Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Edx]

I got this one, Cat...

I never said that

Hey I'll admit if I misspoke or made a mistake, do you agree with Jonny that everything he says about me is true? Since he refuses to show where Im saying what he says Im saying, how about you have a shot at it?

[jproudj]

According to cooperativeresearch.org the haaretz daily story was on 26th Sept 2001, but their link doesn't work. i don't think you'll find it live online.

haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

[Slayhamlet]

Apparently the Haaretz article came out in July 2004, the 4,000 Jew rumor was first reported on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television on Sept. 17, 2001.

So explain how a report published in 2004 can be the source of a rumor first started nearly 3 years prior?

I don't know about the Haaretz article, but the Washington Post article was printed Sept. 28, 2001.

[jproudj]

You honestly cannot see the connection between 4000 Jewish workers warned on 911 and Odigo in Israel being warned of 911? If you really cant see any connection, I guess we'll have to agree to disagee wont we?

No, because there was no warning to 4000 workers. There was an appeal for contact after the attack. No warning. Only the vague warning without a source (of the email) with no reference to the WTC, to people in Odigo in Israel, who had no connection to the WTC. So there really is no connection apart from the nationality.

There might be a connection between two false stories, but...they're false...

[Slayhamlet]

If it wasnt the source, its still relevant. But like I said, if you honestly cannot see any connection worth bringing up in the segment on Israeli warnings in the Conspiracy Files, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree wont we?

I can see two connections: it involves Jews and prior knowledge of 9/11. Fine. Now, can you explain why is it necessary to mention that two Jews half-way around the globe were thought to have been given a warning about 9/11 from an anonymous source, when one debunks the nasty and clearly anti-Semitic (as well as absurd) claim that 4000 Jewish workers at WTC were warned of the attacks beforehand, and thus escaped death?

[Slayhamlet]

No, because there was no warning to 4000 workers. There was an appeal for contact after the attack. No warning. Only the vague warning without a source (of the email) with no reference to the WTC, to people in Odigo in Israel, who had no connection to the WTC. So there really is no connection apart from the nationality.

There might be a connection between two false stories, but...they're false...

Not nationality, ethnic background/religious affiliation.

[Edx]

Its related, but also stands on its own the same way the incompetence and not acting on intelligence conspiracy they push at the end of the film can be "related". In this case its the "theory", if you can really call it a theory, that the government lied about the quality of the air and now first responders are dying of related illness'.

No, it's not related to 9/11 conspiracy theories at all, whereas the issues of government incompetence and intelligence failures are, and directly so. LIHOP is a conspiracy theory, wouldn't you agree?

Sure LIHOP is a CT, but thats one . The air quality lie claim is not just related to 911 conspiracy theories, it is a 911 conspiracy theory. If you dont know that you must not be familiar with the fact that people pushing 911 CTs also push this one.

Also, the government didn't lie about the quality of the air at the clean-up site. The EPA did give false information about the safety of the air for the public in the area around GZ, for economic/political reasons (they wanted Wall Street up and running again as soon as possible).

Im not going to debate this now. Point is its a conspiracy theory to suggest there was a conspiracy to coverup the lie about quality of the air to the emergency services. You deny it so by definition its just another in a long list of other claims people here say arent true, and are just conspiracy theory.


The story about the possible warnings on Odigo is not related to the "4000 absent Jews" conspiracy theory. Perhaps the two have coalesced among certain anti-Semitic snake-oil peddlers into a single conspiracy theory, but they weren't in origin. If you believe they are the same, you were lied to.

Several people have claimed this so I'll address all this now. How did the Haaratz story influence the 4000 jews myth and whys it important to mention? Even if it wasnt directly related lets look at this. Well, Odigo notified Israli intelligence services that they had a couple of employees that according to the CEO two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen". He cant say specifics but he did say that much. This was then reported to the FBI. The Jerusalem Post reports a day after 911 that 4,000 Jews are missing, even if true this gets twisted into 4,000 Jews were warned and knew about the attacks so didnt go to work. The reason why its relevant is because the two stories do get mixed up! Did 4000 Jews get warnings by instant messages? Did all Odigo employees get warnings via instant messages and didnt go to work that day? Etc. So yea of course its part of the CT that the Conspiracy Files talks about so to not address the instant messages part of the CT is quite an ommission to make. It would have only made the report more accurate, but I suppose they were more interested in implying that all CTs are jew haters and insensitive.

[cisco]

Yes, because that's the best example of it you can find anywhere... unlike on every investigative news-type magazine show ever. So to choose to take this particular stance on this particular board about this particular show?

Well... disingenuous is a HUGE understatement.

And for the record on the outward chance I'm wrong about you, the devil's advocate/moral relativism gimmick isn't any less of a troll-baiting one than "douchey CTer."

And this about sums it up.

You're shocked because you think we're dismissing your arguments without consideration. What you don't realize is we've heard them hundreds of times from other people. You're not getting any positive attention because you're not saying anything new or original. We'd love to be wrong about you, Edx, but we know we're probably not.

[jproudj]

Not nationality, ethnic background/religious affiliation.

