Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Gravy]

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.

For the umpteenth time, Edx: the BBC was showing what did happen, not wasting time asking people what didn't happen.

 

[CptColumbo]

For the umpteenth time, Edx: the BBC was showing what did happen, not wasting time asking people what didn't happen.

What about Plate Tectonics? Let's start there and maybe we'll get to alien death rays, and mention the possibility that it was 19 hijackers.

 

[Gravy]

BBC Narrator: "Dylan Avery believes he's found the answer to that question, and it points to a government plot."

Avery, in Loose Change: "So if Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville, then where? You ready for this? Cleveland.

At 11:43 on September 11th, WCPO, a local TV station in Cincinatti, Ohio, reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb threat. United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93."

Narrator: "It's true that a passenger jet was diverted to Cleveland, Ohio that morning, after reports of a bomb on board. But it wasn't United 93. It was a Delta Airlines flight, and this woman was on it."

I fail to see how this segment misrepresents what's important about Avery's claim or what really happened.

 

[sleahead]

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.

In the documentary the BBC state that "it's true that a plane landed at Cleveland". Working from the premise that one plane landed, they seek to prove that this was Delta 1989. Your complaint should be that the BBC did not address Avery's two plane claim, not that they implied he thought Delta 1989 did not exist.

 

[Gravy]

In the documentary the BBC state that "it's true that a plane landed at Cleveland". Working from the premise that one plane landed, they seek to prove that this was Delta 1989. Your complaint should be that the BBC did not address Avery's two plane claim, not that they implied he thought Delta 1989 did not exist.

As my quote above shows, they do include Avery's claim that two planes landed there due to bomb scares, and that one was flight 93. They also cite the quick retraction of the initial false report, and say that this hasn't stopped conspiracists around the world from spreading the false information.

 

[Gravy]

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.

As I point out above, in no way does the BBC imply this. They include Avery's claim that two planes landed in Cleveland due to bomb scares.

 

[sleahead]

As my quote above shows, they do include Avery's claim that two planes landed there due to bomb scares, and that one was flight 93. They also cite the quick retraction of the initial false report, and say that this hasn't stopped conspiracists around the world from spreading the false information.

Yes, Gravy, you're right. All complaints dismissed!

 

[Edx]

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.

Thats correct.

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.

Thats correct! But they didnt actually then debunk what it was that he was saying about U93 landing at Cleveland. They started to, by explaining that that Delta 1989 got mixed up with U93 but then implied LC was denying the existence of Delta 1989 and its passengers, they didnt actually say what the claim was about U93 landing at cleveland

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.

No they pretended he was arguing something he didnt. They could have been accurate in the report in changing and including very small details, but those details are importahnt as to not imply something he never even said. It would have had the same impact, but it would have been accurate

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.

Where do you get this 10 hour epic thing from? I just said to you:

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

Ive been very patient with your exaggerations Gravy, Ive been very patient when you dont read my posts properly and start arguing something I never claimed like you did here, and then not offered any kind of apology or even acknowledge it. Im getting rather tired of it and if you keep doing it Im not going to be able to debate you anymore, really why do you feel the need to have to act that way?

 

[Edx]

As I point out above, in no way does the BBC imply this. They include Avery's claim that two planes landed in Cleveland due to bomb scares.

Yes well, whats funny is if you're really paying attention to the segment, they even quote the part of Loose change where they say 2 planes landed at Cleveland. There ends the LC clip. Then go on to say how Delta 1989 was mistaken for U93 atthe time, then bring in the passenger and say how she was actually on the plane and show her ticket stub with her saying "I know, I was on the plane!" as if to imply LC is denying the existence of the flight. But if you arent paying attention, you just wont notice something up.

Ed

 

[Edx]

In the documentary the BBC state that "it's true that a plane landed at Cleveland". Working from the premise that one plane landed, they seek to prove that this was Delta 1989. Your complaint should be that the BBC did not address Avery's two plane claim, not that they implied he thought Delta 1989 did not exist.

They did both. Theres no reason to include the woman saying look I know, I was on the plane and then showing her ticket stub as if to prove it, if they werent trying to say that LC was denying she took the flight.

 

[Edx]

For the umpteenth time, Edx: the BBC was showing what did happen, not wasting time asking people what didn't happen.

If so, then they wasted a lot of time doing that didnt they?

 

[Gravy]

Thats correct! But they didnt actually then debunk what it was that he was saying about U93 landing at Cleveland.

Are you paying attention? They had already devoted a whole segment to the crash of flight 93! To what actually happened to the plane!

