Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

STOP lying. There was no message warning regarding 911. Even the people at the company have acknowledged this in the press.

Really? Where?

The reason you won't bother showing your press sources is because it would make this obvious and you would be caught in your lie.

Since I have, that makes you wrong doesnt it?

but I think it's important that you now actually read them instead of saying what you THINK they said.

So when you read the news reports how do you interpret them to say that "There was no message warning regarding 911" and that "the people at the company have acknowledged this in the press".

"The incident was also the subject of a report in the Ha'aretz daily newspaper in Israel, which on Wednesday quoted Odigo CEO Micha Macover as saying that "two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen." Odigo Vice President of Sales and Marketing Alex Diamandis told Newsbytes Thursday that he could not comment on the text or origin of the message, but said that the sender of the instant message was not personally known to the Odigo employees."
- Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes.

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack

.Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI "
- Haaretz - Yuval Dror

It seems pretty obvious that you never actually read the articles from the press releases themselves,

Apparently neither have you or somehow read something different to what was on the page.

 

[Edx]

And this about sums it up.

You're shocked because you think we're dismissing your arguments without consideration.

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.

What you don't realize is we've heard them hundreds of times from other people.

I seriously doubt that.

You're not getting any positive attention because you're not saying anything new or original. We'd love to be wrong about you, Edx, but we know we're probably not.

This comes from someone that although not quite as bad as Jonny, has still assumed Im saying things Im not in the past.

 

[cisco]

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.

No, that's what you're choosing to see. What you're actually seeing is a bunch of people yawning when you show them that documentary film isn't 100% impartial and unbiased. Show us a documentary that is; they don't exist! If you really weren't a troother you'd be a lot more concerned about what they're doing than shaky camera shots or nitpicking the meaning of the term "dropout". The big question here is why do you care so much? DON'T say it's because you're some crusader for ultimate truth and justice - there are a lot more important paths to travel in that quest than this one.

Do you think we hold this documentary up as the Holy Grail of debunkings (hint: we don't)? Did anyone say this was the be-all, end-all, comprehensive debunking of 9/11 trooth? Did anyone champion this as the one piece of evidence that everyone sitting on the fence needs to see? NO.

It's a tv documentary. If you want to call it a hit piece have a ball; it won't change any of the facts. It will only make you look like the troother that you probably are. Don't come here quacking with feathers and a big orange beak and get pissed off when we call you a duck.

I seriously doubt that.

Shows what you know.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Sure LIHOP is a CT, but thats one . The air quality lie claim is not just related to 911 conspiracy theories, it is a 911 conspiracy theory. If you dont know that you must not be familiar with the fact that people pushing 911 CTs also push this one.

This is really stretching the definition of "conspiracy theory". What we consider conspiracy theories in this subforum, and the definition that most people go by and what the BBC program was most likely going by is summed up pretty well in this Wikipedia article. Every time a government agency or politician lies or tries to cover something up does not make the same kind of conspiracy as conspiracy theorists profess. In this instance it's just another fact that conspiracy theorists get wrong (and others besides), and not a conspiracy theory or anything that even supports a conspiracy theory. CTs make a big deal out of it because its a good way to poison the well about the actual conspiracy theory. They're appealing to a government misdeed (the facts of which they usually get wrong anyway) as a fallacious argument to imply that since the government does lie and cover things up, you should believe they are also covering up that they had a hand in the attack itself, which was some master scheme to start endless wars or whatever. This is quite different.

Im not going to debate this now. Point is its a conspiracy theory to suggest there was a conspiracy to coverup the lie about quality of the air to the emergency services. You deny it so by definition its just another in a long list of other claims people here say arent true, and are just conspiracy theory.

No, its just a wrong claim that wouldn't support the conspiracy theory about government complicity in the 9/11 attacks even if it were true. Besides, its not one of their major claims, so I don't see why the BBC should include it.

Several people have claimed this so I'll address all this now. The Haaratz story came out in 2004, so how is it relevant to a story that came out days after 911? Well, Odigo notified Israli intelligence services that they had a couple of employees that according to the CEO two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen". He cant say specifics but he did say that much. This was then reported to the FBI. The Jerusalem Post reports a day after 911 that 4,000 Jews are missing, even if true this gets twisted into 4,000 Jews were warned and knew about the attacks so didnt go to work. The reason why its relevant is because the two stories do get mixed up! Did 4000 Jews get warnings by instant messages? Did all Odigo employees get warnings via instant messages and didnt go to work that day? Etc. So yea of course its part of the CT that the Conspiracy Files talks about so to not address the instant messages part of the CT is quite an ommission to make. It would have only made the report more accurate, but I suppose they were more interested in implying that all CTs are jew haters and insensitive.

