Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

And how many times does this have to explained to you? How many posts over and over do you need? You keep asking this question and bringing it up, yet ignore everyone who gives you an answer. Seems a bit more odd then the issue you bring up doesn't it? You keep implying there is something factually wrong here and there isn't. The guy was trying to simply be polite and you are trying to say it's a mischaracterization. The mischaracterization is in your presentation of what happened, not in the film. IN the film it's like talking about how Einstein was a drop out. Pretty much every biography on him says this. Are they trying to make him look bad? NO. They are saying this is a guy who dropped out of school and did great things. This documentary is doing the same thing. But of course this has been explained over and over in this very thread.

Several people in this thread and then again in the last page have said that there is no positive connotation with the phrase drop out. I dont care if you personally think differently or cant accept this. But of course Im a truther because Im saying the same thing they are.

Also your quote from LC about the Delta flight was added later after LC kept making claims that flight 93 literally landed in Cleveland and people kept pointing out the fraud in their film.

So its not in Loose Change 1? Bear in mind they choose clips from Loose Change 2.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Several people in this thread and then again in the last page have said that there is no positive connotation with the phrase drop out. I dont care if you personally think differently or cant accept this. But of course Im a truther because Im saying the same thing they are.

So its not in Loose Change 1?

EDIT: I just checked, you're wrong, it does appear to be there. I think you just make this stuff up hoping to be right.

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage. Now if you can find a way to justify saying he was a drop out in the same way people say about Einstein is worse than telling people he is a reject, be my guest. And somehow because other people see it your way somehow makes it right? You know I can find multiple KKK members too. Does that mean they are right about blacks and Jews? I can find you 100 flat earthers. Does that make them right? It's one thing to simply state you disagree with their choice of wording, it's another to start a topic of how it shows them beimg a misrepresentation because they chose to be a little more polite than they could have and that makes it unfair and unbalanced.

Oh, and here's something for you:

"9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide"

Notice the word "second" in there. And that isn't even the 2nd version, it's simply the version (of many) they refer to as 2nd. You keep getting caught in these lies. Notice how you keep ignoring other claims of yours such as IM warnings of the 911 attacks and the pancake claim too.

 

[Edx]

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage. Now if you can find a way to justify saying he was a drop out in the same way people say about Einstein is worse than telling people he is a reject, be my guest. And somehow because other people see it your way somehow makes it right? You know I can find multiple KKK members too.

I hope everyone is seeing that everyone that agrees with me about the drop out comment is now a truther, according to John.

Oh, and here's something for you:

"9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide"

Notice the word "second" in there. And that isn't even the 2nd version, it's simply the version (of many) they refer to as 2nd. You keep getting caught in these lies. Notice how you keep ignoring other claims of yours such as IM warnings of the 911 attacks and the pancake claim too.

Can you show me where they claim that Delta Flight never existed in Loose Change 1? And btw they show clips from Loose Change 2 in the film, so it would be very dishonest to pick on Averys old film anyway and make out he still thinks that, even so you havent proven that was what was in Loose Change 1 to begin with. Can you do it or not?

 

[Walter Ego]

The dropout issue was discussed by Dylan and BBC producer Guy Smith on Alex Jones’ radio show last year (starting at about 57:00 in):

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/190207smith.mp3

Interestingly, Dylan also says that he applied twice at Purchase College and wasn’t ‘selected’ because the film program was ‘entirely selective’ meaning they didn’t select him. But… Purchase (part of the New York State University System) offers a BFA in film studies which mean you first have to be admitted to Purchase College to take film courses:

http://www.purchase.edu/Departments/AcademicPrograms/Arts/TAF/Film.aspx

In other words, Dylan didn’t have the smarts or academic qualifications to be admitted to a public college in New York State. That’s why he wasn’t a dropout.

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage.

Yup, Dylan wasn't even qualified to attend a state college.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I hope everyone is seeing that everyone that agrees with me about the drop out comment is now a truther, according to John.

Kinda funny isn't it? You run around screaming about people putting words in your mouth and now look at you. Quote me where I call you a truther and show me where i call people who agree with you truthers. Go right ahead little fella. This again point to you being a fraud/troll. And don't bother responding, we already know that your reply is going to be "strawman'. try not to be so obvious OK? And try not to think that because multiple people think the same thing that it makes them correct. Especially when the subject is regarding opinion.

