Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

Exactly. Did I call you a truther? No I didn't.

So Jonny if I say you're another typical Nazi, oh, but you're not a Nazi wink wink, that your Nazi movement is dishonest and when you say your're not a Nazi I say you're full of crap, Im not really calling you a Nazi, Im not even implying it.

Another big fault of yours is that you use truther sources. How do I know this you ask? Because many of your arguments are directly from truther sites.

I always go to the primary sources to check, and if I happen to be wrong about something I will always admit it as I have already done only a few posts after I joined this forum. The only thing I have been remotely incorrect about on this thread was the 4000 Jewish warnings thing, the real Odigo instant message warnings story may not have had any influence on the original 4,000 Jews myth and I cant prove it did, so assuming it didnt I would still argue its very relevant to bring up for several reasons Ive already stated. But other than that, theres nothing else I can remember that Ive been wrong about.

This is why you refuse to address the issues and present the sources for your claims such as saying there were IM warnings about 9/11.

Ive presented the sources for that several times. What are you talking about? People were even discussing the sources I was referring to.

Because those claims come from truther web sites and if you had to present the original news articles they came from, it would expose that.

Neither article was from a truther website and neither were the articles I linked to located on truther websites.

That and the pancake theory (you made others, but we'll stick with 2) are truther claims.

The main pancake theories were show to be inaccurate according to NIST, the graphic was also inaccurate. Its not reallya big deal I am being overly picky about the graphic, but I admitted that and I explained why.

So what are you expecting? that simply because you sit here and say you aren't a truther tht you aren't? Sure, and OJ isn't a murderer.

I suppose this is actually kind of funny, you've already compared me with the KKK member and now a murderer. hahaha.

Then you said it doesnt matter if anyone here agrees with me, you can find KKK members that can agree with another KKK members and that it doesnt prove anything!

Correct. Were you attempting to make a point? If I said Jews and blacks were inferior and you disagreed with me, would it prove you wrong if i said others agree with me? Does that somehow make my opinion right?

You said KKK members, implying that people that agreeed with me were also part of the truther movement you deny saying Im with.

All Im happy about is that there are some sensible people that agree with me on that point, if you want to continue to be obtuse about it i dont really care. But I will point out that you did what I said you'd do which is imply everyone that agrees with me is also a truther. Oh, but you're not calling me a truther... "wink wink"

If you arent, then whats the argument about KKK members agreeing with each other meant to prove?

Did you NOT read the explanations? How can you ask me that when I addressed it so fully that there can be no question what so ever? What exactly don't you understand?

If I say to you, it doesnt matter who agrees with you Jonny, I can find a bunch of people in the Neo-Nazi movement that agree with each other as well, Im not really saying all of you are the same movement...

Ah, because we're all putting words in your mouth right?

Not everyone.

This is you being a hypocrite and doing exactly what you are falsely accusing everyone else here of doing.

Then dare I say it, your logic is faulty.

I made a logical argument that simply because others agree with one of your points does not make it correct.

Never said it did.

And you turn that into me calling them truthers? That's beyond dishonest and what constitutes lying.

When you say that you can find other KKK members that agree with each other as well, it sure does sound like you're saying you can always find truthers that agree with each other. If thats not what you meant, then you shouldnt have said it the way you said it.

OTOH, you did twist my position. I said that they could have included some more subjects and interviewed or mentioned more people like the people and subjects I mentioned and gave several examples, you turned that into me saying they needed to interview every person and talk about every possible subject. Thats quite different.

You do realize that edition 1 wasn't the first right? But regardless as you show from the article, 2nd edition says it was flown and landed at Hopkins. So what was your point? The 2nd edition includes an incorrect claim that was addressed in the documentary. Where are you going with this nonsense?

I know they addressed one claim, but the claim about U93 landing in Cleveland, they did not actually address the argument made and go off and disprove something he never said.

Are you going to claim that Dylan never made the claim that the plane landed in Cleveland as per the conspiracy theory?