The 4000 number came from the appeal list on the Israeli Embassy site, and the employees of Odigo were in Israel, so that's why I said that.

[WildCat]

I don't know about the Haaretz article, but the Washington Post article was printed Sept. 28, 2001.
Heh, I see what the problem is. Haaretz doesn't have a dateline on their archived stories, it always shows the current date! Thus, the web page I saw it referenced on had the date wrong.

At any rate, the Lebanese TV channel had it on Sept. 17. Of course, it is a channel that often features news stories fed to it by Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is the likely source of the rumor.

[Edx]

STOP lying. There was no message warning regarding 911. Even the people at the company have acknowledged this in the press.

Really? Where?

The reason you won't bother showing your press sources is because it would make this obvious and you would be caught in your lie.
Since I have, that makes you wrong doesnt it?

but I think it's important that you now actually read them instead of saying what you THINK they said.

So when you read the news reports how do you interpret them to say that "There was no message warning regarding 911" and that "the people at the company have acknowledged this in the press".

"The incident was also the subject of a report in the Ha'aretz daily newspaper in Israel, which on Wednesday quoted Odigo CEO Micha Macover as saying that "two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen." Odigo Vice President of Sales and Marketing Alex Diamandis told Newsbytes Thursday that he could not comment on the text or origin of the message, but said that the sender of the instant message was not personally known to the Odigo employees."
- Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes.

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack

.Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI "
- Haaretz - Yuval Dror

It seems pretty obvious that you never actually read the articles from the press releases themselves,

Apparently neither have you or somehow read something different to what was on the page.

[Edx]

And this about sums it up.

You're shocked because you think we're dismissing your arguments without consideration.

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.

What you don't realize is we've heard them hundreds of times from other people.

I seriously doubt that.

You're not getting any positive attention because you're not saying anything new or original. We'd love to be wrong about you, Edx, but we know we're probably not.

This comes from someone that although not quite as bad as Jonny, has still assumed Im saying things Im not in the past.

[cisco]

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.

No, that's what you're choosing to see. What you're actually seeing is a bunch of people yawning when you show them that documentary film isn't 100% impartial and unbiased. Show us a documentary that is; they don't exist! If you really weren't a troother you'd be a lot more concerned about what they're doing than shaky camera shots or nitpicking the meaning of the term "dropout". The big question here is why do you care so much? DON'T say it's because you're some crusader for ultimate truth and justice - there are a lot more important paths to travel in that quest than this one.

Do you think we hold this documentary up as the Holy Grail of debunkings (hint: we don't)? Did anyone say this was the be-all, end-all, comprehensive debunking of 9/11 trooth? Did anyone champion this as the one piece of evidence that everyone sitting on the fence needs to see? NO.

It's a tv documentary. If you want to call it a hit piece have a ball; it won't change any of the facts. It will only make you look like the troother that you probably are. Don't come here quacking with feathers and a big orange beak and get pissed off when we call you a duck.


I seriously doubt that.

Shows what you know.

[Slayhamlet]

Sure LIHOP is a CT, but thats one . The air quality lie claim is not just related to 911 conspiracy theories, it is a 911 conspiracy theory. If you dont know that you must not be familiar with the fact that people pushing 911 CTs also push this one.

This is really stretching the definition of "conspiracy theory". What we consider conspiracy theories in this subforum, and the definition that most people go by and what the BBC program was most likely going by is summed up pretty well in this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Conspiracism). Every time a government agency or politician lies or tries to cover something up does not make the same kind of conspiracy as conspiracy theorists profess. In this instance it's just another fact that conspiracy theorists get wrong (and others besides), and not a conspiracy theory or anything that even supports a conspiracy theory. CTs make a big deal out of it because its a good way to poison the well about the actual conspiracy theory. They're appealing to a government misdeed (the facts of which they usually get wrong anyway) as a fallacious argument to imply that since the government does lie and cover things up, you should believe they are also covering up that they had a hand in the attack itself, which was some master scheme to start endless wars or whatever. This is quite different.

Im not going to debate this now. Point is its a conspiracy theory to suggest there was a conspiracy to coverup the lie about quality of the air to the emergency services. You deny it so by definition its just another in a long list of other claims people here say arent true, and are just conspiracy theory.

No, its just a wrong claim that wouldn't support the conspiracy theory about government complicity in the 9/11 attacks even if it were true. Besides, its not one of their major claims, so I don't see why the BBC should include it.

Several people have claimed this so I'll address all this now. The Haaratz story came out in 2004, so how is it relevant to a story that came out days after 911? Well, Odigo notified Israli intelligence services that they had a couple of employees that according to the CEO two workers received the messages predicting the attack would happen". He cant say specifics but he did say that much. This was then reported to the FBI. The Jerusalem Post reports a day after 911 that 4,000 Jews are missing, even if true this gets twisted into 4,000 Jews were warned and knew about the attacks so didnt go to work. The reason why its relevant is because the two stories do get mixed up! Did 4000 Jews get warnings by instant messages? Did all Odigo employees get warnings via instant messages and didnt go to work that day? Etc. So yea of course its part of the CT that the Conspiracy Files talks about so to not address the instant messages part of the CT is quite an ommission to make. It would have only made the report more accurate, but I suppose they were more interested in implying that all CTs are jew haters and insensitive.

I agree the program would have been better had they mentioned this particular claim and debunked it as well. But it's far from necessary to mention the Odigo story when debunking the claim of 4000 Jews/Israelis being forewarned. The two may sometimes be conflated, but they're usually not from what I've seen. The Odigo story doesn't corroborate the 4000 Jews claim, so I don't see how leaving it out is dishonest. The "omission" was likely because they weren't even aware of it, or if they were they didn't see the connection to the 4000 Jews claim. From what I've seen the Odigo story isn't a very prominent argument anyway among CTs anyway. The 4000 Jews claim is important to the program because it was one of the first CTs to come out, and was particularly potent in the Mid-East. It's not one of the claims frequently made by the Truth movement, and the program doesn't do anything to indicate that it is (hence no quotes from the CT representatives). I really don't see how you can say that it implies all conspiracy theorists are Jew-haters. I think you're reading into it something that isn't there.

[Slayhamlet]

The 4000 number came from the appeal list on the Israeli Embassy site, and the employees of Odigo were in Israel, so that's why I said that.

Yes, sorry, you're correct. The original Al-Manar article does claim it was 4000 Israelis.

[Edx]

This is really stretching the definition of "conspiracy theory". What we consider conspiracy theories in this subforum, and the definition that most people go by and what the BBC program was most likely going by is summed up pretty well in this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Conspiracism). Every time a government agency or politician lies or tries to cover something up does not make the same kind of conspiracy as conspiracy theorists profess. In this instance it's just another fact that conspiracy theorists get wrong (and others besides), and not a conspiracy theory or anything that even supports a conspiracy theory. CTs make a big deal out of it because its a good way to poison the well about the actual conspiracy theory. They're appealing to a government misdeed (the facts of which they usually get wrong anyway) as a fallacious argument to imply that since the government does lie and cover things up, you should believe they are also covering up that they had a hand in the attack itself, which was some master scheme to start endless wars or whatever. This is quite different.

Sure theres a big difference between alien and Illuminate conspriacies compared to governments lying about their prior knowledge of 911 and "conspiring" to keep information out of the public domain. But it doesnt matter, its still a conspiracy theory by definition, to those that dont agree with it. Even in the program they said it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy "theory" is just what someone calls a belief in a conspiracy that they deny is real. If I was to tell you about what powers the Patriot Act granted the government and you werent aware of the Act, then you'd probably call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist as well, but nevertheless the Patriot Act really does exist.

Im not going to debate this now. Point is its a conspiracy theory to suggest there was a conspiracy to coverup the lie about quality of the air to the emergency services. You deny it so by definition its just another in a long list of other claims people here say arent true, and are just conspiracy theory.
No, its just a wrong claim that wouldn't support the conspiracy theory about government complicity in the 9/11 attacks even if it were true. Besides, its not one of their major claims, so I don't see why the BBC should include it.
Of course it wouldnt support it, but is it still a 911 conspiracy theory just like they accept the conspiracy theory that they goverment did coverup their prior knowledge and incomptence to act on it that they said was actually real. You deny that they did lie, therefore to you're saying its a conspiracy theory.

The Odigo story doesn't corroborate the 4000 Jews claim, so I don't see how leaving it out is dishonest.

I didnt say it corroborated it, I said there was some truth surrounding Israli warnings they made out was 100% myth.

The "omission" was likely because they weren't even aware of it, or if they were they didn't see the connection to the 4000 Jews claim.

Except when Alex had Guy Smith on his show he talked about how he had shown Guy all this stuff, and Guy didnt say or imply that "no you didnt Alex".

From what I've seen the Odigo story isn't a very prominent argument anyway among CTs anyway.

Its one of many sure, but the 4000 Jews thing is argued by even fewer.

The 4000 Jews claim is important to the program because it was one of the first CTs to come out, and was particularly potent in the Mid-East. It's not one of the claims frequently made by the Truth movement, and the program doesn't do anything to indicate that it is (hence no quotes from the CT representatives). I really don't see how you can say that it implies all conspiracy theorists are Jew-haters. I think you're reading into it something that isn't there.

Look its the way it was done. They interviewed the Jewish victim and then asked her generally about what she thought of conspiracy theories, the whole thing just implied that CTs are generally insensitive to the Jews or worse anti-semitic.

But lets forget about that now. Theres one thing no ones tried to defend, and thats how they implied even more so that Avery is denying the very existence of Delta Flight 1989 and the passenger that took that flight, they even show her ticket stub as if "look see, she really was a passenger!". They could have picke a ton of things he really did think and say, but they chose to pretend he said something else. How pointless and needless!

[Edx]

No, that's what you're choosing to see. What you're actually seeing is a bunch of people yawning when you show them that documentary film isn't 100% impartial and unbiased. Show us a documentary that is; they don't exist!

Are you joking? Ive already given examples, like the documentary against Alex Jones' NWO Bohemium Grove which I said was fair and balanced and I enjoyed it. You want me to appear to be unreasonable about this, but its not going to work and you have to pretend I didnt say the things Ive said in order to pretend Im saying what you want me to say. That pretty much sums it up isnt?

If you really weren't a troother you'd be a lot more concerned about what they're doing than shaky camera shots or nitpicking the meaning of the term "dropout".

Do you mean to say, that if I wasnt a truther I wouldnt be concerned about that stuff?

If someone misrepresents Creationists, I have a problem with it. If someone misrepresents anyone, I have a problem with it. It doesnt matter if I agree with them or not.

And again, I can argue against an argument someone makes while still agreeing with their conclusion. Apparently many people dont get that.

The big question here is why do you care so much? DON'T say it's because you're some crusader for ultimate truth and justice - there are a lot more important paths to travel in that quest than this one.

I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has. I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.

Do you think we hold this documentary up as the Holy Grail of debunkings (hint: we don't)?
I know you dont, but its the defence of this documentary I find unbelievable and its only become more unbelievable as times gone on. That most of you cant even see any sence or accept any point at all, maybe throw up your hands and say you know what Ed you're right it wasnt actually fair and balanced and wasnt really an objective investigation like it claimed. You dont even need to say its conclusions or facts are wrong. I even agree with most of the films conclusion! But that is what I was originally arguing, if you remember.

Did anyone say this was the be-all, end-all, comprehensive debunking of 9/11 trooth?

Did I say you thought that?

Did anyone champion this as the one piece of evidence that everyone sitting on the fence needs to see? NO.

Did I say someone was championing it was the one piece if evidence everyone needs to see?

It's a tv documentary. If you want to call it a hit piece have a ball; it won't change any of the facts.

And Creationism will still be wrong even if I call Michael Behe a wife beating Nazi, but that doesnt change the fact that misrepresenting someone is dishonest.

It will only make you look like the troother that you probably are. Don't come here quacking with feathers and a big orange beak and get pissed off when we call you a duck. .

What you really dont like is that I dont agree with you, and therefore that makes me a truther. Thats all there is to it. If Im not with you, Im against you.

[Undesired Walrus]

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.

;)

t7II_MBclTg

[Bobert]

While a rational human would catagorize that video of Wally as someone who didnt want to relive the events of that day the sicko truthers would say he was being evasive and wonder if he was a CIA operative.
SICK!

[Bobert]

LOL!
Dylan has that "oh I am *****" look on his face!!
:D

[dudalb]

Look its the way it was done. They interviewed the Jewish victim and then asked her generally about what she thought of conspiracy theories, the whole thing just implied that CTs are generally insensitive to the Jews or worse anti-semitic.

The Victim was 100% correct. Just look at the amount of Anti Semitism you see on most CT websites.

If Edx is not another "Truther in Disguise" he is certainly giving a good imitation of one.

[cisco]

Do you mean to say, that if I wasnt a truther I wouldnt be concerned about that stuff?No, I meant exactly what I said. If you weren't a troother, you would be more concerned about what they (troothers) are doing . . .

If someone misrepresents Creationists, I have a problem with it. If someone misrepresents anyone, I have a problem with it. It doesnt matter if I agree with them or not.

And again, I can argue against an argument someone makes while still agreeing with their conclusion. Apparently many people dont get that.

It's not that we don't get it, it's that:
1. You haven't really proven conclusively that this documentary was unreasonably biased
2. You haven't proven that they lied, just shakey cameras and the possible misuse of the term dropout.
3. The troothers' theories are so reprehensible that we would have a hard time feeling sympathy for them even if someone did do a so-called "hit piece" on them. Yes, we would disagree with their methods, but most of us would likely decide there were more important things to spend our time arguing about. We can't all save 100% of the world 100% of the time. Frankly I think most of us find it weird that this, of all battles, is the battle you're choosing to fight so passionately. I guarantee you you can find 50-100 concrete misrepresentations in troother movies for every 1 misrepresentation you think you have found in this movie. Does that make it right? No. Does that illustrate where your priorities should be? I think so.


I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has.
Again, that is what you are choosing to see. No one has "literally" said any of that.

I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.
Like I said, stop quacking like a duck and wearing those feathers and beak and maybe you won't be called a duck anymore. You don't seem to grasp the concept that we've been patient with literally dozens of people exactly like you who turn out to be troothers. It's the boy who cried wolf. Each time we lose a little bit of patience.


I know you dont, but its the defence of this documentary I find unbelievable and its only become more unbelievable as times gone on. That most of you cant even see any sence or accept any point at all, maybe throw up your hands and say you know what Ed you're right it wasnt actually fair and balanced and wasnt really an objective investigation like it claimed. You dont even need to say its conclusions or facts are wrong. I even agree with most of the films conclusion! But that is what I was originally arguing, if you remember.
I've done that in this very thread and yet here you are, still chugging along.



Did I say you thought that?



Did I say someone was championing it was the one piece if evidence everyone needs to see?
You're missing the point. The point is this film is not particularly important to us. We don't care about it the way troothers care about Loose Change or Zeitgeist or Terrorstorm. We don't base our whole movement on it being a pillar of integrity. We don't need to because we're confident that we have facts and logic on our side.



What you really dont like is that I dont agree with you, and therefore that makes me a truther. Thats all there is to it. If Im not with you, Im against you.
Aren't you the one who keeps complaining about people putting words in your mouth? But it's perfectly ok for you to put words in others' mouths?

[Jonnyclueless]

Well lets have a look at things you've said, shall we?

When a truther is caught in a lie, you don't seem to have much problem with that

Where did you get that idea from? In my first two posts I said it looks like Dylan didnt want to admit he was wrong. Apparently this means I dont care!

Where did I get that I dea from? From the fact that you are more concerned with the semantics of the producers wording more than the issues at hand. The fact that your problem is with an absurdly minor detail, not the false claims being made.

1. He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue

Where did I do that? I never suggested they needed to include "every possible issue". In fact I didnt even imply anything of the kind.

In many of your posts by your constant accusation that they didn't include many areas of discussion. A request that is impossible. You not only DID imply that, you did it a lot.

1 . And then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show

So where did I do that? How did you get this out of my posts?

Because you flat out said it. Go read your posts buddy. You literally said it was unfair and a misrepresentation because they didn't include those other areas of discussion. YOU said it, not me. Don't try to weasel out of this one.

They can't include everyone and your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part.

Well go on Jonny, show me where I ever made that argument!

Genius, go LOOK at the posts that those are replying to. HELLO??? The ones where you falt out state its a misrepresentation because of the areas they didn't address. You kept listing them. Even in the reply you are responding to I point out those areas, such as the Jersey Girls, and Willie, etc. Have you forgotten your own posts, that I need to go quote the very post you are responding to????

Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything

I know its impossible to bring up everything, I never suggested anything like that, but apparently you think Im saying they should have.

YOU are the one complaining about the issues they didn't address and presenting a case that it's a misrepresentation because of this. It's YOUR argument. It's a bad one, and this is your feeble attempt to try to weasel out of it. Give it a rest, you made a bad argument, just get over it.

To bring up the issue to the few idiots whot think part of the plot was to secretly let a handful of people die over a long period of time would have been a waste of everyone's time.

I dont even know what you're trying to claim Im saying here! :rolleyes: :D

Thats pretty funny coming from you.

It's not surprising you wouldn't understand an issue that you yourself brought up. The one about the "conspiracy" (your words) of the air quality. This is a film about conspiracy theories, not politics. But I wouldn't expect you to understand your won arguments.



Anyone can witness what you claimed Im saying, verses what Ive actually said. Anyone can witness that you've refused to back up what you said. I wonder if you'll give another ad hominem riddiculed excuse not not have to do that this time .


I have backed up everything I have said in every single post. YOU are the one who keeps pretending you aren't saying things that you are. Keep pretending everyone here is stupid kid. You're just making your case even worse. Keep going for that strawman kid. See how far it gets you.


Did YOU not READ why I brought it up?

LOL, so you DON'T get it. I expected that. In other words you just don't have a good argument.


Priceless, yet another strawman. Your question mark almost stops it being one, if I havent said over and over thats not what Im saying.

Oh that's right, you haven't really said anything have you? You've basically said page after page of nothing. You know, there are a lot of crazies out there. but at least some of them have the balls to stand behind their words. They aren't cowards like you who pretend they say nothing and try to make every argument against them to be a literal word for word interpretation so they don't have to be held accountable.


What do you expect me to prove?

What do you expect the documentary to prove? I EXPECT you to prove your claims. Your claims are complete lies when you say there were 911 warnings sent. If you want to prove otherwise, then cough up the evidence and stop lying.


Older is possible, but Im not posting pictures of laughing dogs.

That's because you don't know how. The laughing dog does not represent immaturity, it represents the absurdity of your claims. When you come here and start posting outright lies and then pretend you aren't saying them, that goes beyond ignorance. That's why I consider you to be a con artist. Because you are knowingly misrepresenting information with the direct intent of misleading people. And you're too much of a coward to be honest.


:rolleyes:

Well gosh princess, you sure do seem to be the mature one with your teenage eye rolling. Gosh, we're all so impressed.

[Mr.Herbert]

Did anyone else notice Do-Over picking a scab off his arm during the tooling? The look on his face was priceless!

[Jonnyclueless]

No, Im shocked because Ive literally seen people advocate dishonest and deceptive behavour if someone is attacking a CT.



I seriously doubt that.



This comes from someone that although not quite as bad as Jonny, has still assumed Im saying things Im not in the past.

This coming form someone who is delusional.

This coming from someone who thinks they can justify making false accusations that they cannot back up and justifying it by saying that they had a positive review of another documentary. Gosh folks, he liked that other documentary so it must be A-OK to make false claims about this one. Gosh, we've never seen that tactic used before....

[Gravy]

Because its related to The Jerusalem Post news item they cited. They said the argument was that 4000 Jews were warned before 911. They rightly said this wasnt nonsence, but didnt tell you was that Ha'aratz and The Washington Post reported that Israeli Intelligence was send a report by Odigo of some instant message warning regarding 911 who then reported it to the FBI. There was an interesting grain of bizzare truth to the tale they didnt report. Yet if someone was to watch Conspiracy Files they would assume, if I mentioned about the instant message warnings, that I was one of those people that thinks 4000 Jews were warned and Im just as nutty as they are. Of course all I can be saying is that this should have been included in a documentary and all of a sudden Im an anti-semite, so dont pretend that wouldnt happen.

Let's get some things straight, Edx:

1) The Odigo story had nothing – nothing – to do with the "4,000 Israelis didn't show up for work" myth, except that it was promoted by anti-Semites.

2) Two Odigo employees in Israel received a text message about some attack.

3) The message did not name the World Trade Center.

4) Odigo had no office and no employees at the World Trade Center.

5) An Odigo V.P. said the message was interesting only for its timing, not for its specific content, and that it could well have been a coincidence.

6) There is no "grain of truth" to the "4,000 Israelis" story. None. Zero. The only reason it is interesting, and worth reporting on, is because it was heavily promoted by anti-Semites in several countries.

[Cuddles]

I care becuase I once had high opinions of the James Randi foundation. I used to bring him up when talking to Creationists and how he debunked Uri Gellar or his challenge. But what really annoys me about this, is how I have read so much defence - literally - of deceitfull behavour, that is saying its perfectly fine to attack CTs no matter how you do it. And that they wont attack this documentaries conclusion even though they conclude substantially different things to what this forum has. I expect unreasonable nonsence like this from conspiracy theorists blindly following Alex Jones or truther films, I know Ive met several of them. But you guys are meant to be reasonable, what a joke. Ive been called a lying truther simply because I disagree with almightly jref consensus and Ive even been called an anti-semite. Hey if you dont believe me I'll gladly find you some of the stupid quotes that pissed me odd.

It's funny, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone apart from truthers equate a few people in one section of this forum with the entire JREF. Edx, if you're actually trying to be honest and make a sensible argument, why would you pretend that a few anonymous posters on an internet forum have anything to do with Randi or the JREF? In case you haven't noticed you are a poster here. Does that mean everything you say is also part of the "almighty jref consensus"? It's coming out with this kind of nonsense that means no-one takes you seriously. The fact that it's exactly the same nonsense that only truthers ever come out with really doesn't help matters.

[Edx]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed

[cisco]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed
Out of one side of your mouth you're crying about us putting words in your mouth, and out of the other your putting words in our mouths!

Respond to my post a few posts above this, I'll listen. I'm trying to be as fair as possible with you.

[Jonnyclueless]

I was going to reply to all of you, but whats the point? None of you are interested in what I really have to say, you'd rather pretend Im saying something different. Jonny as predicted still failed to provide any quotes of mine that proved his assertions about me, but Im sure that will be ignored as well. Gravy has ignored the fact that Haaratz actually did say they were warned and the fact that the story does get mixed up with the 4000 Jewish workers myth.

I realise not all JREF is like the kind of behavior Ive seen in this forum, I got some very nice welcomes on my first thread despite a rubbish first post by me. But the general feeling in this forum is you cannot question the general concencus or you're a truther, and thats why Im a truther and an anti-semite just because I dont agree a documentary was fair and balanced and objective like it claimed.

Ed

And as per usual Ed still does not understand the difference between pointing out ones technique and saying they literally said something.

Ed, did you or did you NOT say that part of the reason the documentary is a misrepresentation because of things they left out? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

We'll ignore the fact that you are harping on this absurd point simply because you know you have been caught in a lie about thinks like the IM message and the pancake claims. And stop lying about the Haaratz claim.

Stop playing victim, it's pathetic. If you come to a discussion forum to discuss issues and make up lies and baseless claims, then expect to be called on it. Stop whining like a little baby how you're not allowed to simply because people disagree with you and point out your mistakes.

Grow up.

[cisco]

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Jonnyclueless]

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

No the issue here is treating others as they treat you. If he is going to accuse others of lying because they disagree or because he misunderstand what they are saying, then that is how he is going to be treated. And the fact is that in our discussions these issues have been discussed and he has moved beyond the possibility of ignorance. It's one thing to make claims not knowing all the facts, but when one continues to make such claims, knowing they are wrong, having been shown they are untrue, then it's the same as a lie in my book. It's all about intent. His intent is dishonest in that he now knows these claims about things like the IM warning are not true, yet continues to argue them. He knows that I never made any literal claims about what he actually said, but instead pointed out the the fault in his argument. he knows this, but instead uses the argument as a means to accuse me of putting words in his mouth which I never did. After this being pointed out well over 5 times, it's no longer ignorance.

He has long past the benefit of doubt and came out of the gate making such assertions without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as we gave him, simply because he didn't like being disagreed with.

[Drudgewire]

No the issue here is treating others as they treat you. If he is going to accuse others of lying because they disagree or because he misunderstand what they are saying, then that is how he is going to be treated. And the fact is that in our discussions these issues have been discussed and he has moved beyond the possibility of ignorance. It's one thing to make claims not knowing all the facts, but when one continues to make such claims, knowing they are wrong, having been shown they are untrue, then it's the same as a lie in my book. It's all about intent. His intent is dishonest in that he now knows these claims about things like the IM warning are not true, yet continues to argue them. He knows that I never made any literal claims about what he actually said, but instead pointed out the the fault in his argument. he knows this, but instead uses the argument as a means to accuse me of putting words in his mouth which I never did. After this being pointed out well over 5 times, it's no longer ignorance.

He has long past the benefit of doubt and came out of the gate making such assertions without giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as we gave him, simply because he didn't like being disagreed with.

Exactimundo.

While I'll take an occasional cheap shot, I usually enjoy the back and forth with the twoofers because I was once one of them and because being misguided is no reason to attack someone personally (both RedIbis and Max should back me up here, we get into it all the time but at the end of the day I like both of them).

This guy is much worse. Not only has he played the victim card, he played it to project his own modus operandi onto the members who made the mistake of giving him the time of day. He's EITHER dishonest or a troll... with the most likely answer being somewhat of a combo platter.

Takes a lot to make my ignore list, as is evidenced by the fact this time yesterday there was only one name on it.

[Edx]

Ed, did you or did you NOT say that part of the reason the documentary is a misrepresentation because of things they left out? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Yes, but that doesnt mean Im saying they should have included every truther and every single possible subject. I listed some examples of people and subjects they could have interviewed, brought up or even mentioned, but didnt. I never implied what you claim Im saying.

I also said they misrepresented them by claiming they are saying things they arent, like claiming that Avery is denying Delta flight 1989 even existed and the passenger never took the flight.

you know you have been caught in a lie about thinks like the IM message and the pancake claims. And stop lying about the Haaratz claim.
Where did I lie about the instant messages? What I wrote was written in the news reports. The graphic really isnt totally accurate, and NIST did go against the many pancaking theories.


<snipped taunting trolling insults>

[Edx]

Let's assume he's not lying. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. We've got nothing to lose by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I tried replying to yourpost and then lost it all half way through, you'll have to forgive me if it takes a little longer to reply to it. I wont forget though.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Firstly; sorry - I am a bit late to the party, and I have only read about the first 4 pages.

Secondly; to those who are not familiar with me, I am about as far from being a CTist as it is possible to get (without being an NWO member!).

I wish to say this:

The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.

The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.

Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!

[Walter Ego]

The phrase 'Drop-out' has been used in the UK for about just as long as it has the US, and colloquially has no positive connotations whatsoever in the UK. For any of my British Brethren to claim it has any sort of positive meaning - or could even be considered a compliment - would suggest they are misinformed at best, and talking utter Dog Toffee at worst.


Oh, for God's sake don't brink up the dropout thing! Edx went on about that for pages! We’ve agreed it’s not relevant to the main discussion of this thread which is what was factually wrong about the BBC program.


The BBCs reputation as fair and balanced when it comes to news is highly questionable (especially when it comes to the British Army). In fact, during the second Gulf War it was nicknamed 'The Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation' by the British Military for its bias in reporting events pertaining to the conflict. The sad fact is, that the BBC - like many other broadcasting corporations - has its own agenda.


Any alleged bias by the BBC is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which, again, is were there any FACTUAL statements in the show about the truthers claims that were incorrect.

[Edx]

SatansMaleVoiceChoir, you do know you will now be called a truther dont you. :) Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here. In retrospect I should have approached it the same way you did, but then I would still likely have had a similar reaction.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

SatansMaleVoiceChoir, you do know you will now be called a truther dont you. :) Btw thank you. I thought Ive been going crazy over here.

People can call me "Robot Called Janet", if they like - doesn't make it so.

[Edx]

People can call me "Robot Called Janet", if they like - doesn't make it so.

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

[Drudgewire]

Viewers should be presented with a fair and unbiased program and be allowed to draw their own conclusions; the facts should win out. Yes, there is some satisfaction to seeing the 'truthers' get a taste of their own medicine, but sinking to their level somewhat sours the victory. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.

Best way to avoid having your honesty questioned? Always be honest; especially to yourself. Let the hard, quantifiable facts guide you; don't lose sight of the big picture, and don't allow yourself to get bogged down in coincidence, hearsay and poor science.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

I don't have an answer; I am English and not familiar with any of the things you mentioned. I will say that in the case of paedophiles, most news programs or documentaries probably WOULD mention things like charity work carried out; simply for the "Well, you never can tell.." juxtaposition of it all.

[Walter Ego]

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.


Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

[Edx]

Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

Im not going to respond to you or Jonnys baiting taunts and childish insults anymore. I have never done that to you.

[Drudgewire]

I don't have an answer; I am English and not familiar with any of the things you mentioned. I will say that in the case of paedophiles, most news programs or documentaries probably WOULD mention things like charity work carried out; simply for the "Well, you never can tell.." juxtaposition of it all.
Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.

And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread). ;)

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Granted if you've never seen it it's sort of hard to imagine, but they're usually parading too many perps through the house to get involved in the backstory beyond their job... and maybe a hair more if they're someone like a rabbi or teacher who's in a position of trust with children.

And SMVC, don't worry about being painted with the same brush. Bringing up a valid issue, even it seems like it's going against the grain of the conversation, doesn't get you lambasted here. We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread). ;)

I know; I too enjoy a bit of healthy debate. Thanks, Drudge.

