Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[alexg]

The CTs should be glad the BBC chose not to cover Judy Wood and the no-planers. If they had included the (former) professor Steven Jones things would not have been much different. His thermite theories are so fanciful and easily countered. You could have gone on and on down the rabbit hole but at no point can you dress up the CT enough to make it look substantially different than they did.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Irrelevant. CTs make arguments that says Bush had prior warnings and that Bush didnt do anything about it, CTs claim that Bush and Blair lied to take is to war. To say its irrelevant that those are supported by credible people like Cook or Kerrey just because they dont believe in an inside job or the Illuminati is a ridiculous argument. The fact is several arguments made my CTs are more true than you let on, its their interpreation of that which faulty and/or speculative.

No, it's your point that's irrelevant. A lot of CT's make noises about incompetence, but somehow it always turns out that they're using them as a shield of respectability, and when you look into what they actually say then they're recycling the same old garbage about controlled demolition and MIHOP. And yes, sometimes CT's say things that are arguably supported by evidence, but the fact that a conspiracy theorist has said something doesn't mean it's part of the conspiracy theory. For example, if Dylan Avery happened to say he liked the taste of Snickers bars, would that require a BBC documentary to investigate the palatability of Snickers bars alongside his claims about no plane at the Pentagon?

The BBC documentary was investigating a specific set of theories that claim that the US Government was wilfully complicit in the 9-11 attacks. To say that it misrepresented those theories by not associating them with a different set of theories that claim that the US Government was incompetent in its response to Islamic terrorism - which, as is clear from the most superficial analysis, is logically incompatible with those theories - is an absurd argument. The question of whether the Bush and Blair administrations lied to take us to war is not what the program was looking into, so the criticism that it didn't look into it is irrelevant.

Dave

 

[Edx]

I would have to agree with alexg; I don't feel it was perfectly fair and balanced either. However, that doesn't mean I think it was wrong; I think the FACTS presented in the documentary were perfectly true. Any emotional slant placed on it via clever use of interviews, camera angles, and sob stories is, ultimately, irrelevant to the facts, and they are that the three CTers in that documentary have been proven, via quantifiable evidence, to be wrong again and again.

Like I said, their conclusion may be right but that doesnt mean they are justified using those tactics.

EDX, I think this is why people are so confused by your vehement opposition to this documentary; you (and bear in mind this is strictly my opinion based on reading your posts) seem to be promoting the idea that because the documentary was not unbiased means it was wrong,

No, thats not what Im saying. Im saying you should be unhappy that it felt it had to try and misrepresenty and smear the CTs, and had to use deception in order to do it. That shouldnt be commended, even though we saw that being done here in the forum. That shouldnt be justified, even though we see that being done in the forum.

but it can be biased and still be right.

Thats true! Im sure, and Im sure Ive been saying that.

They probably could care less which position is correct; they simply went with the more popular one as easier to sell and did what they could to make it more appealing than the other perspective.

I agree again!

But the dressing-up of the story has little consequence ultimately to critical thinkers, because they are able to verify the FACTS offered in the documentary for themselves, and have done so on numerous occasions. Bearing that in mind, can you understand now why people don't seem to care that the documentary seemingly slanted the perspective to make the non-CT one more inviting?

Well no, look at the target audience. Its for people that are not informed and probably wont go off and reaearch anything. Like I said before you guys should be arguing against it as well, because if someone does decide to look it up and find out how distorted that program was, if I found out about the Jersey Girls and/or Press for Truth, I'd think the BBC lied to me.

Ed

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

Irrelevant. CTs make arguments that says Bush had prior warnings and that Bush didnt do anything about it, CTs claim that Bush and Blair lied to take is to war. To say its irrelevant that those are supported by credible people like Cook or Kerrey just because they dont believe in an inside job or the Illuminati is a ridiculous argument. The fact is several arguments made my CTs are more true than you let on, its their interpreation of that which faulty and/or speculative. A fair documentary that was truly investigating this would have acknolwedged this in some way.


Irrelevant, like I already said. See above.


It does, about the only thing it does right. But if we look at 911: Press for Truth, whats their position? Thats an incompetence claim, but its still called a CT film that according to this forum has nothing to back up any of its claims. Again, you'll support a film like Conspiracy Files when it suits you when though their main point is theres a coverup after 911 is the same as Press for Truth!



I dont know how you gleaned that out of my post. Im saying the film pretended people Ive talked about didnt exist.

Edx, there may be arguments about whether the government covered up their incompetency or lied about Iraq but they are seperate topics, the documentary was about a US gov conspiracy to orchestrate the attacks on 911.

 

[Edx]

double post

 

[Edx]

No, it's your point that's irrelevant. A lot of CT's make noises about incompetence, but somehow it always turns out that they're using them as a shield of respectability, and when you look into what they actually say then they're recycling the same old garbage about controlled demolition and MIHOP. And yes, sometimes CT's say things that are arguably supported by evidence, but the fact that a conspiracy theorist has said something doesn't mean it's part of the conspiracy theory.

So we have no evidence for incomptence either, and Kerrey is irrelevant to bring up even though he was on the 911 Commission and even though the very movie you defend claims there was a conspiracy to cover it up. Marvellous. Like I said its the CT interpretation of that which is wrong, but that doesnt mean it isnt happening just because the CTs have a faulty interpretation of it. The bacterial flagellum really does look like a machine, but IDists are still wrong in their interpretation of what that means.

For example, if Dylan Avery happened to say he liked the taste of Snickers bars, would that require a BBC documentary to investigate the palatability of Snickers bars alongside his claims about no plane at the Pentagon?

No need to be obtuse.

The BBC documentary was investigating a specific set of theories that claim that the US Government was wilfully complicit in the 9-11 attacks. To say that it misrepresented those theories by not associating them with a different set of theories that claim that the US Government was incompetent in its response to Islamic terrorism - which, as is clear from the most superficial analysis, is logically incompatible with those theories - is an absurd argument.

Its not logically incompatible, look at Zeitgeist. Has a tone of errors on it mainly from various other CT films, but one of the main points in Part 2 was about the prior warnings and intelligence they had.

The question of whether the Bush and Blair administrations lied to take us to war is not what the program was looking into, so the criticism that it didn't look into it is irrelevant.

I think it is relevant, because thats one of the main reasons CTs cite as the reason for them committing 911. Once again, look at the film Zeitgeist.. But regardless, i was using it as example that in a similar debate about WMDs and Blair, someone like Robin Cook is someone that deserves a mention. In the same way, they should have mentioned many people in this documentary.

 

[Edx]

Because you're being dishonest. See note a)

Sure isn't using any dictionary defintion. See note a)

It isn't, but see note a)

Note a)

dropout
noun1. someone who quits school before graduation 2. someone who withdraws from a social group or environment
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Hm. Wonder what definition the BBC meant. Could be either way...

Good lord. Someone who quits school before graduatuion imples they are in a course. Someone who withdraws from a social group or environment implies they were in that environment. I didnt go to University, I cant be said to be a drop out. I was never a University student, so I was never in that environment or group. Everyone understands what the term means and implies except you wanting to twist it into making it fit. And if thats the best you can do, please do find me some places where they actually use the term "drop out" to describe someone that has simply not attended University.

This is almost as bad as trying to argue with Creationists that claim science or atheism is a religion based on a dictionary definition.

 

[beachnut]

We have been warned since UBL said he would kill us, since the 90s! That was a long time ago. We get warnings all the time. Please show me the warning they were going to cut throats so pilots would die in seconds? Show me the warning they were going to go cheap and not bring their own WMDs.

The show me why my irrelevant stuff is not as good as your silly irrelevant stuff?

Its not logically incompatible, look at Zeitgeist. Has a tone of errors on it mainly from various other CT films, but one of the main points in Part 2 was about the prior warnings and intelligence they had.

I think it is relevant, because thats one of the main reasons CTs cite as the reason for them committing 911. Once again, look at the film Zeitgeist.. But regardless, i was using it as example that in a similar debate about WMDs and Blair, someone like Robin Cook is someone that deserves a mention. In the same way, they should have mentioned many people in this documentary.

OMG, you go from real, to stupid. Zeitgeist is real dumb and a pile of junk. No balance on that movie.

Dylan has earned dropout status the hard way, he exudes stupid.

 

[Edx]

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.

I thought it was pretty funny in Zeitgeist when they added 3 stooges music over a monatge of clips of the bush administration talking about terrorism in their speeches.

 

[Edx]

We have been warned since UBL said he would kill us, since the 90s! That was a long time ago. We get warnings all the time. Please show me the warning they were going to cut throats so pilots would die in seconds? Show me the warning they were going to go cheap and not bring their own WMDs.

The show me why my irrelevant stuff is not as good as your silly irrelevant stuff?

OMG, you go from real, to stupid. Zeitgeist is real dumb and a pile of junk. No balance on that movie.

Dylan has earned dropout status the hard way, he exudes stupid.

Beachnut you obviously havent read a thing Ive said, or you did and chose not to understand it. Im not endorsing Zeitgeist and you of all people I know is a brick wall to debate with, half the things you say dont even seem to make any sence.

 

[nicepants]

He didnt go go Univercity, why not just stop there? No they have to make sure people know he isnt qualified so say he's a drop out to compare with the qualified people they have on supporting the other side. Its not arguable, the producer lied about what drop out meant on Jones' show presumably because he thought they were American and so maybe they would find it sort of believable.

How about if they had just said that he was a "film school reject", would that have worked for you?

 

[Edx]

How about if they had just said that he was a "film school reject", would that have worked for you?

At least it would have been accurate!

Honestly though, I like your responce .

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut you obviously havent read a thing Ive said, or you did and chose not to understand it. Im not endorsing Zeitgeist and you of all people I know is a brick wall to debate with, half the things you say dont even seem to make any sence.

I did read. You are projecting, I never said you liked or are pushing the stupid movie. But you were. You should read your own stuff, you are funny.

Once again, look at the film Zeitgeist..

Its not logically incompatible, look at Zeitgeist.

Yep, you say it has errors, but want to use it because you think it makes a point. Are you endorsing a failed point in Zeitgeist? Reads like it. But as you say your Zeitgeist is irrelevant.

 

[nicepants]

How about if they had just said that he was a "film school reject", would that have worked for you?

At least it would have been accurate!

Honestly though, I like your responce .

Do you believe that "self-professed dropout" is more derogatory than "film school reject"? Just curious

Now that we've covered that...what's the next fact that the BBC got wrong?

 

[Edx]

So Alex Jones scoured the whole documentary and found a single factual error. Is that about the size of it? If there was a pattern of such errors then you might have something.

Edx, please tell me you couldn't keep a straight face when you heard Alex Jones talking about 'hit pieces'.

No, because I agreed with him. Theres a lot more than 1 probelm with it. I dont agree with him on controlled demolition and many other things. But his criticism of this film were mostly very valid.

 

[dudalb]

Your main complaint so far is that the BBC was mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout. Well, boo, hoo, hoo! Dylan was snotty and condescending to the people like Wally Miller who where there on the scene on 9-11, not to mention the families of the Flight 93 victims (and the heroes on that plane too). The show was fair to Dylan and called him on his BS. Bully for the BBC!

And, once again, was there anything factually wrong about the documentary?

Dylan got just what he deserved.
Have the screams of the twoofers of how the BBC is part of the Evil Conspiracy begun yet?

 

[dbalsdon]

So, you feel like your talking to a brick wall Edx? Welcome to the debunkers world. Except, we're talking to literally tens of them.

 

[Sabrina]

Like I said, their conclusion may be right but that doesnt mean they are justified using those tactics.

I never said they were justified; in fact, I distinctly recall saying it wasn't right, but it is not up to us. We can debate this point until we're both blue in the face, but it won't change their tactics. This is a point you should be making to the media agencies, not a critical thinking forum, as the agencies are the ones perpetrating this method.