No, but thts not just what Loose Change claims. Why are they trying to prove to the audience that Delta Flight 1989 existed and that the passenger took the flight, when Loose Change didnt deny any of that? Why not actually address the actual argument? In my opinion it was a wasted opportunity seeing how many silly ideas were made with United 93 and they only had time to touch on 3 of them.

But the premise of your whole argument is completely wrong to begin with. Which is why you keep derailing the issue as to what version what was said in. When there is no issue of them misleading to begin with simply because they cut to a passenger from the actual flight. It's a bogus argument and your little song and dance to distract from that isn't working.

They dont just cut to the passenger they dont ask her anything related to the LC argument about U93. Instead they show her ticket stub and she says "i know I was ON the plane". This implies that they are debunking the idea that she wasnt on the plane and that D1989 that was confused with U93, was actually U93.

You do realize that they thought flight 93 landed in Cleveland because they got the flights mixed up right?

Yes, but they arent saying that Delta 1989 was U93. Thats why Conspiracy Files spent so much time trying to show the plane existed and the passengers really did take the flight. Theres no reason for them to do that.

The claim wasn't that both planes landed there.

Actually LC did make that claim, they even quote the part from LC where they say that two planes landed at Cleveland. Which was Loose Changes point, that Delta Flight 1989 did land and really did have passengers just like they say it did, just that U93 also landed around the same time. But that wasnt what they were debunking.

Your mistake is that you think that the segment is simply addressing LC.

I dont think you've really thought about that, that would be so much worse! I am giving them more credit than you are! They say Dylan thinks he knows what happened to U93, they show a clip of LC, and now you say they might not even be addressing what he said!

It's addressing the conspiracy theory that flight 93 was flown to Cleveland and therefore it could not have crashed.

But they arent, they correctly say it was confused, but instead of showing LC's claim they then go and debunk a different one.

 

[Gravy]

Which was Loose Changes point, that Delta Flight 1989 did land and really did have passengers just like they say it did, just that U93 also landed around the same time. But that wasnt what they were debunking.

You are wrong. The BBC show debunked that claim by showing that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville. They showed what did happen. Get it?

Do you agree?

Will you continue to defend scumbags, and claim that they were treated unfairly?

How about the flight 93 victims' families, Edx? Have you asked Dylan Avery to apologize to them? Whom do you think was treated more unfairly: Dylan Avery, or the victims' families? Should Avery be accorded more respect than he gives the victims of 9/11?

 

[Edx]

One more time. They do not try to prove the Delta flight existed. They are already satisfied that everybody knows it existed. They try to prove it, rather than UA93, landed at Cleveland.

But they need to go further, because they imply Dylan is disputing that. Dylan has confused the report, but not in the way that they make out. Theres no reason to show the passenger, show her ticket stub and at the same time her say "I know, i was on the plane!".

Edx, if you still wish to go down this road, I have nothing more to add other than that I strongly, but very politely, disagree.

Cant understand why, but okay

 

[sleahead]

Cant understand why, but okay

Yes, I can see that you don't understand. Just out of interest though:

They dont just cut to the passenger they dont ask her anything related to the LC argument about U93.

What specific questions do you think she should have been asked?

 

[Gravy]

But they need to go further, because they imply Dylan is disputing that. Dylan has confused the report, but not in the way that they make out. Theres no reason to show the passenger, show her ticket stub and at the same time her say "I know, i was on the plane!".

You are wrong. They interviewed a passenger who was on the only plane that was evacuated, which Avery contends was two planes that were evacuated.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Flight1989divertedscan.jpg

They also showed that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville.

They showed what did happen. Do you understand this, Edx?

 

[Edx]

double post

 

[Edx]

Tell me, Edx, just how extensively should the BBC have recited Dylan Avery's despicable lies? Do you – for some reason I cannot fathom – think Avery would come off better if his claims were covered in more detail, rather than less?

No! Thats where you keep missing my point, and in fact should be agreeing with me. His actual argument is more crazy and even worse, but instead they debunk something he never claimed. If someone watches that and then goes to look it up they'll see Conspiracy Files misrepresented Loose Change so might be more sympathetic to them.

 

[Edx]

You are wrong. They interviewed a passenger who was on the only plane that was evacuated, which Avery contends was two planes that were evacuated. They also showed that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville.

