Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[slyjoe]

Actually, I would include Spotnitz as an expert - in how to make up conspiracy fables.

 

[DGM]

Edx:

Oh I see, you're saying that the arguments they did address had merit?

Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

 

[GreNME]

Edx:


Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

So friggin what? "They do it too" is not an adequate argument or defense.

 

[GStan]

I watched the Conspiracy Files program when it was first shown, and my impression was that it bent over backwards to be fair to the conspiracy theorists. The reason it didn't seem to investigate the arguments in favour of the conspiracy theory as thoroughly as it did the arguments against them is that there is no credible evidence in favour of the conspiracy theories to investigate. What do you want them to do, make up some fictitious structural engineers to say that the Twin Towers might have been blown up? Would that somehow be more honest than trying and failing to find anybody with relevant expertise?

Your complaint doesn't seem to be with any specific information presented by the program, rather with the fact that the conclusions presented by the program were unequivocal. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation; you're saying that the program did not present the conspiracy theories as having equal merit to the known accounts of what actually happened. The reason for this is that they do not actually possess equal merit. There's no getting round that; reality, in this case, is what's biased, not the BBC's presentation of it.

Dave

Dave has hit the nail on the head here. And to add, Dylan Avery has not presented a case that deserves fair and balanced treatment. He, in his videos, has not put forth a single credible claim that is supported by any evidence other than uninformed speculation. His video, and quite frankly most conspiracy theories, are works of complete fiction being sold as having merit. As Dave pointed out, the BBC bent over backwards to make it fair and balanced just by the very fact that they give Dylan and others a seat at the table. Devoting a show to completely illegimate CTs, fair or unfair, further legitamizes their movement almost as much as it debunks it.

 

[Edx]

They did not set up strawmen. They interviewed James Fetzer, Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, three leading voices of the truth movement, then examined the claims those three had made in those interviews. And again, you're complaining that they didn't provide evidence in favour of the CT; that's because there isn't any worth presenting.

Yes they did set up strawmen. They presented them as antisemitic when the original report that several Jewish employees were warned on 911 was from a Israeli news source, Ha'aretz, which also was then reported in The Washington Post. Did they mention that? No they just got some Jewish victems family member on to say how distressing the claim was. They also misrepresented by ommission. Theres so much more I could talk about, but you guys cant even accept these obvious points so I dont know why I should bother.

No more relevant in terms of expertise than Avery, Fetzer or Jones. He's not a disinterested expert, he's a conspiracy theorist.

But he isnt a "philosophy of science", or a CT "evangalist", or a "drop out". He has a physics degree. I guess that was a bit too close to expert for them.

See under Steven Jones.

See under Steven Jones.

All of them are conspiracy theorists, really? Every single one of them? According to you I suppose Bob Kerrey is also a CT because of what hes come out as saying, how about Robin Cook in regards to WMD, is he a CT as well? But you know even if they were all CTs, these guys are important. To pretend they dont exist is to show that your position doesnt have enought weight to stand on its own. Well, I dont believe that. I dont believe they needed to be so dishonest.

Possibly, but I don't think he'd have done the movement much of a service after they'd pointed out how many times he's changed his story on 9-11.

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Which is not far off the conclusion of the program; that there was a CYA conspiracy after the fact.

But they didnt get him on, and they didnt talk about him, did they? Isnt what he said what CTs have said?

That degree, however, is what makes his opinion worth presenting. A degree in physics is not relevant to 9-11, any more than one in theology.

He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show.

Fetzer, Avery and Jones were allowed to present their arguments, and defend them in conversation with the program makers. That's not misrepresentation.

They used short snippets while not showing anything that they claim is evidence or supportive, while they let the debunkers go on for long time and provide documentray follow up evidence. Someone here said, they only had a short amount of time. Well, fair enough had they not spent a lot of that time unfairly smearing them as anti-semites and spend 10 minutes with an X-Files producer.

The fact that their arguments were generally speaking insane is not lack of balance. It's just reality.

But they didnt present them, they twisted them. They didnt need to do that. It wasnt reality, it was their reality. If I find out about the Jersey girls or Bill Doyle Im going to think the film lied to me, and rightly so, they knew full about them.

It's unfortunate, perhaps, from the point of view of debunkers that the position of CT's is so absurd that an honest presentation of it appears biased.

