Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Drudgewire]

Fair point - I just think we shouldn't be making it easier for them to do so.

And back atcha. I just think it's a micro-thin line between presenting them as they really are and presenting them as clueless asses without scruples.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't get it. The piece was not a hatchet job. Farenheit 911, That was a hatchet job. The BBC show is downright staid compared to Moore's stuff.

 

[Edx]

I agree with you for the most part; things like the use of cameras and lighting, etc while very subtle to the average viewer are/were/can be extremely effective in putting an almost subliminal spin on things. As I have said, this kind of reporting leaves the program open to cries of 'Hatchet Job' or 'Hit Piece' from CTers, thus making it easier for them to dismiss. When people are making bizarre claims, there should be no need to use trickery or spin to make them look any more stupid - leave that to those making the claims; the hard facts in contrast should also assist!

I know! Thats what Ive been trying to say for 9 pages now

I also tried to explain that they should be agreeing with me because if someone uninformed about any of this watches the show and decides to check it out and finds out the documentary misrepresented the CTs then they are more likely to believe them.

...you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion.

Agreed - to a certain extent.

Out of interest, in what way would you not?

 

[cisco]

They say that Avery claims that United 93 landed at Cleveland, but then explain that actually that was Delta 1989. They show and interview a passenger from the plane as if he is denying she even travelled on the plane. I know implication can easily be denied by those that want to be obtuse about that, but when anyone that doesnt know watches it they will assume thats what Avery actually thinks. I know I did, along with assuming he'd dropped out of University and thinking that it was a major claim that 4000 Jews were warned and didnt go to work that day and this is what the people they had on probably thought.

Ed

Let me ask you something. Which is more likely:

A) Dylan Avery - a guy so prone to changing his story he had to make 4 different versions of the same movie, a guy who is a known, documented, repeated liar, a guy who earns his living and builds his identity on lies, a guy with a known history of changing his story when talking to the BBC* - told the BBC he was a dropout and that's why they called him a "self-confessed dropout". This guy also at some point claimed something about Delta 1989 (not even quite sure what you're claiming on this one but bear with me.)

OR!!!

B) The BBC made up these insignificant trifles to smear him, even though he was already doing a great job of smearing himself in bigger ways by lying, not understanding what a simile is and generally acting like an asshat

Well, what's your answer? Solve using Occam's Razor.


*Dylan has always claimed that he never question 9/11 until he started doing preproduction on Loose Change in 2005. Then in a BBC interview he claims he questioned it from day 1.

 

[jaydeehess]

They say that Avery claims that United 93 landed at Cleveland, but then explain that actually that was Delta 1989. They show and interview a passenger from the plane as if he is denying she even travelled on the plane. I know implication can easily be denied by those that want to be obtuse about that, but when anyone that doesnt know watches it they will assume thats what Avery actually thinks. I know I did, along with assuming he'd dropped out of University and thinking that it was a major claim that 4000 Jews were warned and didnt go to work that day and this is what the people they had on probably thought.

Ed

Furgawdssake, "Loose Change" does indeed imply that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, right?

It did not, right?

Flight 89 did land in Cleveland and was the plane that was confused with flight 93 and "Loose Change" does not inform its viewers of this, or does it? Its been a long time since I watched the first LC and have not seen the revised versions (to refer to them as equels would be going too far). Not that the revisions would neccessarily have been out at the time the BBC show was being edited.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I don't get it. The piece was not a hatchet job. Farenheit 911, That was a hatchet job. The BBC show is downright staid compared to Moore's stuff.

It's certainly more subtle, yes. My point is, whilst not an out-and-out 'hatchet job', the makers should have steered away from employing any form of spin which could be used by CTers to label the program so.

And back atcha. I just think it's a micro-thin line between presenting them as they really are and presenting them as clueless asses without scruples.

Heh heh heh... nice one Centurion; like it! It seems we agree in the main anyway Drudge.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I know! Thats what Ive been trying to say for 9 pages now

I also tried to explain that they should be agreeing with me because if someone uninformed about any of this watches the show and decides to check it out and finds out the documentary misrepresented the CTs then they are more likely to believe them.



Out of interest, in what way would you not?

If I thought the argument was Dog Toffee, and wasn't 100% sure about the conclusion! I always like to look before I leap!

 

[Edx]

Furgawdssake, "Loose Change" does indeed imply that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, right?

It did not, right?

Flight 89 did land in Cleveland and was the plane that was confused with flight 93 and "Loose Change" does not inform its viewers of this, or does it?

Sort of, its the same kind of intellectual dishonesty that the quotes used by Wally Miller are used to imply him as saying that there were no bodies or blood and he stopped doing his job because there was nothing to do and that he thinks the passengers were let off first.

Likewise the Loose Change claim is similar, but significantly different to how they portrayed it. They didnt say Delta flight was U93 they said both planes landed around the same time.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg4.html

They acknowledge the flight ..."But Delta Airlines confirmed that their plane, Delta 1989, landed in Cleveland at 10:10."... and the passengers... "Authorities searched Delta 1989 for over two hours, and passengers were questioned individually". The documentary suggests something else.

 

[jaydeehess]

As for the 4000 Jews story, I had a long and fuitless ,,,, discussion,, on another forum with an adherent to this fiction. Even when I went through the names of the dead at the WTC and showed him all the typically Jewish surnames among them he still insisted that no Jews died there. To at least him this was a major conspiracy subject.

Elsewhere in these forums I have seen on occassion, the various conspiracy contentions listed. It is a very long list indeed, some of them being mutually exclusive. From beam weapons to a NORAD 'stand-down' LIHOP senario. I have also seen on many occassions a 'true believer' state that such-and-such a topic is not really a major contention of the "Truth Movement". It seems that each member of the 'movement' has their own take on what is and isn't a major topic. That the BBC or PM did not cover one person's favorite bit or did not create a 6 hour epic delving into great detail on the subjects they did address is just the way it goes.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sort of, its the same kind of intellectual dishonesty that the quotes used by Wally Miller used to imply him as him saying that there were no bodies or blood and he stopped doing his job because there was nothing to do and that he thinks the passengers were left off first.

Likewise the Loose Change claim is similar, but significantly different to how they portrayed it. They didnt say Delta flight was U93 they said both planes landed around the same time.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg4.html

The acknowledge the flight ..."But Delta Airlines confirmed that their plane, Delta 1989, landed in Cleveland at 10:10."... and the passengers... "Authorities searched Delta 1989 for over two hours, and passengers were questioned individually". The show implies otherwise.

Does LC use this as an example of the confusion that reigned that day? No, they use it in an attempt to bolster their claim that U93 did not crash in Penn.

"Loose Change" states, and by extension then so does Avery, that U93 did not crash in Penn. They then go on to state that it landed in Cleveland. That they also say that D1989 landed there is immaterial. The BBC then shows that D1989 was confused with U93 and was indeed the plane initially reported as having been hijacked and as being U93.

Does the BBC imply that LC does not believe that D1989 did not land there? No!

Is this in any way similar to the Miller quote subject? No!

 

[Edx]

Let me ask you something. Which is more likely:

A) Dylan Avery - a guy so prone to changing his story he had to make 4 different versions of the same movie, a guy who is a known, documented, repeated liar, a guy who earns his living and builds his identity on lies, a guy with a known history of changing his story when talking to the BBC* - told the BBC he was a dropout and that's why they called him a "self-confessed dropout". This guy also at some point claimed something about Delta 1989 (not even quite sure what you're claiming on this one but bear with me.)

OR!!!

B) The BBC made up these insignificant trifles to smear him, even though he was already doing a great job of smearing himself in bigger ways by lying, not understanding what a simile is and generally acting like an asshat

Well, what's your answer? Solve using Occam's Razor.


*Dylan has always claimed that he never question 9/11 until he started doing preproduction on Loose Change in 2005. Then in a BBC interview he claims he questioned it from day 1.

You dont seem to notice you make my point for me. Saying that Dylan is a "self-confessed dropout" does imply Dylan actually told Guy Smith that he was a drop out, yes I do understand that, thats what Ive been saying.

When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy Smith said that in the UK it just means someone that didnt go to University. So, what Dylan actually said was that he didnt go to University, and Guy Smith turned that into a self-confessed drop out. I have said this all before, you know.

Ed

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't know about the USA but in Canada although "drop-out usually refers to a person who did not complete high school, it can also refer to someone who went to, but did not complete, a college or university diploma course.

Would that describe Dylan Avery?

Conversly, if the term means, in the U.K. , that a person never attended a higher level of schooling, and the BBC program is created primarily for a U.K. audience, then is it not accurate? It would only be when it is viewed on this side of the Atlantic that it would be taken the wrong way.

 

[cisco]

You dont seem to notice you make my point for me. Saying that Dylan is a "self-confessed dropout" does imply Dylan actually told Guy Smith that he was a drop out, yes I do understand that, thats what Ive been saying.

When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy Smith said that in the UK it just means someone that didnt go to University. So, what Dylan actually said was that he didnt go to University, and Guy Smith turned that into a self-confessed drop out. I have said this all before, you know.

Ed

No, I am not making your point for you. I'm giving you an undue amount of patience but you really are one of the most biased readers I've ever talked to. You intepret everything to suit yourself.

Is Guy Smith the person Dylan told he was a dropout? Did you ever even consider that he might not have been? I'm sure his [Guy's] answer was nonchalant and not very well thought out because it's an insignificant issue.

 

[sleahead]

The BBC also called Avery "the wunderkind behind the film".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You dont seem to notice you make my point for me. Saying that Dylan is a "self-confessed dropout" does imply Dylan actually told Guy Smith that he was a drop out, yes I do understand that, thats what Ive been saying.

When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy Smith said that in the UK it just means someone that didnt go to University. So, what Dylan actually said was that he didnt go to University, and Guy Smith turned that into a self-confessed drop out. I have said this all before, you know.

Ed

And how many times does this have to explained to you? How many posts over and over do you need? You keep asking this question and bringing it up, yet ignore everyone who gives you an answer. Seems a bit more odd then the issue you bring up doesn't it? You keep implying there is something factually wrong here and there isn't. The guy was trying to simply be polite and you are trying to say it's a mischaracterization. The mischaracterization is in your presentation of what happened, not in the film. IN the film it's like talking about how Einstein was a drop out. Pretty much every biography on him says this. Are they trying to make him look bad? NO. They are saying this is a guy who dropped out of school and did great things. This documentary is doing the same thing. But of course this has been explained over and over in this very thread.

Also your quote from LC about the Delta flight was added later after LC kept making claims that flight 93 literally landed in Cleveland and people kept pointing out the fraud in their film. This is why LC keeps getting remade over and over. They keep having to change it because they run out of steam trying to pass of bogus information. Because o LC, the conspiracy that flight 93 landed in Cleveland is still a popular one regardless of them taking back the original claim. This is one of the few if not only films that actually talks with a passenger. Therefore it's important to include, even if you want to falsely accuse them of trying to misrepresent Dylan.

 

[beachnut]

You dont seem to notice you make my point for me. Saying that Dylan is a "self-confessed dropout" does imply Dylan actually told Guy Smith that he was a drop out, yes I do understand that, thats what Ive been saying.

When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy Smith said that in the UK it just means someone that didnt go to University. So, what Dylan actually said was that he didnt go to University, and Guy Smith turned that into a self-confessed drop out. I have said this all before, you know.

Ed

Oops. I thought this was

... just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

Seem to you it is an issue of having to be right to the point of being pointless. Wow. "self proclaimed" pointless debate continues, unabated.

 

[Walter Ego]

Why Dylan Didn't Drop Out

The BBC also called Avery "the wunderkind behind the film".