They showed what did happen. Do you understand this, Edx?

They showed what did happen, while implying Dylan is saying that Delta Flight 1989 was U93. Theres no reason to show her ticket stub as if LC was syaing she never took the flight, if thats not what they were doing.

 

[Gravy]

They showed what did happen, while implying Dylan is saying that Delta Flight 1989 was U93. Theres no reason to show her ticket stub as if LC was syaing she never took the flight, if thats not what they were doing.

Let me make this perfectly clear:

Dylan Avery, in Loose Change, mistakes different reports about flight 1989 for reports about two different planes. He inserts flight 93 as the "other" plane, which did not exist. Avery doesn't imply that 1989 was 93, he confuses 1989 with a second plane, which he calls flight 93.

It is Avery's claim that the reports about flight 1989 referred to two planes. He does not report that the initial report of flight 93 landing in Cleveland was withdrawn within minutes on 9/11! Is this honest?

The passenger interviewed explains that hers was the evacuated plane with the bomb scare. There was no other.

Do you understand this?

 

[Edx]

What specific questions do you think she should have been asked?

LC makes a claim about how the passengers were dealt with after they left the plane. That would have been relevant. Theres no reason to show the ticket stub. If no one knew any better, they would assume Dylan was saying she never took the flight. Im sorry you cant see that, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Edx]

Let me make this perfectly clear:

Dylan Avery, in Loose Change, mistakes different reports about flight 1989 for reports about two different planes. He inserts flight 93 as the "other" plane, which did not exist.

It is Avery's claim that the reports about flight 1989 referred to two planes.

Do you understand this?

You are right, they start off debunking the claim and then stop. They dont actually explain to the viewer what he really thinks and imply he thinks something different

 

[Edx]

You are wrong. The BBC show debunked that claim by showing that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville. They showed what did happen. Get it?

Im not agreeing with LC claims. "Get it?" Im saying they didnt need to misrepresent something LC said when they had a whole lot of silly claims they really did make to choose from.

Will you continue to defend scumbags, and claim that they were treated unfairly?

Im not defending them, if you got that out of your head you might start to understand my point.

How about the flight 93 victims' families, Edx? Have you asked Dylan Avery to apologize to them?

Fallacy of appeal to emotion? But look, I am well aware how horrible Dylan has been to some people. But we arent talking about that now, and the Conspiracy Files missed an opportunity to deubnk a claim he really did say but for some reason decided not to.

Whom do you think was treated more unfairly: Dylan Avery, or the victims' families? Should Avery be accorded more respect than he gives the victims of 9/11?

I really dont understand why so many people here think "he hit me first miss!!" is justified. Its not like its difficult to debunk Loose Change, make them look bad with what they actually said.

 

[Gravy]

You are right, they start off debunking the claim and then stop. They dont actually explain to the viewer what he really thinks and imply he thinks something different

They thoroughly refute his claim that flight 93 landed in Cleveland, as any child could do, but which Avery refused to do.

Who is wrong about the facts of 9/11: the BBC, or Dylan Avery?

 

[Gravy]

I really dont understand why so many people here think "he hit me first miss!!" is justified. Its not like its difficult to debunk Loose Change.

Avery claimed flight 93 landed in Cleveland with 200 passengers. The BBC show demonstrated that it crashed outside Shanksville with 33 passengers, 7 crew, and 4 hijackers. Aren't these the important points, Edx? In an hour show that covers many claims, how much time should they have spent on the details of each incredible absurdity?

 

[sleahead]

LC makes a claim about how the passengers were dealt with after they left the plane. That would have been relevant. Theres no reason to show the ticket stub. If no one knew any better, they would assume Dylan was saying she never took the flight. Im sorry you cant see that, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

In what way would a question about the way in which the passengers were dealt with be relevant to anything being discussed here?

 

[Gravy]

In what way would a question about the way in which the passengers were dealt with be relevant to anything being discussed here?

In LC2E Avery says, "We can assume that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere."