No, thats not what Im saying. Im saying you should be unhappy that it felt it had to try and misrepresenty and smear the CTs, and had to use deception in order to do it. That shouldnt be commended, even though we saw that being done here in the forum. That shouldnt be justified, even though we see that being done in the forum.

I don't disagree with you, but to be fair, this principle should also be applied to numerous "documentaries" perpetrated by the CT crowd such as Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, and others that try to smear the quote-unquote "official theory". Where is your outrage over those?

Well no, look at the target audience. Its for people that are not informed and probably wont go off and reaearch anything. Like I said before you guys should be arguing against it as well, because if someone does decide to look it up and find out how distorted that program was, if I found out about the Jersey Girls and/or Press for Truth, I'd think the BCC lied to me.

Ed

Well, to be fair to my fellow debunkers here, I'm afraid we're hopelessly optimistic in the face of evidence to the contrary; we assume that everyone watching this documentary, with the exception of those who willfully deny the evidence even when it beats them upside the head, will make an effort to educate themselves if they were interested enough to watch this documentary. However, I'd have to wonder why learning about the Jersey Girls or 9/11 Press for Truth would make you think the BBC lied to you; those groups have no hard evidence proving anything to my knowledge, only doubts and skewed interpretations of things beyond their purview. Why would they make you doubt when the evidence strongly suggests they are wrong to begin with? Why would they make you think the BBC was lying versus putting their own special brand of media spin on it, which every rational person in the world knows the media does anyway? The media in general have not been fair or unbiased for many many MANY years; I for one would be surprised to find anyone who believes what the media says as gospel instead of making an effort to find the kernels of truth hidden among the chaff of spin. I'll watch the news, but I take everything they say with a heavy dose of salt, and if a story interests me, I will research it to see what, if anything, is the actual truth.

Ultimately, Edx, I have to be honest and say I think you're overreacting here. I think you have a point about the spin, don't get me wrong, but I fail to understand why it's such a big deal to you, when as a rational, thinking being you can easily find out the facts and decide for yourself, same as everyone else on the planet. And if people are lazy and don't want to do that, well then, that's their choice and their loss, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Walter Ego]

Frank Spotnitz wasnt an other, he was basically a debunker they devoted around 10 minutes to talking about how CTs were insane. You say they used experts but they didnt use anyone that could have supported the CT, not even to debunk them. But the stuff they left out is pivitol to the point. So I think its fair to characterise most of those "expert"s as debunkers, in the same way as Danny Jowenko is also an expert, but he wasnt on there. Steven Jones is a physics expert, he wasnt in there. No one one was. They could have touched on Danny just to show that he didnt believe the WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives, but oh no, if they did that they'd have to show how he thinks WTC7 was demolished. So instead, they misrepresented and smear. Why did they need to do that and how can it be defended? You should be annoyed that the film used those tactics, I would be if someone made an anti-Creationism video in the same way.

You want to know what IS a fair and balanced documentary? Is the documentary made by the Channel 4 director who went with Alex Jones to Bohemian Grove.

The truth movement is always whining that the mainstream media won’t examine their claims. The BBC examined some of the claims of the 9-11 truth movement and found them to be almost completely bogus so you are whining the BBC didn’t make the show the way you would have made it and did not include your favorite conspiracy theorists.

These are red herrings, all of them. The show examined several specific claims of the truthers and found them lacking (to put it mildly). I have asked you repeatedly how the show was wrong in its factual debunking and you can’t provide an answer. (And don’t say you have because you haven’t.)

They didn’t make the show you wanted them to make. We’ve got that. Now how please was the show wrong in its factual rebuttal. Not they didn’t include my favorite CT hero, not those debunkers ganged up us, but how was the show wrong in its factual rebuttal of the CT claims they examined?

 

[Edx]

Do you believe that "self-professed dropout" is more derogatory than "film school reject"? Just curious

Sure its derogatory, but film school reject is still accurate while "self confessed drop out" implies he is a quitter that now makes CT movies in his room. One implies something worse.

Now that we've covered that...what's the next fact that the BBC got wrong?

I hate to do this but Im tired now and have already talked about my problems with it at length and dont have the patience to start repeating myself again and again. Please see my previous posts.