I am truly disappointed if you are so blinded that you cant see this film as a deadfully biased mistake. Its the reason I cant fully support you, Im in the middle on this issue because of attitudes like yours. That anyone is justified as long as they attack the CT, it doesnt matter how.

But the only genuine error in the program that you've found is that Avery was described as a drop-out, and as I pointed out that's actually a mistake in his favour.

It is interesting to me the mental gymnastics some of you guys have gone through to justify the film.

 

[cisco]

Your obsession with the terms "dropout" and "fair and balanced" is downright bizarre.

Oh wait, no it isn't. You're a troother and you're grasping at straws because you can't argue the relevant content of the film. Silly me.

Really, get over yourself. "Dropout" was much more likely a minor mistake than an attempt to smear Dylan. As someone said, it is almost a compliment to him, as it implies he got into college in the first place, which he didn't. Secondly, he's probably the one who told them he was a dropout. You don't think it's below Dylan to lie or change his story, do you? If so, I've got this bridge I've been meaning to get rid of . . .

And "fair and balanced", are you kidding me? What is this, Fox News? Have you ever seen a troother movie? Good god, man. Get a grip on reality.

 

[DGM]

Edx:
Nobody is trying to justify this film. If your movement doesn't like it prove to the BBC that they are wrong and get them to issue a retraction. Kind of simple really.

 

[Edx]

Edx:

Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.

 

[Edx]

Your obsession with the terms "dropout" and "fair and balanced" is downright bizarre.

So its okay that the producer lied about what drop out meant? At the most charitable idea being that he was disingenuous.

Oh wait, no it isn't. You're a troother and you're grasping at straws because you can't argue the relevant content of the film. Silly me.

You call me a truther because I think the film is misrepresentative and dishonest. And I just got told that:

"Listing everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theory as a debunker is a dishonest tactic adopted by conspiracy theorists."

So what does that make you?

Really, get over yourself. "Dropout" was much more likely a minor mistake than an attempt to smear Dylan.

Except he didnt say that, the producer literally said that drop out in the UK is someone that never went to University. It doesnt, he knew that.

Secondly, he's probably the one who told them he was a dropout.

Dylan told him he never went to University, he then spun that into "dylans a self confessed dropout"

You don't think it's below Dylan to lie or change his story, do you? If so, I've got this bridge I've been meaning to get rid of . . .

I dont need to believe Dylan, I heard it right from the producers mouth.

Have you ever seen a troother movie?

"But Miss he hit me first!"

Edx:
Nobody is trying to justify this film. If your movement doesn't like it prove to the BBC that they are wrong and get them to issue a retraction. Kind of simple really.

"My" movement? You sure do assume a lot. Cant I disagree with the film without agreeing with Jones or Averys claims?

 

[DGM]

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.

The point is that mainstream media sees the "movement" in a negative way because of their actions. Why is this not a wake-up call to change this image?

I watched a documentary last night about a pipe foundry co. The whole thing was a hit piece that eventually lead to them cleaning up their act.

Why doesn't the movement do the same? Do you disagree with me when I say that the movement does have credibility issues?

 

[Cuddles]

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.

And yet you still haven't demonstrated a single part of the film that was in any way dishonest. As far as I can tell you haven't even tried. The closest you've got is describing Dylan as a dropout, which is not only saying he is better than in reality, but is almost certainly what he himself said ("self-described").

Other than that, try looking back over what you have actually said. "The witneses don't support the conspiracies". And? That's not bias, that's just reality. "There are more debunkers than conspiracy nuts". Except that it's been shown there were more conspiracy nuts than debunkers. "They didn't portray the conspiracy theories as having equal merit". They don't. "They didn't address every single claim that has ever been made". Of course not, they had limited time so they addressed what the conspiracy nuts actually said. And those were the more sane ones as well. Do you really think people ranting about nuclear weapons, space lasers and elves would have made the conspiracies look more sane?

If you have any sensible complaints, feel free to make them. So far you have done nothing but whine about how it wasn't fair without ever actually pointing out any unfairness. No-one is claiming this documentary was perfect. That doesn't mean everyone will just ignore baseless criticism.

 

[dbalsdon]

the producer literally said that drop out in the UK is someone that never went to University.