No they pretended he was arguing something he didnt.

You are wrong, as I have shown. For the fourth time: they included his claim that two planes landed in Cleveland due to bomb scares, and they showed which one actually landed there.

Got any more claims to make about how poor, misunderstood Dylan Avery was mistreated?

Or are you just about through?

 

[Gravy]

If so, then they wasted a lot of time doing that didnt they?

Edx, feel free to make a documentary detailing what did not happen on 9/11. No one is stopping you.

 

[Edx]

Are you paying attention? They had already devoted a whole segment to the crash of flight 93!

I know, their conclusion is right. If thats all that mattered theres no point even going to any other argument.

You are wrong, as I have shown. For the fourth time: they included his claim that two planes landed in Cleveland due to bomb scares, and they showed which one actually landed there.

They dont go any further and unless you're paying attention you'll miss it, especially when they start showing ticket stubs and acting like Dylan was denying she took the flight.

Edx, feel free to make a documentary detailing what did not happen on 9/11. No one is stopping you.

Thats what the whole program was dealing with.

Got any more claims to make about how poor, misunderstood Dylan Avery was mistreated?

Since Ive already explained this is not in any way my intention, and every time I do you snip it and say the same thing I can only call dishonesty becuase you keep trying to paint a false impression of me. One you cannot possibily defend with anything Ive said. Its a shame but I cant talk to someone that seems intent on doing this. Unless you accept this and start showing me you will at least try and understand what Im saying, I wont be replying to anymore of your posts

 

[jaydeehess]

As Gravy, with somewhat uncharacteristic patience, has been stating over and over again, the BBC piece was not specifically debunking Avery, or Jones etc. They were debunking the 9/11 "truth" Movement fallacy.

Yes Dylan says two planes landed at Cleveland. When did the report of two planes come out? Was the other plane a regular schedule landing? Dylan does not say. Dylan does say that U93 landed in Cleveland. Dylan mentions D1989 at some point but then apparently never gets around to examining what the other plane was. He is trying to have it both ways, a plane suspected of hijack was ordered to land because it was identified as U93 and the plane that did land under that suspicion was D1989. He does this and then completely ignores the identity of the other plane, instead implying that it was actually U93.

Then to later state that he is sure the passengers of D1989 are out there safe somewhere is a sarcastic brush off on his part. That or he is implying that the passengers of D1989 are also somehow involved in a cover up.

1)The ONLY plane to land at Cleveland that was suspected of hijacking or bombs was D1989. It was the ONLY plane quarantined and searched, passengers questioned.
2)THAT plane was confused with U93 by FAA and identified by United as such and having landed in Cleveland. Did United actually have someone at Cleveland that looked out on the runway and see U93? Not likely. Most likely they were informed by the FAA who were in error.

These are the sole reasons that LC and others have said that U93 landed at Cleveland and it is for those reasons that the BBC interviewed the passenger.

The entire portion dealing with interviewing the passenger and showing that a plane identified as a suspected hijack landed at Cleveland is aimed at educating the viewer as to what DID happen, and not specifically to address what did NOT happen.

If the BBC should have done anything more then perhaps it should have asked how many planes landed at Cleveland on 9/11/01 and at what times. If no planes, other than regularily scheduled landings, came into that airport BEFORE Delta1989 and the next one not until the nation wide grounding order then Avery is shown to be {you pick the euphemism.}

Since the CT's and Dylan in particular as so very good at JAQ, let me JAQ about this one instance.
What really gets me is that for the most part Dylan is not a 'no-planer' yet in this instance he is. He is jumping on the killtown macabre paranoia train and saying that a plane crash of an actual flight was faked in Pennsylvania. To what end would this be done? Where are the passengers now? IF theye were all taken out and killed to keep the whole thing quiet then why did the supposed planners of this avoid all the subterfuge and just cause the plane to crash as advertised?
Do no CT groups look at the logs of flights that landed and the FAA reports and show what the identity of the other plane in Cleveland was?

 

[Edx]

As Gravy, with somewhat uncharacteristic patience,

Hmm, I dont really call constantly mischaracterising me as a defender of "Dylans lies" and Truthers, misreading my posts and then arguing against something I didnt say and then not apologizing or even acknowledging it when I kindly point it out, as patience. If this is what you call him being patient, I'd hate to think what he's like when it isnt. Maybe he's more like Jonny.

has been stating over and over again, the BBC piece was not specifically debunking Avery, or Jones etc. They were debunking the 9/11 "truth" Movement fallacy.