Can you show me where they claim that Delta Flight never existed in Loose Change 1? And btw they show clips from Loose Change 2 in the film, so it would be very dishonest to pick on Averys old film anyway and make out he still thinks that, even so you havent proven that was what was in Loose Change 1 to begin with. Can you do it or not?

I doubt the original versions are even still around. But they made no mention of the Delta flight. Heck, I bet if the archives on these forums go back far enough you can find the discussions on the subject. There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now. Each one doesn't add new stuff so much as it corrects the previous mistakes. Or at least the mistakes that they can no longer get away with.

And it still doesn't change the point that your whole argument about how they portray Dylan does not even exist. They aren't even saying that Dylan is claiming the Delta flight didn't exist (despite them claiming once that flight 93 was reported to have landed in Cleveland). You're simply using a very far fetched interpretation of the editing. One that pretty much proves you are trolling.

 

[Edx]

Kinda funny isn't it? You run around screaming about people putting words in your mouth and now look at you. Quote me where I call you a truther

... You cant be serious. You called and implied Im a truther so many times I was spoilt for choice. So how about I quote a few:

"8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) "

I don't need to pretend you are a truther. Your stereo typical behavior makes it obvious... 1000s of others who behave exactly like you and tout the same identical claims as you: "I am not a truther, you just want to pretend I am one to shut me up and not face the truth". My God, could you guys at least try to be original for once?

"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?"

As to your little appendix of disclaimers.[which was all about how I am not a truther] I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.


Then you said it doesnt matter if anyone here agrees with me, you can find KKK members that can agree with another KKK members and that it doesnt prove anything!

Since all your posts are documented here I wonder why you had me go do that.

and show me where i call people who agree with you truthers. Go right ahead little fella.

If you arent, then whats the argument about KKK members agreeing with each other meant to prove?

And don't bother responding, we already know that your reply is going to be "strawman'.

Yea, you'd like me not to respond to this.

try not to be so obvious OK? And try not to think that because multiple people think the same thing that it makes them correct.

Im not saying that, Im saying other people agree with me here and you are calling them truthers as well to dismiss them.

I doubt the original versions are even still around. But they made no mention of the Delta flight.

According to Wikipedia, heres why:

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.

There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now.

It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

And it still doesn't change the point that your whole argument about how they portray Dylan does not even exist.

Even if you were right for the sake of argument and they really did omit mentioning Delta 1989 in Loose Change 1, if they started to quote from Loose Change 2, its dishonest to go back to a claim that they abandoned in Loose Change 1. I cant debunk a first edition of a book when its corrected itself in version 2, and then pretend version 2 is what I was talking about. Thats dishonest.

They aren't even saying that Dylan is claiming the Delta flight didn't exist (despite them claiming once that flight 93 was reported to have landed in Cleveland). You're simply using a very far fetched interpretation of the editing. .

Its not far fetched, they arent actually talking about the argument he made. Hows this difficult to understand? Loose Change 2 is what they quote from and actually says Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland and had its passeners taken off and questioned. The film says he thinks U93 landed at Cleveland and had its passengers removed, but that this was a mistake by the control room that mistook Delta 1989 for U93 implying that he is denying that. They then go even further and show a passenger and her ticket stub as if to show that "see I even have the boarding pass!."

 

[jaydeehess]

Edx, "Penn." is short for Pennsylvania, not Pentagon

 

[jaydeehess]

Thats correct, they do say that.

Which IS the main point that the BBC is addressing.

No it isnt, the BBC make out that Dylans thinks the mistake they made in the control room was actually right, not wrong, as they then go on to tell us it was. But not only do they make out he denies Delta 1989 existed, they get a passenger that was "on the flight" as if to say he's even denying the passengers even took the flight. They even show her ticket and she says "this was the very boarding pass"! They then go on the explain the story of Delta 1989, where it took off from, why it had to make an emergency landing. etc, as if LC was denying that. In their explanation, when they say "in the confusion" Delta 1989 was being mistaken for U93, they imply that Dylan has simply refused to acknowledge that original mistake. This would have been a great responce to Dylans argument, if he had actually said this. In fact, they didnt even address his actual argument. Dont get me wrong, what he actually said was still pretty loopy, speculative and wrong but thats not the argument they were debunking.

Why, oh why would Avery even mention Cleveland and the idea that U93 landed there at all if he also believes and knows that it was a confusion with D1989 and not in fact U93?

And pretends that Dylan is simply not correcting such a simple error like that. Theres a hundred other things Dylan has actually said they could have picked on to show how silly the LC arguments were, instead they choose to pretend he said something he didnt.

Does LC or does LC not claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, it does!

They imply in the strongest way possible that Dylan doesnt even acknowledge the flight existed at all and none of the passengers even took the flight. They imply that when they originally mistook Delta 1989 for U93, that he just refused to acknowledge that it was a mistake.

He does refuse to acknowledge it was a mistake. He claims that both planes landed there.

Of course it is. They spend a whole section debunking a claim he never made.

It goes without saying (but what the h___) , I disagree.

 

[jaydeehess]

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.

There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now.

It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

Which goes to my characterizing them as rewrites or revisions rather than sequels.

However, given the the story actually does change from version to version perhaps 'sequel' does fit if one looks at it as a work of fiction rather than a docuementary.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

... You cant be serious. You called and implied Im a truther so many times I was spoilt for choice. So how about I quote a few:

"8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) "

I don't need to pretend you are a truther. Your stereo typical behavior makes it obvious... 1000s of others who behave exactly like you and tout the same identical claims as you: "I am not a truther, you just want to pretend I am one to shut me up and not face the truth". My God, could you guys at least try to be original for once?

"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?"

As to your little appendix of disclaimers.[which was all about how I am not a truther] I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.

Exactly. Did I call you a truther? No I didn't. remember, we're playing YOUR game now. Do you enjoy it when people use your own tactics on you? Should I start playing victim now? One common trait of yours is that you cannot distinguish between someone discussing behavior and actual quotes. And this is why you have to keep derailing the thread about wether you are a truther or not or about who called who a truther. Another big fault of yours is that you use truther sources. How do I know this you ask? Because many of your arguments are directly from truther sites. This is why you refuse to address the issues and present the sources for your claims such as saying there were IM warnings about 9/11. Because those claims come from truther web sites and if you had to present the original news articles they came from, it would expose that.

That and the pancake theory (you made others, but we'll stick with 2) are truther claims. So what are you expecting? that simply because you sit here and say you aren't a truther tht you aren't? Sure, and OJ isn't a murderer.

Then you said it doesnt matter if anyone here agrees with me, you can find KKK members that can agree with another KKK members and that it doesnt prove anything!

Correct. Were you attempting to make a point? If I said Jews and blacks were inferior and you disagreed with me, would it prove you wrong if i said others agree with me? Does that somehow make my opinion right?

Since all your posts are documented here I wonder why you had me go do that.

Again, are you trying to make a point?

If you arent, then whats the argument about KKK members agreeing with each other meant to prove?

Did you NOT read the explanations? How can you ask me that when I addressed it so fully that there can be no question what so ever? What exactly don't you understand?

Yea, you'd like me not to respond to this.

Ah, because we're all putting words in your mouth right?

Im not saying that, Im saying other people agree with me here and you are calling them truthers as well to dismiss them.

That again would be you lying. I don't dismiss what anyone here says nor do I think they are truthers because they agree with you. This is you being a hypocrite and doing exactly what you are falsely accusing everyone else here of doing. I made a logical argument that simply because others agree with one of your points does not make it correct. And you turn that into me calling them truthers? That's beyond dishonest and what constitutes lying.

According to Wikipedia, heres why:

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.

You do realize that edition 1 wasn't the first right? But regardless as you show from the article, 2nd edition says it was flown and landed at Hopkins. So what was your point? The 2nd edition includes an incorrect claim that was addressed in the documentary. Where are you going with this nonsense? Are you going to claim that Dylan never made the claim that the plane landed in Cleveland as per the conspiracy theory?

It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

Obviously YOU.

Even if you were right for the sake of argument and they really did omit mentioning Delta 1989 in Loose Change 1, if they started to quote from Loose Change 2, its dishonest to go back to a claim that they abandoned in Loose Change 1. I cant debunk a first edition of a book when its corrected itself in version 2, and then pretend version 2 is what I was talking about. Thats dishonest.