Dylan told him he never went to University,

Producer: A dropout is someone who never went to university.
Dylan: I never went to university

Based on what the producer thinks dropout means, and what Dylan said, he is right, Dylan is a dropout.

How is that unfair?

 

[Edx]

Producer: A dropout is someone who never went to university.
Dylan: I never went to university

Based on what the producer thinks dropout means, and what Dylan said, he is right, Dylan is a dropout.

So he's still right even though he's wrong, and even though Ive never seen the term used that way and the implication of what drop out meant is clear. If I tell documentary film maker making a Pro-Intelligent Design film that I never went to University and they go and tell everyone Im a drop out, Im going to be upset with them. Claiming that because he thought thats what it meant, even though Ive never heard anyone ever use the term that way is a poor way to justify it. I realise that you cant accept they did anything wrong, because you must defend the people arguing against the dishonest CTs at all costs even down to saying its okay if they use dishonest tactics, the CTs do as well!

 

[cisco]

Edx, didn't you say you are 24? Is it possible the producer is a few decades older than you and dropout meant something else in his time? I don't know about your side of the pond, but language is constantly changing over here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes they did set up strawmen. They presented them as antisemitic when the original report that several Jewish employees were warned on 911 was from a Israeli news source, Ha'aretz, which also was then reported in The Washington Post. Did they mention that? No they just got some Jewish victems family member on to say how distressing the claim was. They also misrepresented by ommission. Theres so much more I could talk about, but you guys cant even accept these obvious points so I dont know why I should bother.

Are you truly oblivious to the widespread anti-semitism in the 9-11 truth movement, and to the fact that the 4,000 Jews and the Odigo warning are repeated frequently by overtly anti-semitic CT's? Try reading just about anything by MaGZ. The problem with the conspiracy theory is not the original report, it's the deliberate misinterpretation of it by neo-Nazis in order to support their anti-semitic agenda. As for misrepresentation by omission, there is simply neither the time nor the tolerance in the audience to cover every single CT claim, so they allowed a group of prominent figures in the truth movement to choose the claims for them. Calling that a strawman fallacy is absurd.

But he isnt a "philosophy of science", or a CT "evangalist", or a "drop out". He has a physics degree. I guess that was a bit too close to expert for them.

Guessing is all you're doing. They picked three leading figures in the CT movement, and Jones didn't happen to be one of them. Anything else is speculation. Prove to me that the BBC specifically refused to talk to Jones because they thought his opinions too credible and I might pay more attention.

All of them are conspiracy theorists, really? Every single one of them?

Look at the websites you referenced. They are both set up specifically to disseminate the theory that 9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government, for all their smokescreens about just wanting a new investigation.

According to you I suppose Bob Kerrey is also a CT because of what hes come out as saying, how about Robin Cook in regards to WMD, is he a CT as well? But you know even if they were all CTs, these guys are important. To pretend they dont exist is to show that your position doesnt have enought weight to stand on its own. Well, I dont believe that. I dont believe they needed to be so dishonest.

And now you're engaging in exactly the kind of misrepresentation you're claiming the BBC was guilty of. The above passage is practically a textbook example of a strawman fallacy; you have made up an opinion I don't hold, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to be so dishonest?

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Again, speculation on your part. And again, this is a strawman argument; you're attributing motives to the BBC based on your own speculation then attacking them for possessing those motives. Can you see that, by doing so, you're becoming exactly what you're complaining about?

He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show.

See above. It wasn't an unlimited program slot, so they had to choose which conspiracy theorists to talk to. Avery, Fetzer and Alex Jones are a perfectly reasonable cross-section of the movement; Griffin, Steven Jones and Judy Wood would be equally good choices; there are plenty of other groups of three you could choose, and every one would be open to charges of distortion by omission.

I am truly disappointed if you are so blinded that you cant see this film as a deadfully biased mistake. Its the reason I cant fully support you, Im in the middle on this issue because of attitudes like yours.

Seriously? Are you honestly saying that, because an English physicist that you've never met refuses to agree with your opinion on a BBC program broadcast in 2007, therefore you can't rule out the possibility that the US Government killed 3,000 of its own citizens in 2001? I'm not going any further with this unless you confirm that's what you meant, but it's hard to interpret the above paragraph any other way.

Dave

 

[Edx]

And yet you still haven't demonstrated a single part of the film that was in any way dishonest. As far as I can tell you haven't even tried.

