole Jewish thing is only about the company being Israeli. This is the most bogus conspiracy claim out there and you call pointing that out "spin". YOU are a con artist for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself.
6. Because he was the basis of a big conspiracy theory about 9/11. HELLO?? He covered the part about why conspiracy theories like this get started. His segment was probably one of the most important parts.
7. WRONG AGAIN. They in no way do that at all. One of the biggest conspiracies is that flight 93 landed. They address that by talking to one of the women on the flight that was mistaken for 93 and it shows how some of these theories get started. Another extremely important segment. Your libel on this segment is completely baseless and absurd.
8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) argument that somehow bringing up older conspiracy theories somehow validates current ones. Another argument that shows you are just a small con in the woo movement.
9. NO. The point of the segment is to show that just because there were mistakes made and things were ignored, that it doesn't mean they were intentional. The fact that you could see this any other was is astounding.
10. Most of the victims of 9/11 are most certainly hurt by these absurd conspiracy theories. bringing up 3 that aren't doesn't change that. Just like pretending the Jersey Girls represent the victims is outright wrong. This segment addresses those misconceptions about the victims thinking there is a conspiracy or to dispell claims such as the "jews" being in on it etc.
11. Because it didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. To bring up the issue to the few idiots whot think part of the plot was to secretly let a handful of people die over a long period of time would have been a waste of everyone's time.
Ed. As to your little appendix of disclaimers. I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.
2. WRONG. The initiation of the collapse being pancaking was backed away and was never an argument by NIST, it was FEMA who made a quick on the spot guess of the cause. The building most indeed pancaked just as the drawing showed. They ALSO showed what caused the collapse to initiate. Everything in it was completely accurate despite your bogus claim here.
3. Most of the people you mention have no relevance on the issue and are simply people you chose because of their names. And many of them have indeed already appeared in other such documentaries. They can't include everyone and your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part. This isn't critical thinking, this is childish nonsense on your part.
4. Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything. No matter what they chose to cover, your argument could always be made. Thus it not being possible to make a fair and balanced documentary based on your absolutely absurd standards. They chose the ones they felt were most popular. Had they covered the issues which you feel they should have, then they would have shown the same things. They would have shown the holes in those conspiracy claims as well. But they only have so much time.
5. There was not a single shred of truth to the story what so ever. The people that run the company even state the warning had nothing to do with the WTC what so ever and they can't even conclude it was a warning at all. It just happened to coincide on the same day. The whole Jewish thing is only about the company being Israeli. This is the most bogus conspiracy claim out there and you call pointing that out "spin". YOU are a con artist for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself.
6. Because he was the basis of a big conspiracy theory about 9/11. HELLO?? He covered the part about why conspiracy theories like this get started. His segment was probably one of the most important parts.
7. WRONG AGAIN. They in no way do that at all. One of the biggest conspiracies is that flight 93 landed. They address that by talking to one of the women on the flight that was mistaken for 93 and it shows how some of these theories get started. Another extremely important segment. Your libel on this segment is completely baseless and absurd.
8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) argument that somehow bringing up older conspiracy theories somehow validates current ones. Another argument that shows you are just a small con in the woo movement.
9. NO. The point of the segment is to show that just because there were mistakes made and things were ignored, that it doesn't mean they were intentional. The fact that you could see this any other was is astounding.
10. Most of the victims of 9/11 are most certainly hurt by these absurd conspiracy theories. bringing up 3 that aren't doesn't change that. Just like pretending the Jersey Girls represent the victims is outright wrong. This segment addresses those misconceptions about the victims thinking there is a conspiracy or to dispell claims such as the "jews" being in on it etc.
11. Because it didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. To bring up the issue to the few idiots whot think part of the plot was to secretly let a handful of people die over a long period of time would have been a waste of everyone's time.
Ed. As to your little appendix of disclaimers. I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.
Last edited: