Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Jonnyclueless]

So Jonny if I say you're another typical Nazi, oh, but you're not a Nazi wink wink, that your Nazi movement is dishonest and when you say your're not a Nazi I say you're full of crap, Im not really calling you a Nazi, Im not even implying it.

So now you understand your own hypocrisy I hope? I understand that you missed the actual point of those comments and took them out of context. but do you understand your hypocrisy that those comments were pointing out?

I always go to the primary sources to check, and if I happen to be wrong about something I will always admit it as I have already done only a few posts after I joined this forum. The only thing I have been remotely incorrect about on this thread was the 4000 Jewish warnings thing, the real Odigo instant message warnings story may not have had any influence on the original 4,000 Jews myth and I cant prove it did, so assuming it didnt I would still argue its very relevant to bring up for several reasons Ive already stated. But other than that, theres nothing else I can remember that Ive been wrong about.

No you don't go to the primary sources and you have proven this to be the case by your use of false information that comes from truther web sites, not the original sources. Had you actually done so you would know that some of your claims that you used to say the documentary was a misrepresentation were completely false. And they weren't just wrong, but they were from unreliable sources. You cannot provide your source for the IM messages because if you did you would out yourself. Or if you went and found the real sources after the fact, it would also out you. Same with the pancake argument. That claim you made was not from valid sources, it's from truther web sites. The ONLY place you could have gotten that claim from is from the truther web sites. And yet you wonder why people think you are one. And you think people are stupid to think you can get around it by careful wording. you're a fraud, face it. You're dumb enough to even think you're being original. Yes, you ARE a truther. You wanna whine about me coming out and saying it.

YOU ARE A TRUTHER. Go ahead and cry.

Ive presented the sources for that several times. What are you talking about? People were even discussing the sources I was referring to.

NO YOU HAVE NOT.

Neither article was from a truther website and neither were the articles I linked to located on truther websites.

Those were not the websites that refer to what we are talking about. And they do not confirm your claims.

The main pancake theories were show to be inaccurate according to NIST, the graphic was also inaccurate. Its not reallya big deal I am being overly picky about the graphic, but I admitted that and I explained why.

NIST never made the pancake thoery. HELLO???? It was an initial assessment made by FEMA before they had any chance to collect data. A general guess. Not meant to be any kind of formal conclusion. It was never presented as an offical declaration or anything. This is where you are misleading people. And also, as has been pointed out, there was most certainly a pancake effect. The issue is the initiation. Not wether there was pancaking or not. Why are you making me repeat this stuff over and over?

And now you just say you're being overly picking in using false information to claim that the documentary was a hit job? And you are hurt that people are disagreeing with you???

I suppose this is actually kind of funny, you've already compared me with the KKK member and now a murderer. hahaha.

Now you're acting like a complete idiot. Because I in no way EVER compared you to a KKK member. The fact that you actually think I did brings into question your comprehension ability. Now go back and READ. Don't just read the big capitol letters KKK and make assumptions. READ what I wrote before getting it completely wrong. If you have a hard time reading english, let me know and I will try to re-post it in a language of your choice. I won't even touch the murderer part because God only knows where your challenged mind got that from.

You said KKK members, implying that people that agreeed with me were also part of the truther movement you deny saying Im with.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now go READ what I actually wrote. It's getting very hard not to throw out insults here because this is absolutely absurd. GO READ WHAT I WROTE! lol!

All Im happy about is that there are some sensible people that agree with me on that point, if you want to continue to be obtuse about it i dont really care. But I will point out that you did what I said you'd do which is imply everyone that agrees with me is also a truther. Oh, but you're not calling me a truther... "wink wink"

Ah yes, what makes people sensible is that they agree with you. Really logical there kid. I am obtuse yet you're the genius who thinks I compared you to hitler and call everyone who agrees with you on a single point also truthers like yourself. Learn to read. I can't say it enough, learn to read.

I am calling you a truther because you are using truther arguments from truther sources to use false information against a documentary that correctly protrays popular conspiracy theories. Your claim to not being one is that you agre with another documentary and that you didn't say you were one.

At east some people aren't cowards and don't go around pretending to be something they aren't.

If I say to you, it doesnt matter who agrees with you Jonny, I can find a bunch of people in the Neo-Nazi movement that agree with each other as well, Im not really saying all of you are the same movement...

WTF??? Are you a complete idiot? GO READ WHAT I WROTE. No one can possibly be this stupid. No wonder you keep getting EVERYTHING wrong. Are you reading the same thread???? Are there some neurons not firing here? Please let us know so we can adjust to this absurdity.

Then dare I say it, your logic is faulty.

You have no business judging ANYONEs logic.

Here's your logic.

YOU: Well others agree with me (implying you are right).

ME: Well if a bunch of KKK members agree with each other, does them simply agreing make their beliefs correct?

YOU: Now you're calling me a Nazi!

You call that logic? YOU don't even get a simile. Forget about Dylan.

When you say that you can find other KKK members that agree with each other as well, it sure does sound like you're saying you can always find truthers that agree with each other. If thats not what you meant, then you shouldnt have said it the way you said it.

Once again, learn to read. Reading is fundamental. It;s not what I meant and you should learn reading comprehension. You shouldn't read if you don't know how.

OTOH, you did twist my position. I said that they could have included some more subjects and interviewed or mentioned more people like the people and subjects I mentioned and gave several examples, you turned that into me saying they needed to interview every person and talk about every possible subject. Thats quite different.

No I did NOT. You cannot possibly be this incompetent. GO READ WHAT I WROTE. Please??????? Just do us a favor and go back and READ. Stop making this crap up. How many times do I have to explain it to you??

You make the argument that because they left out things that only YOU feel were important, that they are misrepresenting and being unfair. But that's not a fair argument since that can be made based on it being impossible to show everything. Anything short of everything leads to the argument "well they left important things out". Had they put in the things you wanted and left others out, then there would still be the argument that it's invalid because important things were left out.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Because only a complete idiot would translate that into me claiming you said they have to include everything? Do you now still feel that way?

I know they addressed one claim, but the claim about U93 landing in Cleveland, they did not actually address the argument made and go off and disprove something he never said.

They weren't simply addressing him. They were addressing the conspiracy theory. Do you still not understand this? You seem to think that this is a documentary about LC and Dylan. it's not. They were showing the premise for the whole misunderstanding and how it started. This wasn't a direct response to his last clip. Of course this is about the 4th time I have already explained this. You just don't get it.

No, but thts not just what Loose Change claims. Why are they trying to prove to the audience that Delta Flight 1989 existed and that the passenger took the flight, when Loose Change didnt deny any of that? Why not actually address the actual argument? In my opinion it was a wasted opportunity seeing how many silly ideas were made with United 93 and they only had time to touch on 3 of them.

Again, you just don't get it. And you probably never will. You have it completely wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. The problem isn't the film, it's your misunderstanding of it.

They dont just cut to the passenger they dont ask her anything related to the LC argument about U93. Instead they show her ticket stub and she says "i know I was ON the plane". This implies that they are debunking the idea that she wasnt on the plane and that D1989 that was confused with U93, was actually U93.

yes they do, and they also talk about the whole background about how the whole misunderstanding came about. How it was a case of an initial misunderstanding that was then taken as a vehicle by the conspiracy theorists. A common tactic is taking false early reports and misleading people to believe they haven't been corrected. This isn't about simply LC. LC eventually under pressure had to fess up, but not everyone does. But more importantly, it was to show how these theories get started. just like many of the other points that you think are wrong. But the problem is simply you not understanding what the film is trying to show.

Yes, but they arent saying that Delta 1989 was U93. Thats why Conspiracy Files spent so much time trying to show the plane existed and the passengers really did take the flight. Theres no reason for them to do that.

There you go again, thinking this is a film about LC. There you go missing the point again. There is EVERY reason for them to do that, you just aren't getting it.

Actually LC did make that claim, they even quote the part from LC where they say that two planes landed at Cleveland. Which was Loose Changes point, that Delta Flight 1989 did land and really did have passengers just like they say it did, just that U93 also landed around the same time. But that wasnt what they were debunking.

Eventually it was what they said. But again, not the point. You jsut don't get it.

I dont think you've really thought about that, that would be so much worse! I am giving them more credit than you are! They say Dylan thinks he knows what happened to U93, they show a clip of LC, and now you say they might not even be addressing what he said!

Again, go back and watch it again, but instead of watching it with a truther mindset (yes I know you didn't claim to be one, so you can't be and that if I imply you are or outright say it then I am somehow accusing everyone who knows you of being a truther and of being in the KKK, etc blah blah blah more BS BS) of thinking it's a hit piece and see it for what it really is.

But they arent, they correctly say it was confused, but instead of showing LC's claim they then go and debunk a different one.

No they don't go debunking another one. Like many of the segments, they show how the conspiracies got started. They show why some people think there was a conspiracy behind flight 93 to begin with and how it all began. just like they do with the Jew warnings. They show how it got started. just like they do with the X files writer. They show how the rumors got started and the mindset that causes these things to happen. But you just don't get it. And It's pretty obvious as to why. Because all the truther propaganda films have a standard format. Here's what they claim/ here's the "truth". Back and forth. This one doesn't do that in the same way. You seem to think it does. it brings up a topic and talks about it, concentrating more on the reasoning behind it.

I know you aren't going to understand anything i said, but it's not for a lack of trying.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Avery: "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?"

BBC: Don't assume. Talk to the passengers from flight 1989. It's easy. Here: we did it.

You can't get a more direct example of what's wrong with the conspiracists than that.

He's just not gonna get it.

 

[Walter Ego]

Ive been very patient with your exaggerations Gravy, Ive been very patient when you dont read my posts properly and start arguing something I never claimed like you did here, and then not offered any kind of apology or even acknowledge it. Im getting rather tired of it and if you keep doing it Im not going to be able to debate you anymore, really why do you feel the need to have to act that way?

It always gets back to you and how misunderstood and mistreated you are on this forum, doesn't it? I'm surprised you continue to put up with such dense and rude people. You truly have the patience of Job in your efforts to education us.

 

[Walter Ego]

He's just not gonna get it.

This thread reminds me of the story about the man who when to visit a farmer who was training a mule. The farmer starts out by knocking the mule up side the head with a two-by- four. Shocked, the man asks, ‘Why did you do that?’ Well, the farmer replied, ‘Mules are stubborn so first you have to get their attention.’

 

[Myriad]

Edx, when I evaluate some of your objections to the documentary's arguments and to the replies you've received this thread, it appears that you believe that there is some rule of discourse that says that it is somehow unfair to point out and address the implications of a statement, rather than only the literal statements made.

For instance, if someone said that my wife had been out walking the streets for money, I could counter-argue only to the effect that she was (a) not walking, (b) not on any streets, and/or (c) did not obtain any money. To point out that she went to the ATM would be bringing up irrelevant distracting facts because the accuser never said she didn't go to the ATM, and to state that she was not a prostitute would be misrepresenting the person's claim because the accuser didn't explicitly say she was.

Fortunately for people defending themselves and others from false insinuations, there is no such rule.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutely no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting to descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.

 

[DGM]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutley no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting do descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.

I agree with you. This thread has been an exorcise in pointless for pages now.

Simple fact is mainstream media is not un-bias and never has been and never will be. Mainstream media is driven by popular opinion (give them what they want). It's simply unrealistic to expect anything different, like it or not. I say drop it and move on.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutely no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting to descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.

No, we all understood that 11 pages ago. We know exactly what he means. Please don't pretend that because people disagree with him and are pointing out exactly why we think he is wrong means that we don't understand what he is saying. Some of us are disagreeing with his opinion BECAUSE we understand what he is saying. The problem you are pointing out is actually with Ed himself, not everyone else. he is trying to use the argument that everyone misunderstands him as a decoy. Then he goes off on these long tangents about people misunderstanding him which makes it look more that way. So whern Gravy throws in a side comment about him sympathizing with Dylan, or me calling him a truther, he focuses on those minor comments rather than what people are actually saying.

Unfortunately you don't get it. I suspect you haven't been reading every post. And I wouldn't blame you as it's too much for anyone to read. But if you had, you wouldn't be saying that.

You can agree that there is spin, there's nothing wrong with that. The part you ignored on Ed's part is his use of false information to make these claims. The crime here isn't him thinking they put spin on the film. it's him making false accusations and misleading information.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

No, we all understood that 11 pages ago. We know exactly what he means. Please don't pretend that because people disagree with him and are pointing out exactly why we think he is wrong means that we don't understand what he is saying. Some of us are disagreeing with his opinion BECAUSE we understand what he is saying. The problem you are pointing out is actually with Ed himself, not everyone else. he is trying to use the argument that everyone misunderstands him as a decoy. Then he goes off on these long tangents about people misunderstanding him which makes it look more that way. So whern Gravy throws in a side comment about him sympathizing with Dylan, or me calling him a truther, he focuses on those minor comments rather than what people are actually saying.

Unfortunately you don't get it. I suspect you haven't been reading every post. And I wouldn't blame you as it's too much for anyone to read. But if you had, you wouldn't be saying that.

You can agree that there is spin, there's nothing wrong with that. The part you ignored on Ed's part is his use of false information to make these claims. The crime here isn't him thinking they put spin on the film. it's him making false accusations and misleading information.

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

 

[tsig]

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

So we agree he's a concern troll.

Seems to me he's been claiming that the documentary was a hatchet job. He just uses his "concern" to avoid any real questions.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh, I understand what Edx is getting at. I just don't agree that the BBC was doing what he accuses them of doing.
I saw a piece in which claims were made by Avery et al and in which actual facts were presented.

Is Dylan a drop-out? That seems to depend on what Dylan told the BBC and what the definition of "drop-out" is to the interviewer.

Does Dylan claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, he does (that's his latest story anyway, isn't it?). Does he acknowledge that D1989 landed there as well? Yes, he does. Does he give any details as to why D1989 was thought to have been the plane with a bomb? Yes, scant details, only enough so that his viewers do not question his contention that U93 landed there too. The BBC then goes into greater detail and shows why D1989 was confused as being U93. They also interview a passenger who tells of the actions of the police and what occured to her and her fellow passengers and then proves that she was on D1989 by producing a ticket. One very troubling aspect of the Troof is that they will always question whether or not a witness is a 'plant'. Perhaps that is why they had her prove she was on D1989.

As I said before, you want an example of a hatchet job, watch Micheal moore's films.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So we agree he's a concern troll.

Seems to me he's been claiming that the documentary was a hatchet job. He just uses his "concern" to avoid any real questions.

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

Thankyou.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

Labeling him a truther is just for the sake of treating others as they treat you. He came in calling people liars, so it's just to show him how it feels. And the comments you are referring to were not the part of the argument. It would be like me harping on you using the word hatchet and making the thread about your use of the word hatchet. Now if we kept going on and on about it, making the thread about the word hatchet, it would be easy to say it's unfair. But the point is that we aren't harping on these issues that you say he is being unfairly accused of. HE is. These were mere side comments that he is using to derail the thread and completely missing the actual posts that they were included in. He (and maybe you didn't notice either) that Gravy in his comment made some really valid points. Those went ignored. Instead what was focused on? Him making some side comment that didn't really mean much.

So what does that say? It says many people here are not really reading the posts and are just looking for excuses to dismiss them. Who gives a crap if he is a truther or sympathizing? It has nothing to do with the argument. Gravy for example is not arguing that he is being sympathetic, he is arguing that the guy is factually wrong.

And I apologize, but it's simply not worht my time to go through 11 pages of this thread to copy/paste the hundreds of examples, especially after I have had to address them repeatedly over and over already. It's like I covered them like 5 times each throughout the thread and people are saying "show me"? Again, this points to the issuer being that people aren't reading everything (understandably).

But do you also see that you are criticizing my posts, but not even aware of what my posts are about other than some side comments about calling someone a truther. What does that say? Some of those posts are extremely long and the only thing read is that part? Gravy on the last page made like 10 posts all bringing up exact quotes and showing exactly why Ed is wrong in his claim about how the film portrayed Dylan. And the response is "He called him a sympathizer?"

I mean who are we kidding here? This is what a troll does. Makes posts to try to get a rise out of people. Hence the focusing on the meaningless parts of the posts and completely ignoring the actual arguments.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

Thankyou.

I hope you do understand that none of those questions have anything to do with the discussion at hand. This is simply a further derailment of the thread.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

I tend to agree with Satansmalevoicechoir that Ed has been harshly treated at times in this thread. I contributed to the thread early on and i was dismissive of Edx's claims, i still dont agree with Edx but i do now see his point about the 'drop out' tag, if i was working in the production team i would have argued against using that label, i would have said 'creator of loose change' is all that needs to be said, it is simple enough to expose Dylan's dishonesty without using this unnecessary term. I think its important to be 'whiter than white' when you are confronting dishonesty. I still dont believe this was a conscious decision to smear Dylan though, i think it was just poor judgement over a trivial point. It has been discussed to death but if they were trying to smear him they would have used the more accurate 'film school reject'

However i completely disagree with Edx's claims that the BBC were guilty of 'deception by ommission', they couldnt have covered every theory going and they also stayed away from some of the more whacky theories. So i dont accept this at all. I also think the bbc were entitled to use the x-files producer to provide insight into the psychology of truthers. They had presented the many lies and distortions of the truth movement throughout the programme so i feel they were right to try and explain what might motivate such people in the conclusion.

I dont believe Ed is a truther though. I think he's just over reacted to Avery and Jones' complaints. As we saw with the Popular mechanics piece, truthers will find any tenous link (Chertoff's cousin) to support their 'hit piece' theory. They would have been equally vitriolic with or without the 'drop out' tag.

 

[beachnut]

Oh, I understand what Edx is getting at. I just don't agree that the BBC was doing what he accuses them of doing.
I saw a piece in which claims were made by Avery et al and in which actual facts were presented.

Is Dylan a drop-out? That seems to depend on what Dylan told the BBC and what the definition of "drop-out" is to the interviewer.

Does Dylan claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, he does (that's his latest story anyway, isn't it?). Does he acknowledge that D1989 landed there as well? Yes, he does. Does he give any details as to why D1989 was thought to have been the plane with a bomb? Yes, scant details, only enough so that his viewers do not question his contention that U93 landed there too. The BBC then goes into greater detail and shows why D1989 was confused as being U93. They also interview a passenger who tells of the actions of the police and what occured to her and her fellow passengers and then proves that she was on D1989 by producing a ticket. One very troubling aspect of the Troof is that they will always question whether or not a witness is a 'plant'. Perhaps that is why they had her prove she was on D1989.

As I said before, you want an example of a hatchet job, watch Micheal moore's films.

He demonstrates lack knowledge on 9/11. Your post clears the smoke screen; his ignorance on the subject. I can not follow his reasoning. He lacks a basic knowledge of Dylan's work. Using what Alex Jones says; a red flag for lack of knowledge and a partiality to the lies and misinformation Alex Jones peddles. It impossible to follow his logic, when he neglects key points and twists them around. He calls the discussion he started a pointless debate, and then returns with a vengeance to make it more pointless. I expected edx to gain knowledge slowly, despite the truth movement "twaddle" laden posts and faulty logic. He would do best to read and study, instead of picking the most trivial "claptrap" to pound deep into what he labels "pointless" debate.

Darn, all this junk to say, your post was concise; good job.

 

[cisco]

I tend to agree with Satansmalevoicechoir that Ed has been harshly treated at times in this thread. I contributed to the thread early on and i was dismissive of Edx's claims, i still dont agree with Edx but i do now see his point about the 'drop out' tag, if i was working in the production team i would have argued against using that label, i would have said 'creator of loose change' is all that needs to be said, it is simple enough to expose Dylan's dishonesty without using this unnecessary term. I think its important to be 'whiter than white' when you are confronting dishonesty. I still dont believe this was a conscious decision to smear Dylan though, i think it was just poor judgement over a trivial point. It has been discussed to death but if they were trying to smear him they would have used the more accurate 'film school reject'

They didn't just call him a dropout, though. They called him a self-confessed dropout. To whom did he refer to himself as a dropout? That's who needs to be asked before anyone loses their panties over this, and that's why Edx's complaint has no merit in my eyes.

Until further proof is established, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the BBC over known liar and story-changer Dylan Avery.

 

[Edx]

They didn't just call him a dropout, though. They called him a self-confessed dropout. To whom did he refer to himself as a dropout? That's who needs to be asked before anyone loses their panties over this, and that's why Edx's complaint has no merit in my eyes.

Until further proof is established, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the BBC over known liar and story-changer Dylan Avery.

Already replied to this idea many times, but you may have missed it last time you asked 2 pages back. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3415578&postcount=331

 

[Edx]

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:

Jon is telling porkies and knows it, I have never avoided real questions. I alwasy replied to every point, if someone thinks I missed something critical I say tell me where and I'll respond. Jonny also keeps saying Ive never told him what sources I was refering to about the instant message warnings. And when I call him on his claim that he never called me a truther (even though he and others did, specifically not just implied, many times (in addition to also being called an anti-semite!), he says he was only trying to show my hypocrisy.

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

I'd be happy to.

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

Theres a few points. That is certainly one of them. I have tried to draw a parallel between Creationism many times as to try and show why I'd be annoyed with a similar film doing what Conspiracy Files did to 911 CTs, with a film on Creationism. I think Creationists are wrong 100% of the time, and Ive spent a lot of time arguing against their nonsence. But I wouldnt just be annoyed with the BBC for making a documentary that misrepresented their arguments, I'd be annoyed with the producer for feeling they had to try and make them look worse than they are. Also, I'd be more forgiving if the program claimed to be "debunking" CT claims, but it isnt. It claims to be a fair and honest objective investigation, so that makes it even worse.

Personal emotions regarding 911 aside (Gravy), I think the facts should stand on their own. You shouldnt need to misrepresent someones argument if you are right. If two people are arguing about a topic and they both misrepresent each other its pretty annoying, I want to get to the truth and that wont happen that way. I hate when I sometimes see some rude idiot arguing with a Creationist. In the end I think should apply the same standards you expect of others to yourself. I think Conspiracy Files was a wasted opportunity.

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?

I dont have sympathy towards Avery. What I dislike is he produced a film (Loose Change) that was based on speculation and ignorence. If he admitted what it was he did that wouldnt be so bad, but even when he made the followups I keep hearing him say that at least most of the things they cut out havent been disproved! I dont understand that. He really cant seen to admit when he is wrong, as the OP only hints at. I cant remember what that Ex-Truthers website is called but I saw a link on here for it not long ago, I saw a video on there which showed Dylan being very insensitive to some poor lady whoes husband had died. Not cool Dylan. Why did he have to be the poster child for people skeptical of 911 offical claims?

Alex Jones is similar. I have a weird like-dislike of Alex Jones because he has brought to attention things in the mainstream press hasnt. I dont think I'd have looked into things like the Patriot Act quite as fully if it wasnt for him. I think the general idea of reporting stories no one else seems to give much attention to is an admirable one. But unfortunatly, I conclude the same thing about him as the Channel 4 Producer guy (whos name escapes me) that went with him to Bohemium Grove and then made his own documentary on the Bilderberg (which was very nicely done and an example of what Conspriacy Files should have been btw). I watched Alex' film first and kept wondering at the time, because I couldnt understand why he kept saying the Owl was meant to be this Moloch deity and I couldnt understand why he had to put Carmen Burana music over the top while slamming us with his sensationalism. I went to his website and tried to find the reason why he thought it was Moloch, I couldnt find anything. I couldnt find anything to back up the leaps from a genuine concern about what might happen at Bohenium Grove to Satan worship! What he did was great, getting in there and filming this thing that no one else had been able to do. But why could he not just report on the facts, instead of trying to bash his own speculative opinion over peoples heads? So I wish Alex was more skeptical, he does collect a lot of interestesing news reports and research. I really think its a shame that if only he could cover that with some skepticism he could be a really awesome journalist. Because of that, anything good I have to say is invariably outweighted by the ton of bad. I hate having to crosscheck everything he says because they almost always contain so much speculation I cant just take his word for it. He also goes so mental sometimes, I saw a link on Gravys site to one of his radio shows and he just goes absolutely off his nut crazy, so I dont think he'll ever change. Funniest thing I'd ever heard though.

As far as his overall beliefs, I tend to be in some way sympathetic, but I'll explain why because its not in the way that you might think. I think 911 Truth is a vast wasted opportunity to voice real concerns regarding the governments competence prior to 911 and their actions after it. So I am far more sympathetic with films like Press for Truth, which essentially concludes much the same as Conspiracy Files ironically.

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

I do have some "reservations", but I know not to claim I have evidence enough to actually say the things most 911 Truthers do. And you see this is the funny thing, I agree with Conspriacy Files' conclusion. Ive said so several times.

 

[DGM]

Edx:
You have mentioned an interest in the "Patriot act". I for one would like to see what your concerns are and possibly start a discussion on them. Do you have any interest in starting a new thread on this so these concerns can be addressed? If so why don't you?