Yes I have and you obviously have been reading. Ive stated many things in several different ways and Im not going to go to the trouble of listing it all out for you for you to just ignore again. If I seem a little confrontational its because Im frustrated by how totally closed so many of you are to any idea that a anti-CT film could possibily be wrong or bad. They do it too Miss! is not a justifiable defence. The idea that any attacking of CTs are good no matter what, is shamefull. This is the James Randi forum, you guys should know better. I am disapointed in all of you.

The closest you've got is describing Dylan as a dropout, which is not only saying he is better than in reality, but is almost certainly what he himself said ("self-described").

Looks like you werent paying attention.

Other than that, try looking back over what you have actually said. "The witneses don't support the conspiracies". And? That's not bias, that's just reality. "

Fine, but dont pretend there arent any witness' that dont seem to support the ideas of the CT claim. Dont pretend Robert Rodregex doesnt exist, dont pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist. Dont pretend only "drop outs" and CT evangalists have any criticisms of the official story..

There are more debunkers than conspiracy nuts". Except that it's been shown there were more conspiracy nuts than debunkers.

Wrong again, as Ive already talked about. 3 CTs against 9 "experts" including the guy from Popular Mechanics for the debunkers and then several victims family members that were saying how horrible CTs are, and a "witness'" including a irrelevant Jewish lady to lend an emotional helping hand to their implication that they were anti-Semitic and an X-Files producer saying that CTs were insane. Sorry, thats not showing more support for the CTs.

"They didn't portray the conspiracy theories as having equal merit".

This is the stuff that really annoys me. Why put that in quotes as if thats what I wrote? I specifcally said thats not what Ive been saying

They don't. "They didn't address every single claim that has ever been made".

And look you do it again. No wonder you agree with the film, it seems you like engaging in attacking a few strawmen of yourself, dont you?

 

[Edx]

Edx, didn't you say you are 24? Is it possible the producer is a few decades older than you and dropout meant something else in his time? I don't know about your side of the pond, but language is constantly changing over here.

How many places can you find that uses the term that way?

 

[dbalsdon]

3.drop out - leave school or an educational program prematurely;

Primary School and Secondary(High) School would, in my opinion, be classed as an educational program. College and/or university would be an optional extension of that program. If you don't go to either, it could be classed as leaving the program.

 

[Edx]

Are you truly oblivious to the widespread anti-semitism in the 9-11 truth movement, and to the fact that the 4,000 Jews and the Odigo warning are repeated frequently by overtly anti-semitic CT's? Try reading just about anything by MaGZ. The problem with the conspiracy theory is not the original report, it's the deliberate misinterpretation of it by neo-Nazis in order to support their anti-semitic agenda. As for misrepresentation by omission, there is simply neither the time nor the tolerance in the audience to cover every single CT claim, so they allowed a group of prominent figures in the truth movement to choose the claims for them. Calling that a strawman fallacy is absurd.

Of course there are anti-semitic ideas around, but you see its the claim they used to justify saying that they are anti-semties thats a strawman, the claim that jewish workers were warned wasnt a myth made up by CTers it was reported in the the Israli newspaper Ha'aretz and The Washington Post. They didnt bother to mention that. You dont need to be anti-semitic to read what they said and repeat it, yet according to the implication if I said that Im repeating anti-semitic myths. They then used a Jewish victems family member for more emotional power to make people feel sorry for her and therefore become angry at the CTs. Sorry, but they used very dirty journalistic tactics.

Guessing is all you're doing. They picked three leading figures in the CT movement, and Jones didn't happen to be one of them. Anything else is speculation. Prove to me that the BBC specifically refused to talk to Jones because they thought his opinions too credible and I might pay more attention.

Of course Im guessing, but I cant see any other explanation for totally ignoring anyone that might support the CTs arguments while having not only 8 experts arguing for the offical account and 1 Popular Mechanics debunker, but victems family members (ignoring those like Jersey Girls) and a TV producer also arguing against the CTs and then at the same time defaming the character of the CTs they did have on.

Look at the websites you referenced. They are both set up specifically to disseminate the theory that 9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government, for all their smokescreens about just wanting a new investigation.

Look at this reasonably. The fact is Creationists do have these lists of real scientists that have real degrees in relevant fields. They dont do any science on Creationism of course, but the fact is they do exist. So to ignore them completely so you can argue or even imply that there are no Creationists with legitimate degrees in a relevant field, is dishonest.

And now you're engaging in exactly the kind of misrepresentation you're claiming the BBC was guilty of. The above passage is practically a textbook example of a strawman fallacy; you have made up an opinion I don't hold, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to be so dishonest?

Rubbish, you keep arguing that theres no legitimate people they could have used to support the CTs case. People like Bob Kerrey did say what CTs have said about Bush not doing anything and ignoring intelligence, so why wasnt he worth bringing on or talking about? Is it because they dont want someone as credible as he is to appear to support one of their arguments? Robin Cook said Blair was intentionally dishonest in order to take us to war, thats a CT claim as well, but that doesnt make him a CTer. But my point, if you'd have cared enough to think about what I was saying rather than gleefully jumping to the conclusion that I was misrepresenting you, was that there are many people that agree with small, several or many parts of the CTs case that are worth talking about. If you just pretend they dont exist is not a fair presentation of the situation.

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Again, speculation on your part. And again, this is a strawman argument; you're attributing motives to the BBC based on your own speculation then attacking them for possessing those motives.Can you see that, by doing so, you're becoming exactly what you're complaining about?

Once again, give me one good reason why they misrepresented the jewish claim and the claim that victims family members all hate 911 CTs? You are so willing to see problems and dishonesty with CT films yet wont judge your own by the same standard.

He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show.

See above. It wasn't an unlimited program slot, so they had to choose which conspiracy theorists to talk to. Avery, Fetzer and Alex Jones are a perfectly reasonable cross-section of the movement; Griffin, Steven Jones and Judy Wood would be equally good choices; there are plenty of other groups of three you could choose, and every one would be open to charges of distortion by omission.

Strawman, again, apparently. See bolded part above.

Seriously? Are you honestly saying that, because an English physicist that you've never met refuses to agree with your opinion on a BBC program broadcast in 2007, therefore you can't rule out the possibility that the US Government killed 3,000 of its own citizens in 2001?

I'm not going any further with this unless you confirm that's what you meant, but it's hard to interpret the above paragraph any other way.

Its not just you, look at the responces Ive gotten. What I mean is I cant fully support the idea that CTs must be attacked no matter what. I cant join with this forum in the collective bashing of CTs, just because their CTs, because of the unreasonable attitudes Ive seen in this very forum. I may not agree with most of the 911 CT arguments, but at least Im open to being wrong and at least I think Im reasonable enough to really want to know what happened. I dont see the people that Ive been arguing with about this documentary film have showed me they are that reasonable. So thats what Im in the middle for, because truth is rarely black and white, and some of you guys can be as stubborn and as irrationally unreasonable as each other. Im sure it doesnt apply to all of you, but certianly what I have seen here doesnt fill me with confidence.

 

[alexg]

Re: dropout - if leaving the educational system in England before attending college is not considered to be formally or informally 'droping out' then the BBC documentary is simply incorrect. It might be worth noting that Dylan seems to have had the aptitude and the desire to go to college but apparently gave up on this aspiration when he was rejected from 'film school'. If the docu is simply in error on this point the next question is how did they make this error. It may have been an innocent error or it could have been a 'hit'. What I don't see in the film is any pattern of similar FACTUAL errors or misrepresentations which would tend to support the notion that they were intentionally trying to mislead us on factual matters. I also don't think the 'dropout' tag is all that damaging.

However, if they are wrong about this point it is important for the BBC and for us, as debunkers, to simply acknowldege this.

Is the whole thing a 'hit piece' or a documentary? It's somewhere in between IMHO. I think most TV documenraies fall into this category. It always seems that the starting assumptions of the film makers show through. I think this is in part due to the limitations of the medium.

I think edx has a point; the BBC docu was less than perfectly fair and balanced. On the whole I do not think it was terribly deceptive or too far from the mark. I'm sure Alex Jones would have you believe it was all bunk yet all he seems to come up with by way of fatual error is the dropout issue. Unless I am missing something.

There is a lot to know about the 911 CT. The BBC and even popular mechanics don't seem to know as much as the best debunkers here, such as Mark. Some of the errors they make may simply be from having done insufficent reasearch.