Have you looked at the section? They make the claim that Dylan knows what happened to the plane, then quote Loose Change which say it landed at Cleveland (if you're paying attention he mentions two planes) but thats it. So then they start off saying a flight was mistaken for U93, and that this flight was Delta 1989 who was ordered to land due to a bomb scare. They then bring on a passenger from Delta 1989 and she gets out her boarding pass and they have a close up of it, who says, i know [what happened], I was on the plane, as if to show she really did take the flight.

Like I said earlier, if you pay attention the clip from LC he says two planes landed at Cleveland, but if they had played some more they would have played the section which showed LC dont deny any part of the Delta 1989 story (except for not mentioning for it being mistaken for U93). Its almost the same as what they said, but quite different at the same time, its the same as quoting someone out of context. Lord knows I am not defending Dylan but at least quote the crazy claim he actually makes rather than pretending he said something he didnt. I mean come on people you're spoilt for choice, its really not that difficult!

Btw if they werent responding to Loose Changes claim, thats even worse because thats what they showed they were talking about. Even I give them more credit than to assume they are doing that.

Yes Dylan says two planes landed at Cleveland. When did the report of two planes come out? Was the other plane a regular schedule landing? Dylan does not say. Dylan does say that U93 landed in Cleveland.

I'd go further actually. Dylan doesnt say becuase as far as I can tell he made it up. He used the false report of Delta 1989 to confuse the viewer so he can pretend U93 actually did also land there for no reason at all other than to try and give a sensational explanation. So thts really weird to suggest, much weirder than what they report. I find it bizzare that they didnt debunk what Dylan actually said, which in my mind is even stupider, but instead try to prove that Delta 1989 had real passengers that took real flights, when he didnt deny it did!

1)The ONLY plane to land at Cleveland that was suspected of hijacking or bombs was D1989. It was the ONLY plane quarantined and searched, passengers questioned.

Of course, and you dont need to prove that to me, and thats all quite relevant. But what they didnt need to do was prove that Dylan is somehow denying the existence of the passengers that took the plane. Why waste time showing everyone her boarding pass and trying to prove the flight really did exist rather than showing that Dylan just made something up completely? Instead they make him look better if anyone decides to check, becuase he can get sympathy, and show the film they made wasnt fair and balanced like they claimed it was meant to be.

The entire portion dealing with interviewing the passenger and showing that a plane identified as a suspected hijack landed at Cleveland is aimed at educating the viewer as to what DID happen, and not specifically to address what did NOT happen.

Thats all great, but they still did imply that LC is denying that the passengers took the flight. I took 2 film courses in college and Im still very interested in film making, but these are professional documentary film makers so find it hard to believe its simply an accident, becuase that just means its badly put together.

If the BBC should have done anything more then perhaps it should have asked how many planes landed at Cleveland on 9/11/01 and at what times. If no planes, other than regularily scheduled landings, came into that airport BEFORE Delta1989 and the next one not until the nation wide grounding order then Avery is shown to be {you pick the euphemism.}[/i

Shown be to "full of crap", I would say.

Ed

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, we take away from that segment very different views as to what the BBC were doing.

To my mind they were stating what LC said and then illustrating what actually took place. It is not specifically to debunk every claim but to educate the viewer as to what did happen. It is not to imply that Dylan did claim that D1989 did not exist but to show in greater detail what was the story of D1989.

Not only did they show the passenger but they also illustrated the confusion at ATC/FAA and how it came to be that D1989 was suspected of having a bomb on board. After all Dylan implies that D1989 being tagged as the plane with a bomb was a subterfuge of some sort or a case of the FAA almost discovering that U93 did not crash in Penn.

The BBC then is giving the viewer much more information on the flight that did land AND which had been tagged as suspect. that suspicion is the directly involved in how U93 was reported as having landed at Cleveland. I simply see your take on this as picky and rather obtuse.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ten pages of complaining BBC wasn't fair to throothers! Cry me a river.
What waiste of bandwidth.
Ed, mass media are not fair, they want viewers and advertising nothing else.

 

[Edx]

I simply see your take on this as picky and rather obtuse.

Okay, I see the people that are disagreeing with me so adamantly here like that as well. Ive already said my piece to you and since we wont seem to be be able to change each others minds, I suppose we'll have to politely leave it there.

 

[Edx]

Ten pages of complaining BBC wasn't fair to throothers! Cry me a river.

Its in their interests not to do it though, as Ive been trying to explain. Apparently not well enough. Too bad.

Ed, mass media are not fair, they want viewers and advertising nothing else.

Certianly agree with that.