I agree the program would have been better had they mentioned this particular claim and debunked it as well. But it's far from necessary to mention the Odigo story when debunking the claim of 4000 Jews/Israelis being forewarned. The two may sometimes be conflated, but they're usually not from what I've seen. The Odigo story doesn't corroborate the 4000 Jews claim, so I don't see how leaving it out is dishonest. The "omission" was likely because they weren't even aware of it, or if they were they didn't see the connection to the 4000 Jews claim. From what I've seen the Odigo story isn't a very prominent argument anyway among CTs anyway. The 4000 Jews claim is important to the program because it was one of the first CTs to come out, and was particularly potent in the Mid-East. It's not one of the claims frequently made by the Truth movement, and the program doesn't do anything to indicate that it is (hence no quotes from the CT representatives). I really don't see how you can say that it implies all conspiracy theorists are Jew-haters. I think you're reading into it something that isn't there.

 

[Slayhamlet]

The 4000 number came from the appeal list on the Israeli Embassy site, and the employees of Odigo were in Israel, so that's why I said that.

Yes, sorry, you're correct. The original Al-Manar article does claim it was 4000 Israelis.

 

[Edx]

This is really stretching the definition of "conspiracy theory". What we consider conspiracy theories in this subforum, and the definition that most people go by and what the BBC program was most likely going by is summed up pretty well in this Wikipedia article. Every time a government agency or politician lies or tries to cover something up does not make the same kind of conspiracy as conspiracy theorists profess. In this instance it's just another fact that conspiracy theorists get wrong (and others besides), and not a conspiracy theory or anything that even supports a conspiracy theory. CTs make a big deal out of it because its a good way to poison the well about the actual conspiracy theory. They're appealing to a government misdeed (the facts of which they usually get wrong anyway) as a fallacious argument to imply that since the government does lie and cover things up, you should believe they are also covering up that they had a hand in the attack itself, which was some master scheme to start endless wars or whatever. This is quite different.

Sure theres a big difference between alien and Illuminate conspriacies compared to governments lying about their prior knowledge of 911 and "conspiring" to keep information out of the public domain. But it doesnt matter, its still a conspiracy theory by definition, to those that dont agree with it. Even in the program they said it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy "theory" is just what someone calls a belief in a conspiracy that they deny is real. If I was to tell you about what powers the Patriot Act granted the government and you werent aware of the Act, then you'd probably call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist as well, but nevertheless the Patriot Act really does exist.

Im not going to debate this now. Point is its a conspiracy theory to suggest there was a conspiracy to coverup the lie about quality of the air to the emergency services. You deny it so by definition its just another in a long list of other claims people here say arent true, and are just conspiracy theory.

No, its just a wrong claim that wouldn't support the conspiracy theory about government complicity in the 9/11 attacks even if it were true. Besides, its not one of their major claims, so I don't see why the BBC should include it.

Of course it wouldnt support it, but is it still a 911 conspiracy theory just like they accept the conspiracy theory that they goverment did coverup their prior knowledge and incomptence to act on it that they said was actually real. You deny that they did lie, therefore to you're saying its a conspiracy theory.

The Odigo story doesn't corroborate the 4000 Jews claim, so I don't see how leaving it out is dishonest.

I didnt say it corroborated it, I said there was some truth surrounding Israli warnings they made out was 100% myth.

The "omission" was likely because they weren't even aware of it, or if they were they didn't see the connection to the 4000 Jews claim.

Except when Alex had Guy Smith on his show he talked about how he had shown Guy all this stuff, and Guy didnt say or imply that "no you didnt Alex".

From what I've seen the Odigo story isn't a very prominent argument anyway among CTs anyway.

Its one of many sure, but the 4000 Jews thing is argued by even fewer.

The 4000 Jews claim is important to the program because it was one of the first CTs to come out, and was particularly potent in the Mid-East. It's not one of the claims frequently made by the Truth movement, and the program doesn't do anything to indicate that it is (hence no quotes from the CT representatives). I really don't see how you can say that it implies all conspiracy theorists are Jew-haters. I think you're reading into it something that isn't there.

Look its the way it was done. They interviewed the Jewish victim and then asked her generally about what she thought of conspiracy theories, the whole thing just implied that CTs are generally insensitive to the Jews or worse anti-semitic.

But lets forget about that now. Theres one thing no ones tried to defend, and thats how they implied even more so that Avery is denying the very existence of Delta Flight 1989 and the passenger that took that flight, they even show her ticket stub as if "look see, she really was a passenger!". They could have picke a ton of things he really did think and say, but they chose to pretend he said something else. How pointless and needless!

 

[Edx]

No, that's what you're choosing to see. What you're actually seeing is a bunch of people yawning when you show them that documentary film isn't 100% impartial and unbiased. Show us a documentary that is; they don't exist!

Are you joking? Ive already given examples, like the documentary against Alex Jones' NWO Bohemium Grove which I said was fair and balanced and I enjoyed it. You want me to appear to be unreasonable about this, but its not going to work and you have to pretend I didnt say the things Ive said in order to pretend Im saying what you want me to say. That pretty much sums it up isnt?

If you really weren't a troother you'd be a lot more concerned about what they're doing than shaky camera shots or nitpicking the meaning of the term "dropout".

Do you mean to say, that if I wasnt a truther I wouldnt be concerned about that stuff?

If someone misrepresents Creationists, I have a problem with it. If someone misrepresents anyone, I have a problem with it. It doesnt matter if I agree with them or not.

And again, I can argue against an argument someone makes while still agreeing with their conclusion. Apparently many people dont get that.

The big question here is why do you care so much? DON'T say it's because you're some crusader for ultimate truth and justice - there are a lot more important paths to travel in that quest than this one.

I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has. I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.

Do you think we hold this documentary up as the Holy Grail of debunkings (hint: we don't)?

I know you dont, but its the defence of this documentary I find unbelievable and its only become more unbelievable as times gone on. That most of you cant even see any sence or accept any point at all, maybe throw up your hands and say you know what Ed you're right it wasnt actually fair and balanced and wasnt really an objective investigation like it claimed. You dont even need to say its conclusions or facts are wrong. I even agree with most of the films conclusion! But that is what I was originally arguing, if you remember.

Did anyone say this was the be-all, end-all, comprehensive debunking of 9/11 trooth?

Did I say you thought that?

Did anyone champion this as the one piece of evidence that everyone sitting on the fence needs to see? NO.

Did I say someone was championing it was the one piece if evidence everyone needs to see?

It's a tv documentary. If you want to call it a hit piece have a ball; it won't change any of the facts.

And Creationism will still be wrong even if I call Michael Behe a wife beating Nazi, but that doesnt change the fact that misrepresenting someone is dishonest.

It will only make you look like the troother that you probably are. Don't come here quacking with feathers and a big orange beak and get pissed off when we call you a duck. .

What you really dont like is that I dont agree with you, and therefore that makes me a truther. Thats all there is to it. If Im not with you, Im against you.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If I remember right Undesired Walrus made also a funny video with that BBC segment, and he added music from "Curb Your Enthusiasm" over Avery's dumbfounded stare.

That was pretty funny.

 

[Bobert]

While a rational human would catagorize that video of Wally as someone who didnt want to relive the events of that day the sicko truthers would say he was being evasive and wonder if he was a CIA operative.
SICK!

 

[Bobert]

LOL!
Dylan has that "oh I am *****" look on his face!!

 

[dudalb]

Look its the way it was done. They interviewed the Jewish victim and then asked her generally about what she thought of conspiracy theories, the whole thing just implied that CTs are generally insensitive to the Jews or worse anti-semitic.

The Victim was 100% correct. Just look at the amount of Anti Semitism you see on most CT websites.

If Edx is not another "Truther in Disguise" he is certainly giving a good imitation of one.

 

[cisco]

Do you mean to say, that if I wasnt a truther I wouldnt be concerned about that stuff?

No, I meant exactly what I said. If you weren't a troother, you would be more concerned about what they (troothers) are doing . . .

If someone misrepresents Creationists, I have a problem with it. If someone misrepresents anyone, I have a problem with it. It doesnt matter if I agree with them or not.

And again, I can argue against an argument someone makes while still agreeing with their conclusion. Apparently many people dont get that.

It's not that we don't get it, it's that:
1. You haven't really proven conclusively that this documentary was unreasonably biased
2. You haven't proven that they lied, just shakey cameras and the possible misuse of the term dropout.
3. The troothers' theories are so reprehensible that we would have a hard time feeling sympathy for them even if someone did do a so-called "hit piece" on them. Yes, we would disagree with their methods, but most of us would likely decide there were more important things to spend our time arguing about. We can't all save 100% of the world 100% of the time. Frankly I think most of us find it weird that this, of all battles, is the battle you're choosing to fight so passionately. I guarantee you you can find 50-100 concrete misrepresentations in troother movies for every 1 misrepresentation you think you have found in this movie. Does that make it right? No. Does that illustrate where your priorities should be? I think so.

I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has.

Again, that is what you are choosing to see. No one has "literally" said any of that.

I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.

Like I said, stop quacking like a duck and wearing those feathers and beak and maybe you won't be called a duck anymore. You don't seem to grasp the concept that we've been patient with literally dozens of people exactly like you who turn out to be troothers. It's the boy who cried wolf. Each time we lose a little bit of patience.

I know you dont, but its the defence of this documentary I find unbelievable and its only become more unbelievable as times gone on. That most of you cant even see any sence or accept any point at all, maybe throw up your hands and say you know what Ed you're right it wasnt actually fair and balanced and wasnt really an objective investigation like it claimed. You dont even need to say its conclusions or facts are wrong. I even agree with most of the films conclusion! But that is what I was originally arguing, if you remember.

I've done that in this very thread and yet here you are, still chugging along.

Did I say you thought that?



Did I say someone was championing it was the one piece if evidence everyone needs to see?

You're missing the point. The point is this film is not particularly important to us. We don't care about it the way troothers care about Loose Change or Zeitgeist or Terrorstorm. We don't base our whole movement on it being a pillar of integrity. We don't need to because we're confident that we have facts and logic on our side.

What you really dont like is that I dont agree with you, and therefore that makes me a truther. Thats all there is to it. If Im not with you, Im against you.

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining about people putting words in your mouth? But it's perfectly ok for you to put words in others' mouths?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well lets have a look at things you've said, shall we?

When a truther is caught in a lie, you don't seem to have much problem with that

Where did you get that idea from? In my first two posts I said it looks like Dylan didnt want to admit he was wrong. Apparently this means I dont care!

Where did I get that I dea from? From the fact that you are more concerned with the semantics of the producers wording more than the issues at hand. The fact that your problem is with an absurdly minor detail, not the false claims being made.

1. He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue

Where did I do that? I never suggested they needed to include "every possible issue". In fact I didnt even imply anything of the kind.

In many of your posts by your constant accusation that they didn't include many areas of discussion. A request that is impossible. You not only DID imply that, you did it a lot.

1 . And then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show

So where did I do that? How did you get this out of my posts?

Because you flat out said it. Go read your posts buddy. You literally said it was unfair and a misrepresentation because they didn't include those other areas of discussion. YOU said it, not me. Don't try to weasel out of this one.

They can't include everyone and your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part.

Well go on Jonny, show me where I ever made that argument!

Genius, go LOOK at the posts that those are replying to. HELLO??? The ones where you falt out state its a misrepresentation because of the areas they didn't address. You kept listing them. Even in the reply you are responding to I point out those areas, such as the Jersey Girls, and Willie, etc. Have you forgotten your own posts, that I need to go quote the very post you are responding to????

Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything

I know its impossible to bring up everything, I never suggested anything like that, but apparently you think Im saying they should have.

YOU are the one complaining about the issues they didn't address and presenting a case that it's a misrepresentation because of this. It's YOUR argument. It's a bad one, and this is your feeble attempt to try to weasel out of it. Give it a rest, you made a bad argument, just get over it.

To bring up the issue to the few idiots whot think part of the plot was to secretly let a handful of people die over a long period of time would have been a waste of everyone's time.

I dont even know what you're trying to claim Im saying here!

Thats pretty funny coming from you.

It's not surprising you wouldn't understand an issue that you yourself brought up. The one about the "conspiracy" (your words) of the air quality. This is a film about conspiracy theories, not politics. But I wouldn't expect you to understand your won arguments.

Anyone can witness what you claimed Im saying, verses what Ive actually said. Anyone can witness that you've refused to back up what you said. I wonder if you'll give another ad hominem riddiculed excuse not not have to do that this time .

I have backed up everything I have said in every single post. YOU are the one who keeps pretending you aren't saying things that you are. Keep pretending everyone here is stupid kid. You're just making your case even worse. Keep going for that strawman kid. See how far it gets you.

Did YOU not READ why I brought it up?