Dylan doesn’t know what ‘wunderkind’ means anymore than he knows what ‘simile’ means. The dropout issue was discussed by Dylan and BBC producer Guy Smith on Alex Jones’ radio show last year (starting at about 57:00 in):

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/190207smith.mp3

Interestingly, Dylan also says that applied twice at Purchase College and wasn’t ‘selected’ because the film program was ‘entirely selective’ meaning they didn’t select him. But… Purchase (part of the New York State University System) offers a BFA in film studies which mean you first have to be admitted to Purchase College to take film courses:

http://www.purchase.edu/Departments/AcademicPrograms/Arts/TAF/Film.aspx

In other words, Dylan didn’t have the smarts or academic qualifications to be admitted to a public college in New York State. That’s why he wasn’t a dropout.

 

[Edx]

Does LC use this as an example of the confusion that reigned that day? No, they use it in an attempt to bolster their claim that U93 did not crash in Penn.

"Loose Change" states, and by extension then so does Avery, that U93 did not crash in Penn.

Small correction, U93 didnt crash into the Pentagon, that was Flight 77. U93 was the plane that crashed in Shanksville.

They then go on to state that it landed in Cleveland.

Thats correct, they do say that.

That they also say that D1989 landed there is immaterial.

No it isnt, the BBC make out that Dylans thinks the mistake they made in the control room was actually right, not wrong, as they then go on to tell us it was. But not only do they make out he denies Delta 1989 existed, they get a passenger that was "on the flight" as if to say he's even denying the passengers even took the flight. They even show her ticket and she says "this was the very boarding pass"! They then go on the explain the story of Delta 1989, where it took off from, why it had to make an emergency landing. etc, as if LC was denying that. In their explanation, when they say "in the confusion" Delta 1989 was being mistaken for U93, they imply that Dylan has simply refused to acknowledge that original mistake. This would have been a great responce to Dylans argument, if he had actually said this. In fact, they didnt even address his actual argument. Dont get me wrong, what he actually said was still pretty loopy, speculative and wrong but thats not the argument they were debunking.

The BBC then shows that D1989 was confused with U93 and was indeed the plane initially reported as having been hijacked and as being U93.

And pretends that Dylan is simply not correcting such a simple error like that. Theres a hundred other things Dylan has actually said they could have picked on to show how silly the LC arguments were, instead they choose to pretend he said something he didnt.

Does the BBC imply that LC does not believe that D1989 did not land there? No!

They imply in the strongest way possible that Dylan doesnt even acknowledge the flight existed at all and none of the passengers even took the flight. They imply that when they originally mistook Delta 1989 for U93, that he just refused to acknowledge that it was a mistake.

Is this in any way similar to the Miller quote subject? No!

Of course it is. They spend a whole section debunking a claim he never made.

 

[Edx]

Oops. I thought this was Seem to you it is an issue of having to be right to the point of being pointless. Wow. "self proclaimed" pointless debate continues, unabated.

While I dont like being wrong I also cant keeping saying something I know not to be true, so I have to admit my errors. Also, I hate being called a liar, so yes Im going to respond. I hate being called on my logic and reasoning abilities, so yes Im going to respond to it. And yes, this thread really is a pointless debate and I really should give on on it, I really shouldnt let immature rude people annoy me so much, but its hard to do what you know you should do.

 

[beachnut]

While I dont like being wrong I also cant keeping saying something I know not to be true, so I have to admit my errors. Also, I hate being called a liar, so yes Im going to respond. I hate being called on my logic and reasoning abilities, so yes Im going to respond to it. And yes, this thread really is a pointless debate and I really should give on on it, I really shouldnt let immature rude people annoy me so much, but its hard to do what you know you should do.

... just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

Okay, it is not pointless. But I think the horse is dead...


Dylan being a self proclaimed dropout, and you saying someone is wrong to say it means a person who did not attend university, is hearsay rant. Maybe it is used by some cliques. Who really knows. It is his opinion, and to mention Alex Jones pretty much dooms any reality based point-i-ful conversation. Alex Jones; there must be some reaction like "Frau Bluker", but not horses whinnying, but false information, pure stupid, and lies beginning to flow from the empty abyss know as the mind of Alex Jones… (denny craig)

"Dropout" is a good term for Dylan; he needs a valid reason for being so dirt dumb on 9/11 (it helps protect some school system from being responsible for letting stupid ideas loose on the world)