As with everything he does, Avery couldn't be bothered to research what happened at Cleveland airport, and when, so he assumes. Rather than the BBC interviewing those passengers who can tell us what happened, Edx would prefer that Avery's assumption be given air time. Not me. I want to know what did happen, not the absurd details of what some scumbag moron claims happened.

 

[Edx]

Who is wrong about the facts of 9/11: the BBC, or Dylan Avery?

I really truly dont understand why you keep trying to make out out that I believe Dylan is right.

Avery claimed flight 93 landed in Cleveland with 200 passengers. The BBC show demonstrated that it crashed outside Shanksville with 33 passengers, 7 crew, and 4 hijackers.

Yes, they did address that. Not brilliantly really and not as well as they could have done, but that can be forgiven because they didnt have that long for the program and maybe they just didnt make it very well, because U93 did crash there. Whatever the case, the point Im making is that when they were talking about the Loose Change claim that United 93 landed in Cleveland, they started off debunking the claim and then didnt actually address his actual claim but implied he said something else. Personally, I think his real claim is far more interesting to debunk. After all, where did he get the idea that United 93 and Delta Flight 1989 landed at Cleveland come from? Unless Im missing something he just pulled it out of nowhere just so he could try and explain where he imagined U93 went if it didnt crash in Shanksville.

Aren't these the important points, Edx? [/I]In an hour show that covers many claims, how much time should they have spent on the details of each incredible absurdity?

They could have spent the same time on it, just actually addressing the real claim.

In LC2E Avery says, "We can assume that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere."

As with everything he does, Avery couldn't be bothered to research what happened at Cleveland airport, and when, so he assumes. Rather than the BBC interviewing those passengers who can tell us what happened, Edx would prefer that Avery's assumption be given air time. Not me. I want to know what did happen, not the absurd details of what some scumbag moron claims happened.

Oh come on Gravy, you're letting your emotional hatred of CTs and Loose Change stop you from actually listening to what Im saying. Im not saying that Averys assumption should be given air time, Im saying if they are going to debunk a claim he made then do that, dont act like he said somethign he didnt. He's made a lot of ridiculous assumptions and crazy claims with no reasonable excuse to make them, plenty to choose from. You could make him look a lot worse by actually talking about what his actual claims were. But because they did what they did they potentially helped Avery when people check up what he actually said and see how Conspiracy Files misrepresented him and so be more sympathetic to him. I would have thought that would be the last thing you'd want.

 

[Gravy]

There was a brief report on 9/11 that flight 93 landed in Cleveland. That report was almost immediately withdrawn, and of course it was known and reported everywhere that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville.

As he did many, many times in Loose Change, Avery took that one, brief, mistaken and withdrawn report and tried to claim that that's what actually happened.

Regarding flight 93, in Loose Change Avery says, "Are you confused?" That's because his goal is to foster confusion by reporting false details, out of context, and not to report any of the accurate information that came afterwards. If the BBC tried to include and examine those same details, it would be just as confusing, and would be needlessly time-consuming. They stuck to the basics, to avoid confusion. When you produce your 10-hour epic documentary on 9/11 conspiracist claims, you can bore people all you want with the details of their utter nonsense.

 

[Edx]

In what way would a question about the way in which the passengers were dealt with be relevant to anything being discussed here?

Like I said they make a claim about whathappened to Delta 1989 and U93s (which they claim also landed at Cleveland along with Delta 1989) passengers after they were let off the plane. They say they were questioned and then sent to different places, they could have asked what really happened. They could have asked if they heard or saw any mention of United 93. That would have been relevant, but what they did ask wasnt relevant at all.

 

[Gravy]

Oh come on Gravy, you're letting your emotional hatred of CTs and Loose Change stop you from actually listening to what Im saying. Im not saying that Averys assumption should be given air time, Im saying if they are going to debunk a claim he made then do that, dont act like he said somethign he didnt.

Avery: "We can assume that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere. The question remains, what happened to the 200 or so passengers from Flight 93?"

BBC: Don't assume. Talk to the passengers from flight 1989. It's easy. Here: we did it.

You can't get a more direct example of what's wrong with the conspiracists than that.