LOL, so you DON'T get it. I expected that. In other words you just don't have a good argument.

Priceless, yet another strawman. Your question mark almost stops it being one, if I havent said over and over thats not what Im saying.

Oh that's right, you haven't really said anything have you? You've basically said page after page of nothing. You know, there are a lot of crazies out there. but at least some of them have the balls to stand behind their words. They aren't cowards like you who pretend they say nothing and try to make every argument against them to be a literal word for word interpretation so they don't have to be held accountable.

What do you expect me to prove?

What do you expect the documentary to prove? I EXPECT you to prove your claims. Your claims are complete lies when you say there were 911 warnings sent. If you want to prove otherwise, then cough up the evidence and stop lying.

Older is possible, but Im not posting pictures of laughing dogs.

That's because you don't know how. The laughing dog does not represent immaturity, it represents the absurdity of your claims. When you come here and start posting outright lies and then pretend you aren't saying them, that goes beyond ignorance. That's why I consider you to be a con artist. Because you are knowingly misrepresenting information with the direct intent of misleading people. And you're too much of a coward to be honest.

Well gosh princess, you sure do seem to be the mature one with your teenage eye rolling. Gosh, we're all so impressed.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Did anyone else notice Do-Over picking a scab off his arm during the tooling? The look on his face was priceless!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.



I seriously doubt that.



This comes from someone that although not quite as bad as Jonny, has still assumed Im saying things Im not in the past.

This coming form someone who is delusional.

This coming from someone who thinks they can justify making false accusations that they cannot back up and justifying it by saying that they had a positive review of another documentary. Gosh folks, he liked that other documentary so it must be A-OK to make false claims about this one. Gosh, we've never seen that tactic used before....

 

[Gravy]

Because its related to The Jerusalem Post news item they cited. They said the argument was that 4000 Jews were warned before 911. They rightly said this wasnt nonsence, but didnt tell you was that Ha'aratz and The Washington Post reported that Israeli Intelligence was send a report by Odigo of some instant message warning regarding 911 who then reported it to the FBI. There was an interesting grain of bizzare truth to the tale they didnt report. Yet if someone was to watch Conspiracy Files they would assume, if I mentioned about the instant message warnings, that I was one of those people that thinks 4000 Jews were warned and Im just as nutty as they are. Of course all I can be saying is that this should have been included in a documentary and all of a sudden Im an anti-semite, so dont pretend that wouldnt happen.

Let's get some things straight, Edx:

1) The Odigo story had nothing – nothing – to do with the "4,000 Israelis didn't show up for work" myth, except that it was promoted by anti-Semites.

2) Two Odigo employees in Israel received a text message about some attack.

3) The message did not name the World Trade Center.

4) Odigo had no office and no employees at the World Trade Center.

5) An Odigo V.P. said the message was interesting only for its timing, not for its specific content, and that it could well have been a coincidence.

6) There is no "grain of truth" to the "4,000 Israelis" story. None. Zero. The only reason it is interesting, and worth reporting on, is because it was heavily promoted by anti-Semites in several countries.

 

[Cuddles]

I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has. I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.

It's funny, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone apart from truthers equate a few people in one section of this forum with the entire JREF. Edx, if you're actually trying to be honest and make a sensible argument, why would you pretend that a few anonymous posters on an internet forum have anything to do with Randi or the JREF? In case you haven't noticed you are a poster here. Does that mean everything you say is also part of the "almighty jref consensus"? It's coming out with this kind of nonsense that means no-one takes you seriously. The fact that it's exactly the same nonsense that only truthers ever come out with really doesn't help matters.

 

[Edx]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed

 

[cisco]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed

Out of one side of your mouth you're crying about us putting words in your mouth, and out of the other your putting words in our mouths!

Respond to my post a few posts above this, I'll listen. I'm trying to be as fair as possible with you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed

And as per usual Ed still does not understand the difference between pointing out ones technique and saying they literally said something.

Ed, did you or did you NOT say that part of the reason the documentary is a misrepresentation because of things they left out? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

We'll ignore the fact that you are harping on this absurd point simply because you know you have been caught in a lie about thinks like the IM message and the pancake claims. And stop lying about the Haaratz claim.

Stop playing victim, it's pathetic. If you come to a discussion forum to discuss issues and make up lies and baseless claims, then expect to be called on it. Stop whining like a little baby how you're not allowed to simply because people disagree with you and point out your mistakes.

Grow up.