But the premise of your whole argument is completely wrong to begin with. Which is why you keep derailing the issue as to what version what was said in. When there is no issue of them misleading to begin with simply because they cut to a passenger from the actual flight. It's a bogus argument and your little song and dance to distract from that isn't working.

Its not far fetched, they arent actually talking about the argument he made. Hows this difficult to understand? Loose Change 2 is what they quote from and actually says Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland and had its passeners taken off and questioned. The film says he thinks U93 landed at Cleveland and had its passengers removed, but that this was a mistake by the control room that mistook Delta 1989 for U93 implying that he is denying that. They then go even further and show a passenger and her ticket stub as if to show that "see I even have the boarding pass!."

You do realize that they thought flight 93 landed in Cleveland because they got the flights mixed up right? The claim wasn't that both planes landed there. Your mistake is that you think that the segment is simply addressing LC. It's addressing the conspiracy theory that flight 93 was flown to Cleveland and therefore it could not have crashed. It's a claim not just made by LC, but many conspiracy sites. however, they were interviewing key people and Dylan was the only one of them whom addressed that issue. Do you see Fetzer making a film about that area? No, so they aren't going to put him just before the passenger clip, they chose Dylan because he was the only one.

This whole notion that they were trying to mislead people is in your head. It may be wrong of them because it wasn't obvious enough for some people such as yourself, but your claims that this proves they intentionally did so is wrong. Flat out wrong. Just like many of your claims such as IM warnings about 911 or the pancake claim. Just like your claim about them belittling Dylan because they chose a more polite way to describe his educational background.

 

[sleahead]

Edx, I'll give you your point about the drop-out remark. 'Film school reject' would have been much more appropriate. However, I don't see that you have any case with the Delta 1989 claim. Put simply, I think the BBC's reasoning goes like this:

Avery claims UA93 landed at Cleveland.

A plane did land at Cleveland. Was it it UA 93?

No, it was Delta 1989.

How do we know it was Delta 1989 and not UA93? Just because the govenment says so?

No. Here's a woman who was on board the Delta flight and here's the boarding pass that proves she was on board the flight.

No claim by Avery in relation to Delta 1989 is imputed.

 

[Edx]

Edx, "Penn." is short for Pennsylvania, not Pentagon

Oops, you're right. Sorry

They then go on to state that it landed in Cleveland.

Thats correct, they do say that.

Which IS the main point that the BBC is addressing.

Thats not Loose Changes point though. Its that they both landed at around the same time. They have no problem with Delta Flight 1989. They make some claims about what happened after the passengers disembarked, which they could have talked about or even asked the passenger they interviewed, but they didnt. They just implied Dylan was saying they didnt exist.

Why, oh why would Avery even mention Cleveland and the idea that U93 landed there at all if he also believes and knows that it was a confusion with D1989 and not in fact U93?

Have you actually watched the section in Loose Change? I did give you a link to the Loose Change Guide where you can read what it was he said about this.

There was confusion over Delta Flight 1989 being confused with U93. But Dylan wasnt disputing that, he didnt even dispute Delta Flight landed and had passengers removed.

Does LC or does LC not claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, it does!

Does Wally Miller not claim he saw no drops of blood? Yes, he does!

He does refuse to acknowledge it was a mistake. He claims that both planes landed there.

Thats right, he does, which is subtly yet substantially different from what the program tried to debunk. They didnt even acknowledge what the actual argument was about U93. I dont understand why not, they had the ability to. They even had the passenger there they could have asked about some of the things Dylan claimed about the passengers, but instead they were arguing against something he didnt say.

It goes without saying (but what the h___) , I disagree.

Thats okay, I dont mind if someone disagrees me as long as they are civil about it which you seem to be at the moment Rather refreshing after having to deal with certian other people.

Ed

 

[Gravy]

Does Wally Miller not claim he saw no drops of blood? Yes, he does!

You do agree that Wally Miller saw and collected human remains at the scene on his arrival, and continued to do so for weeks, and personally identified 12 passengers through fingerprints and dental records, and collected and distributed to families the personal effects of the deceased, and has absolutely zero doubt that flight 93 crashed there, as is true with everyone who worked there,

right, Edx?

Or with you are we dealing with a whole new breed of denier?

