Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

Edx said:
I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?
Ed
Click to expand...

Have to agree completely with the above.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.
Click to expand...


Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.
Click to expand...

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread). ;)
Click to expand...

Of course neither Drudgewire or Jonny can show that Ive actually done the things they've said Ive done, and its rather hypacritical to suggest considering all the baiting taunts and insults Ive had on this threat.
 
Last edited:
I have just watched the "Conspiracy Files" episode. I thought it quite well done.

Yes they are not complimantary to Avery or any of the CT's they interview but they do allow them to speak their peice.
Then specific claims are quite well debunked.
Also video that I have never seen before or have seen but only in highly compressed and recompressed forms.
 
So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Have to agree completely with the above.
Click to expand...
I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. The only way to approach this without making things up is to consider those profitting off these fantasies as delusional or con men. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.
Click to expand...

A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.

That said, I agree with your previous comments, where you essentially said impartiality doesn't make for exciting viewing.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?
Click to expand...


You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
They're doing a show on WTC 7 next.
Click to expand...


That's good to hear since their segment of WTC 7 was the lightest in the video and (at the risk of soundly like Chris Sarns) contained one exaggeration. They state that the fires were (a definitive) partially fueled by the deisel on the building. In fact NIST has only suggested that it might have been possible but that there is no direct evidence that the deisel was invovled.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.
 
Edx said:
Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit
Click to expand...
I am sure you are relatively informed, it shows.

Dylan is like a kid, spewing made up ideas from nothing. I agree with your assessment.
 
Edx said:
People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.
Click to expand...


I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.
 
Drudgewire said:
In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.
Click to expand...
Again, we agree in principle. However, anything they appear on which doesn't reach the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job is going to wind up being called a hatchet piece the next day anyway. :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.
 
Edx said:
You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part; things like the use of cameras and lighting, etc while very subtle to the average viewer are/were/can be extremely effective in putting an almost subliminal spin on things. As I have said, this kind of reporting leaves the program open to cries of 'Hatchet Job' or 'Hit Piece' from CTers, thus making it easier for them to dismiss. When people are making bizarre claims, there should be no need to use trickery or spin to make them look any more stupid - leave that to those making the claims; the hard facts in contrast should also assist!

...you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion.
Click to expand...

Agreed - to a certain extent.
 
jaydeehess said:
I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.
Click to expand...

They say that Avery claims that United 93 landed at Cleveland, but then explain that actually that was Delta 1989. They show and interview a passenger from the plane as if he is denying she even travelled on the plane. I know implication can easily be denied by those that want to be obtuse about that, but when anyone that doesnt know watches it they will assume thats what Avery actually thinks. I know I did, along with assuming he'd dropped out of University and thinking that it was a major claim that 4000 Jews were warned and didnt go to work that day and this is what the people they had on probably thought.

Ed
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Which is all fair play - either way, Dylan is hoist by his own petard/stupidity - which is as it should be, ideally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom