Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

Who agrees with you; only Alex Jones, before the fact.

Look over the past few pages. Several people have said they have agreed with me to varying degrees.

 

[Edx]

you were already given a great example.
Einstein. He is always described as a drop out.

[snip]

The point being to emphasize that just because someone doesn't have a formal education does not mean they can't achieve great things.

Thats what they should have said... except the "great things" part. Drop out does not have a positive connotation in normal usage. Einstein was a drop out but he is also Einstein who we all know is educated. To say he is a drop out - which is negative - but also ended up being who Einstein is, ends up being a compliment.

Thats simply not what Guy claims drop out means, which is that it doesnt mean you dropped out of anything in the UK which is his reasoning for his film calling Dylan a drop out. Einstein isnt an example of that usage.

 

[beachnut]

Look over the past few pages. Several people have said they have agreed with me to varying degrees.

Yes, I agree you have a problem needing to be right and you have proven it with posts and discussion you call pointless. You define the terms you want for the reality you seek to be right. What is it called, the need to be right? Alex Jones, funny stuff.

As you blunder off topic further and further. You will be back to prove you are right. Over, and over again. Supporting the "dropout" and the idiot Alex Jones. When Alex Jones speaks, it is a hit piece if you are a rational person. Do you think his brain is damaged for too much roids? Is that possible?

I seel all you points as you said; pointless; relax you were right! I also think the OP video, was a great example of the mindless ways of Dylan, and your response is indicative of Alex Jones thinking.

 

[tsig]

Are you calling me a bovine-leapers???

And my god, I was just being picky, why must you keep harping on it?

BTW, his cow graphic was inaccurate.

Look like a b-l, talk like a b-l I call b-l.

You are being pedantic not picky, and it's bovine-leaping-moon not just b-l why will you keep giving them ammunition to shoot us with.

Close one eye and squint, then turn the graph 45 degrees. When you transpose the axis it totally proves the point although I do not agree with the conclusions.

Are you so deaperate that you have t attak me personally. I as just asking questions but you mean JREFer's are making me cry so I cannot tyoe more.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Its Haaratz and Newsbytes (The Washington Post). They are proper news sources, not the same things as random blogs.

It was a guys column. Oh and here's one of my favorites. it's a disclaimer form the top of one of your sources:

"This is a primary (original) document representing antisemitism post 9-11. It is posted here as an archival example, and it does not in any way represent the views of Political Research Associates, the Public Eye website, or our funders and supporters. This page is part of a larger collection on Conspiracism after 9-11. Read more about why we post this type of document."

But the main point which was brought up some 10 pages ago is that there was no warning of the 9/11 attacks. There is no basis to the conspiracy theory. It is however one of the factors that contributed to the common conspiracy that Jews were warned of the attacks along with the rumors about the 4000 Jews being warned.

And yes it doesnt mention the WTC specifically, I know that, all it says is it warned of the attacks. It was considered so important it was reported to the FBI. That is at least, what is reported on those news reports.

There you go again. You say it warned of the attacks. That is WRONG. It did NOT warn of the attacks. If you read what the owner of the company says and not what the columist says, you can see that. But THIS is exactly how these conspiracy theories get started. People such as yourself misread these things (with the aid of badly written columns) and make broad assumptions. And of course it would be reported. Everything that could possibly be connected no matter how unlikely was reported. Just like Vans that had pictures of the WTC on it were reported too. Just like everyone reported anything they possibly could just in case it may have some connection.

The implication is falsly being made that the message was about 9/11. That is a stretch. And if it had been, it would make even less sense. Any way you stretch it, it's an absurd claim.

Huh? Im asking you what you think it is Im saying about it.

Go back and read the many posts where I address this.

If the graphic was totally correct the towers would have taken over a minute to collapse. If the graphic was totally correct the core would still be standing. Pancaking did not cause the collapse, pancaking happend after that, but the graphic does not take this into consideration. Im being picky, but I said that!!

So now you are trying to back up incorrect information with more incorrect information> No you are not being picky, you are using incorrect information that comes from conspiracy sites. you are using claims that have been proven wrong over and over again on this forum. Tell you what, how about you present the scientific information that proves that if pancaking occurs that it would take over a minute to collapse. Go ahead, show us. Even better, show us your source for that claim. I'm sure you can present a legitimate peer reviewed scientific paper to back up this point.

Why are you debunking conspiracy sites? I never said there wasnt pancaking period. Sheesh!

You still don't get it. After about 10 times o explaining it to you you still don't get it. You don't even understand what NIST said about pancaking. You don't understand the difference between the collapse initiation and the collapse itself. That's why you keep thinking I am saying you are claiming it wasn't there period. That's why you think it would take a minute for the building to collapse. I suppose it just happened slightly right? I guess some floors collapsed on others and other floors just kinda fell on their own?

Im saying we have news reports of warnings being sent and they could have addressed those reports, in the same way as they did address The Jerusalem Post report.

There weren't new reports of warnings being sent. There was an incident where a generic message was sent to 2 employees in Israel and it was reported to the FBI just in case it could have had anything to do with the WTC attacks. They could have also addressed the demolition company that had pictures of the WTC and explosives on their van too. But since it too ended up having nothing to do with 9/11 it wasn't included.

The very first time you said that to me I said I shouldnt have used the word "backing" to describe what I meant, I then told you what I meant, but now you're acting like I never said that?

Are you on some kind of substance? Or are you reading a completely different post than me?

Yup, and the graphic does not show that.

This could be s stundie if it wasn't spread over so many posts. The graphics isn't supposed to. The graphics show how the trusses were weakened and pulled together. Another showed how the pancaking works.

Look at what you're replying to and tell me where you gleaned that impression from what i wrote.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

No, the relevant part of your post was KKK MEMBER

Again, only a complete idiot would think that. Only a complete idiot would completely miss the point of the post and focus on the word KKK. I guess that was over your head completely. But kind of ironic being that this started from a discussion based on Dylan doing the same exact mistake you are.

Oh really? I personally attack people the way you have attacked me? Want me to take one of your posts and cut out all the content and leave only the personel attacks and see how long it is?

Oh stop playing the victim. Grow up. You didn't feel it was a personal attack to call me and others liars for disagreeing with you when you first posted huh? And I am attacking ignorant actions, not you. You just happen to be making a lot of them. And YOU are the one who keeps going in circles on this. We pointed out why you are wrong. YOU keep bringing this into a personal issue.

Tell you what, let's leave only the false and inaccurate claims you have made in your posts and see how long they are. Go cry if you need to.

Several people are agreeing with me in varying different amounts. No one is attacking them for it.

Does this really need to be explained to you again? Really? Can you save us some time, go to the post you are responding to which has the exact answer to what you are saying and read it? Please? For the 100th time?

Why say Im using the tactics Im not then? To tell people Im making the argument that they need to include everyone and discuss every possible argument, you're saying is not really saying I think they should have included everyone and discuss every possible argument.

Wow. Just wow. You still don't get it? My God. I would explain it again, but after about 10 times, why would you get it now? I suppose if you have to sit here and act like an idiot by thinking I am claiming you are claiming that they have to include everything, then so be it. I cannot be helped if after about 10 times of explaining you still just don't get it.

"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.

Why say that?

Well, if you read my posts the first few times I explained it to you, you would know wouldn't you?

You made the argument that they are being unfair and dishonest because they left things out. That's not a valid argument because it's impossible to include everything. Thus that argument can be made so long as they don't include everything. It's an empty argument because it prays on the fact that not everything can be included. It's an argument that can be made about any and every documentary that has ever existed.

But of course somehow you keep pretending that that is some how accusing you of claiming they should include everything. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could possibly jump to such an absolutely absurd conclusion. But somehow you keep doing it. And I imagine you will continue to do so.

You bring up arguments of things that they should have included to make it fair, and we pointed out as to why that simply isn't true. You don't like that, so instead you change the argument into peopel claiming you said something when no one is actually making such claims about you. And then to top it of, you go on and on about how its nothing but personal attacks against you because you keep making these false claims about things like this.

Uh...Those quotes werent you saying Im a truther, they were showing where you exaggerated my argument to make it seem very unreasonable. The quotes where you said I was a truther was on on the previous page

They were not an exaggeration what so ever. How can you even say that? Did you even read them? You use the same methods used by many truthers use on these forums. You cannot deny that, it's a fact. Only you know your intent, but you can't sit here and lie about the methods used.

I eventually just said you were a truther because many of us are tired about you trolling and derailing the thread to pretend you are playing the victim and being called a truther. Calling you a truther outright is an attempt to simply shortcut your nonsense and your trolling. But yet here you are. I think it's time for ignore.

You're attacking me as strongly as one can on a message board on the internet.

Bullcrap and you know it. Stop being a whiney little baby, grow up, and try to stick to the actual arguments instead of prancing around like a drama queen because God forbid people actually discuss something other than YOU. God forbid you have to stand behind your claims and address them.

Ed, one more derailment post going on and on about YOU and I am using ignore. leave the nonsense out and stick to the real issues without surrounding them with these tirades about you.

 

[beachnut]

Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.

Highlights (or rather lowlights) from my notes:

10:20- Dylan and Jones mention Wally Miller.

9:20- Dylan mentions ‘unburned’ passports at Shanksville.

Jones comes on at about the 23:30 mark

30:30- Jones complains endlessly about only getting 3 minutes of airtime on the BBC show.

57:00-- The drop issue is discussed. Dylan gives a rationalization of why he couldn’t get into film school. (See my original post for my take on why he didn't get into the school.)

Towards the end of the show, Jones begins to refer to Smith mockingly a your ‘Lordship.’ There’s much, much more for the masochists who want to listen to the whole program.

And the BBC was not fair and balanced. lol, I think the BBC gave the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth too much room to breath, they do it to make a show. It was hard to listen to pure stupid as Dylan, and Alex Jones spewed dumb ideas.

 

[tsig]

Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.

Highlights (or rather lowlights) from my notes:

10:20- Dylan and Jones mention Wally Miller.

9:20- Dylan mentions ‘unburned’ passports at Shanksville.

Jones comes on at about the 23:30 mark

30:30- Jones complains endlessly about only getting 3 minutes of airtime on the BBC show.

57:00-- The drop issue is discussed. Dylan gives a rationalization of why he couldn’t get into film school. (See my original post for my take on why he didn't get into the school.)

Towards the end of the show, Jones begins to refer to Smith mockingly a your ‘Lordship.’ There’s much, much more for the masochists who want to listen to the whole program.

Hi Walter

I knew he was getting it all from some woo site.

He has all the marks. Refusal to read, saying the same thing over and over, JAQing and whining and whining and.....

Thanks.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am only interested in his source for his claim that pancaking would cause the collapse to take over a minute.

The claim that they are being dishonest because they didn't address that the government has pulled off falseflags in the past is also a dead give away.

Also using the example of Jewenko who was mislead by truthers is another one. I am sure he would likely prefer that they leave out the parts where he says he needs more data and says WTC 1&2 were not demolitions. Just the building he wasn't familiar with and was given no more evidence than a simple video an then asked how he would go about demolishing it.

 

[Gravy]

I have accepted the two original stories may not be connected because I cant prove they are, but they are dealing with similar issues. Israeli warnings of 911, and I have seen both stories and the myth getting mixed up. So I feel that if someone only knew what Conspiracy Files told them, they'd assume that if someone said some employees of an Israeli company got warnings prior to 911, that this the same claim Conspiracy Files debunked. Maybe this was just an honest oversight, but I still think its an oversight.

Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?

 

[tsig]

Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?

Shame on you Gravy! He only lies when his is using his keyboard.

 

[jaydeehess]

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 watch MSNBC and see Keith Olberman do a much better job of holding the administration accountable for their actions, including the Patriot Act, than does Jones.

Olberman is just not the wild eyed nutbar that Jones is so he is less well known

 

[Walter Ego]

I watch MSNBC and see Keith Olberman do a much better job of holding the administration accountable for their actions, including the Patriot Act, than does Jones.

Olberman is just not the wild eyed nutbar that Jones is so he is less well known

Olbermann (two 'n's) is much better known than Alex Jones. Just ask Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann is on basic cable on a division of NBC. Jones is on a handful of mostly Christian radio stations and the internet. Jones is king with the kooks; Olbermann is MSM (mainstream media).

 

[Edx]

Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?

Care to explain how? And care to explain how you've never acknowledged your misunderstanding any of my points or when you kept accusing me falsely of supporting Loose Change?

 

[Edx]

It was a guys column. Oh and here's one of my favorites. it's a disclaimer form the top of one of your sources:

"This is a primary (original) document representing antisemitism post 9-11. It is posted here as an archival example, and it does not in any way represent the views of Political Research Associates, the Public Eye website, or our funders and supporters. This page is part of a larger collection on Conspiracism after 9-11. Read more about why we post this type of document."

So The Washington Post and the Israeli paper Haaretz are anti-semitic newspapers are they? And the above disclaimer is talking about what the anti-semtic twist on these original sources are.

Btw my link to Haaretz was not a link to a guys column, it was a cashed page from their official website.

But the main point which was brought up some 10 pages ago is that there was no warning of the 9/11 attacks.

Not according to those newspaper articles, the newspapers articles are what I am refering to. Even if it truned out it didnt happen (even though Ive not seen any followup stories anywhere that show those reports are inaccurare) the point is its a story they didnt cover that I think they should have. If you dont agree that they should I really dont care anymore, but at least show you understand what Im saying.

It is however one of the factors that contributed to the common conspiracy that Jews were warned of the attacks along with the rumors about the 4000 Jews being warned.

Funny people here told me it had "nothing" to do with it, but that was my original point about why they should have brought it up.

There you go again. You say it warned of the attacks. That is WRONG. It did NOT warn of the attacks.If you read what the owner of the company says

According to the article it warned of the attacks but that the CEO says it didnt specifically mention the WTC as a target but couldnt say any more.

The implication is falsly being made that the message was about 9/11. That is a stretch. And if it had been, it would make even less sense. Any way you stretch it, it's an absurd claim.

Has anyone followed up the story and showed that Haaretz and The Washington Post were wrong when they said it warned of the attacks?

Go back and read the many posts where I address this.

Well as far as I can see you dont understand what I think about it, thats why Im asking you to clarify.

If the graphic was totally correct the towers would have taken over a minute to collapse. If the graphic was totally correct the core would still be standing. Pancaking did not cause the collapse, pancaking happend after that, but the graphic does not take this into consideration. Im being picky, but I said that!!

So now you are trying to back up incorrect information with more incorrect information>

You are the one that says the graphic is completely accurate, not me.

Tell you what, how about you present the scientific information that proves that if pancaking occurs that it would take over a minute to collapse.

I didnt say that, I said if the graphic was completely accurate like you claimed it was it would have taken over a minuite to collapse.

You don't understand the difference between the collapse initiation and the collapse itself.

Yes I do which is one of the reasons why I say the graphic is inaccurate.

There weren't new reports of warnings being sent. There was an incident where a generic message was sent to 2 employees in Israel and it was reported to the FBI just in case it could have had anything to do with the WTC attacks. They could have also addressed the demolition company that had pictures of the WTC and explosives on their van too. But since it too ended up having nothing to do with 9/11 it wasn't included.

They are addressing Conspiracy Theories, the messages being sent to Odigo employees story does get mixed up with the story they did report in The Jerusalem Post regarding the missing 4000 Jewish Workers. Thats why I say it would have been relevant.

And you said NIST backed away from the pancake claim. Which means that at some point they were behind it. That is WRONG.

The very first time you said that to me I said I shouldnt have used the word "backing" to describe what I meant, I then told you what I meant, but now you're acting like I never said that?

Are you on some kind of substance? Or are you reading a completely different post than me?

Look, you said when I used the word "backing" it implies that I am saying NIST originally was behind the idea. I said I know they didnt, I shouldnt have used that word as it doesnt describe what I meant. You dont need to tell me its "WRONG" like you did above, I know it is.

This could be s stundie if it wasn't spread over so many posts. The graphics isn't supposed to. The graphics show how the trusses were weakened and pulled together. Another showed how the pancaking works.

The graphic they used is not "totally" accurate, I said Im being picky, why cant you just accept that? Why do you have to act like Im making some big deal about it?

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Didnt think you could.

Again, only a complete idiot would think that. Only a complete idiot would completely miss the point of the post and focus on the word KKK.

I bolded the word "member" for you but apparently you didnt see it, again.

Oh stop playing the victim. Grow up. You didn't feel it was a personal attack to call me and others liars for disagreeing with you when you first posted huh?

When did I call people liars that just didnt agree with me? And when was the first time I called someone a liar? I know you wont bother to back up your accusations, you never do!

I called you a liar, Jonny, because you kept misrepresenting me so badly even after I explained it to you several times, and that it couldnt be an honest mistake anymore. I proved that when I quoted you in the last post. You even denied you said Im a truther, I proved you did, and then you claimed you were just trying to teach me some kind of lesson.

We pointed out why you are wrong. YOU keep bringing this into a personal issue.

You dont think I should take any personal offence to the kind of posts you are giving me and have been giving me since the start?

Tell you what, let's leave only the false and inaccurate claims you have made in your posts and see how long they are.

Thats your opinion of what is and what isnt false and inaccurate, but you claim you arent personally attacking me. Thats not an opinion, its obvious that you are.

Several people are agreeing with me in varying different amounts. No one is attacking them for it.

Does this really need to be explained to you again? Really? Can you save us some time, go to the post you are responding to which has the exact answer to what you are saying and read it? Please? For the 100th time?

Yea, I get it. Im stupid and dishonest and probably on drugs according to you because I have an opinion other people hold, but they're okay and you wont attack them.

Why say Im using the tactics Im not then? To tell people Im making the argument that they need to include everyone and discuss every possible argument, you're saying is not really saying I think they should have included everyone and discuss every possible argument.

You made the argument that they are being unfair and dishonest because they left things out. That's not a valid argument because it's impossible to include everything.

They left some information out does not equal they left everything out. Can you honestly not see the difference?

Thus that argument can be made so long as they don't include everything. It's an empty argument because it prays on the fact that not everything can be included. It's an argument that can be made about any and every documentary that has ever existed.

I agree with that, Im not saying they should include everything. Can you honestly not see that?

You telling me how impossible it is is arguing against something I never said, thats a strawman by definition.

But of course somehow you keep pretending that that is some how accusing you of claiming they should include everything.

Seriously... I dont know what to say...

You say that my argument is wrong because they cant include everything, then you say in the next sentence that you arent saying my argument is that they should have included everything...

I cant make that fit, Im sorry. I tried.

Bullcrap and you know it. Stop being a whiney little baby, grow up, and try to stick to the actual arguments instead of prancing around like a drama queen because God forbid people actually discuss something other than YOU. God forbid you have to stand behind your claims and address them.

I wonder if you act this way in real life as well.

Ed, one more derailment post going on and on about YOU and I am using ignore. leave the nonsense out and stick to the real issues without surrounding them with these tirades about you.

Oh no! I will loose so much in my life not having to see the weird logic and insulting replies from Jonny again!

Ed

 

[Edx]

The claim that they are being dishonest because they didn't address that the government has pulled off falseflags in the past is also a dead give away.

Im saying when they did a montage of government lies and dishonesty, they could have included more relevant clips.

Also using the example of Jewenko who was mislead by truthers is another one. I am sure he would likely prefer that they leave out the parts where he says he needs more data and says WTC 1&2 were not demolitions.

Actually I said it would be good if they did show that because thats the part they always leave out. Do you really want me to look up the post and page number of where I said that, to show how you didnt read it?

 

[Edx]

Yes, I agree you have a problem needing to be right and you have proven it with posts and discussion you call pointless.

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts.

When Alex Jones speaks, it is a hit piece if you are a rational person.

Im sure even Kent Hovind is right some of the time, just never about anything relevant. But if someone misrepresnted him and he showed how, I'd have to agree with him too even though I really dont want to have to.

I seel all you points as you said; pointless; relax you were right! I also think the OP video, was a great example of the mindless ways of Dylan, and your response is indicative of Alex Jones thinking.

You can still say that even after this post?

 

[Walter Ego]

Olbermann (two 'n's) is much better known than Alex Jones. Just ask Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann is on basic cable on a division of NBC. Jones is on a handful of mostly Christian radio stations and the internet. Jones is king with the kooks; Olbermann is MSM (mainstream media).

My info about Jones being on mainly Christian radio stations came from an article in Radar magazine but I can't find any indication that Jones is on any broadcast stations at all. He is syndicated by Genesis Communications Network but that seems to only go out over shortwave. Jones doesn’t mention any real over the air radio stations at all on his website. Odd.

P.S. The Radar article was of course a 'hit piece' according to Jones.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts.

Oops; looks like you are wrong on this too. (you share a common trait of 9/11 truth, you say something and debunk it as you post it. does this make sense?)lol

Im sure even Kent Hovind is right some of the time, just never about anything relevant. But if someone misrepresnted him and he showed how, I'd have to agree with him too even though I really dont want to have to.

Alex Jones is not right ever. I could be wrong, but even when you think he is right, he is still wrong. The hit piece on Alex Jones is as I said; when he speaks, all rational people can see he completely self critiquing.

You can still say that even after this post?

You talk and talk and still sound like a dyed in the wool truther. How can you be more obtuse?

not responding well to baiting taunts

please do not forget your own rule again; you responded very well

 

[Edx]

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts.

Oops; looks like you are wrong on this too. (you share a common trait of 9/11 truth, you say something and debunk it as you post it. does this make sense?)lol

How can I be wrong about that?? I said I dont respond well to baiting taunts and that this is why you get the impression I always want the last word.

Alex Jones is not right ever. I could be wrong, but even when you think he is right, he is still wrong. The hit piece on Alex Jones is as I said; when he speaks, all rational people can see he completely self critiquing.

I know you'd like to think that but even Im more reasonable to think guys like Hovind and Jones are not always wrong about everything. Having said that Ive never seen Hovind right about anything, and if I ever did it was so brief and fleeting it has escaped my memory.

You can still say that even after this post?

You talk and talk and still sound like a dyed in the wool truther. How can you be more obtuse?

So are you saying Im lying in that post, then?

please do not forget your own rule again; you responded very well

... I think I did as well, I think Ive been very polite and patient considering. But Im not sure you meant this as a compliment...

 

[dudalb]

I can't read comment #440. Guess why.




There’s a certain type of dunderhead who will cease on any minor inconsistency (they called Dylan a dropout, he is not a dropout!) and worry it to death like a dog with a favorite bone. Edx is a university student in the UK (he says). Can you imagine how much fun he is in classroom discussions? There must be clumps of hair on those classroom floors… pulled out by professors from their own heads in frustration.

And Edx must be on the verge of being beaten to death by his fellow students, who are probably being driven as crazy by him as his professors are.....