 

[Edx]

Edx, I'll give you your point about the drop-out remark. 'Film school reject' would have been much more appropriate. However, I don't see that you have any case with the Delta 1989 claim. Put simply, I think the BBC's reasoning goes like this:

Avery claims UA93 landed at Cleveland.

A plane did land at Cleveland. Was it it UA 93?

No, it was Delta 1989.

How do we know it was Delta 1989 and not UA93? Just because the govenment says so?

No. Here's a woman who was on board the Delta flight and here's the boarding pass that proves she was on board the flight.

No claim by Avery in relation to Delta 1989 is imputed.

Look how you follow the reasoning of that section of the film. None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.

 

[sleahead]

None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.

No. They prove the passenger took the flight to show that it was the Delta flight that landed in Clevelend, not UA 93. This does not imply that Avery nor anyone else believes the Delta flight did not eixist.

 

[Edx]

You do agree that Wally Miller saw and collected human remains at the scene on his arrival, and continued to do so for weeks, and personally identified 12 passengers through fingerprints and dental records, and collected and distributed to families the personal effects of the deceased, and has absolutely zero doubt that flight 93 crashed there, as is true with everyone who worked there,

right, Edx?

Or with you are we dealing with a whole new breed of denier?

Im certainly not disputing that! If you read our conversation youd' have seen that my point was that Wally did say he saw no drops of blood, but that was taken out of context in not such a disimilar similar way.

 

[Edx]

No. They prove the passenger took the flight to show that it was the Delta flight that landed in Clevelend, not UA 93. This does not imply that Avery nor anyone else believes the Delta flight did not eixist.

What point is it to prove Delta Flight 1989 existed, and even show the ticket stub of the passenger if it isnt to prove the flight and passengers took the flight? None of that section address' the section in Loose Change, but it implies to the audience that Dylan is disputing what they try and show about D1989

 

[sleahead]

What point is it to prove Delta Flight 1989 existed, and even show the ticket stub of the passenger if it isnt to prove the flight and passengers took the flight? None of that section address' the section in Loose Change, but it implies to the audience that Dylan is disputing what they try and show about D1989

One more time. They do not try to prove the Delta flight existed. They are already satisfied that everybody knows it existed. They try to prove it, rather than UA93, landed at Cleveland.

Edx, if you still wish to go down this road, I have nothing more to add other than that I strongly, but very politely, disagree.

 

[Gravy]

Look how you follow the reasoning of that section of the film. None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.

They addressed the fact, through several witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 did crash outside Shanksville.

Do you agree?

They also addressed the fact that the plane that was briefly mistaken for flight 93 (a mistake that was almost immediately retracted: a claim Loose Change omits) was indeed Delta 1989, which was the plane that landed at Cleveland with a suspected bomb on board: no other such plane landed there (Oh, and it had a passenger in first class who wouldn't get off his cell phone when in the air – another fact Loose Change omits).

Do you agree?

So, Edx, what salient facts did the BBC program omit? How did they misrepresent the truth?

 

[Gravy]

From Loose Change Second Edition:

However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville.

...It would seem that, on one day, for the second time in history, an entire plane, along with its passengers, disappeared upon impact.

...So if Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville, then where?

You ready for this? Cleveland.

Allow me to refresh your memory about these claims.

So, to sum up.
Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, was evacuated at 12:30, almost two and a half hours later, and 69 passengers were taken to FAA Headquarters. Flight 93 landed at 10:45 and evacuated within a half hour, 200 or so passengers quickly taken to an empty NASA Research Center. Why did it take 140 minutes to evacuate 69 passengers, when 200 were evacuated in a half hour?

We can assume that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere.

The question remains, what happened to the 200 or so passengers from Flight 93?

Note that Avery claims that United 93 had about 200 passengers on board. United 93 had 44 people on board, including crew and hijackers.

I was there when these Looser scumbags came to New York City to tell the family members of the flight 93 murder victims that the story that their loved ones behaved heroically is a government lie, and that their loved ones did not speak their last known words to them by phone, but instead they were fooled by an evil government machine that sounded exactly like their loved ones.

I saw these vicious scumbags do that to the family members. The same scumbags whose video begins, "Dedicated to the lives we lost on 9/11/01."

Tell me, Edx, just how extensively should the BBC have recited Dylan Avery's despicable lies? Do you – for some reason I cannot fathom – think Avery would come off better if his claims were covered in more detail, rather than less?