[Walter Ego]

Which sort of begs the question of why you're wasting you're time here, doesn't it? You say you’re a 24 year old university student in the UK so let me ask you what would be the reaction of one of your teachers if you turned in an academic paper as sloppy in argumentation and sourcing as what you’ve presented here? I realize the context is different but I’d love to hear the answer anyway.

Im not going to respond to you or Jonnys baiting taunts and childish insults anymore. I have never done that to you.



I will take that to mean you have a higher standard for your school work than you do for your posts on this discussion board.

[beachnut]

Yea, but when people call into question my honesty it gets to me. I shouldnt let it bother me. It is after all just a pointless internet debate, even more pointless than usual really.
The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.

What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.

[Edx]

News REPORTS should be unbiased. Investigative shows, by their very nature, take a side.

Should 60 Minutes have given balance to the tobacco industry when they interviewed Lowell Bergman? Should Chris Hansen, after every Dateline bust, take a few minutes to explain the societal variables or tell about all the charity work that person did prior to trying to arrange sex with a 14 year old?

If you think the answer to either of these is yes, please take a course in journalism. You'll be VERY suprised at what the standard of "balanced" really is.

I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?

Ed

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I never said they should do anything of the kind. What would be wrong is to pretend the peados were worse than they are just for the purposes of making them look bad. Whats the need? They dont need to be made to look bad, what they are is already bad enough. Of course rarely does anyone claim to do an impartial objective investigation into the paedophilia or the tobacco industry and if they did do an investigation into the tobacco industry they also wouldnt need to misrepresent them. Whats so hard to understand about what Im saying?
Ed

Have to agree completely with the above.

[Edx]

[COLOR=black]The "dropout" stuff is pointless, and you made so many post on a pointless debate? I forgot what you thought about the OP, while you were supporting the false information of 9/11 truth. Read up on 9/11, it will save you from making pointless debates about minor issues, and distract you from real knowledge on the subject. You seem behind on 9/11 topics about 4 years or more.

Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

What did you say about the OP again? If you post, I assume you do not really mean it was a pointless debate you perpetuated.

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit

[Edx]

We love debate, it's dishonesty and ridiculous baiting tactics that tend to raise the ire of our less patient members (a category which I'm certainly falling into this thread). ;)

Of course neither Drudgewire or Jonny can show that Ive actually done the things they've said Ive done, and its rather hypacritical to suggest considering all the baiting taunts and insults Ive had on this threat.

[jaydeehess]

I have just watched the "Conspiracy Files" episode. I thought it quite well done.

Yes they are not complimantary to Avery or any of the CT's they interview but they do allow them to speak their peice.
Then specific claims are quite well debunked.
Also video that I have never seen before or have seen but only in highly compressed and recompressed forms.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?

[Drudgewire]

Have to agree completely with the above.
I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. The only way to approach this without making things up is to consider those profitting off these fantasies as delusional or con men. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I do too, but the BBC didn't do anything to make him look bad in an unfair way. He calls himself a film school drop out, so for them to refer to him that way is nothing more than a label he gave them.

As far as making them look stupid, they were doing a story about stupid theories with no basis in reality. Hence, they didn't make Jones or Dylan look worse than they are. They made them look like exactly what they are. If that makes some people think they're being painted in a negative light, said people may want to ask themselves whether maybe they're having trouble seeing these guys without their rose-colored glasses.

A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.

That said, I agree with your previous comments, where you essentially said impartiality doesn't make for exciting viewing.

[Edx]

So, EDx; as I mentioned, I have been lazy and not read the entire thread. Do you just have an issue with the biased slant of the program, or do you dispute any of the facts?


You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.

[jaydeehess]

They're doing a show on WTC 7 next.


That's good to hear since their segment of WTC 7 was the lightest in the video and (at the risk of soundly like Chris Sarns) contained one exaggeration. They state that the fires were (a definitive) partially fueled by the deisel on the building. In fact NIST has only suggested that it might have been possible but that there is no direct evidence that the deisel was invovled.

[Drudgewire]

A valid point of view, but I believe that when presenting a person's beliefs (no matter how bizarre) there should be impartiality and respect - if said person comes across then as a complete lunatic/wrong/liar by their own making, then so be it; let the viewer decide.
In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.

[beachnut]

Im quite informed, thankyou. I came here hoping to learn something and see what parts of my logic and/or knowledge are wrong or incorrect, not to be misrepresented. In the NORAD thead I started it was/is going quite well.

Going back to the first page is very easy. But what I said was that Avery may not have misunderstood what a smilie meant, but that he did seem like he didnt want to admit he was wrong so had to go off on one and deny it anyway, and that his expression looks like he may not have thought about what Guy Smith was saying before. But hey, thats just what it seemed like to me might be possible as well, maybe even thats giving him too much credit
I am sure you are relatively informed, it shows.

Dylan is like a kid, spewing made up ideas from nothing. I agree with your assessment.

[jaydeehess]

People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.


I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

In a perfect world I'd have trouble disagreeing with that. In the real world we're talking about people that have no trouble accusing very innocent people of orchestrating or being complicit in the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on our soil.

When you're dealing with that mindset, from people that lie as naturally as they breathe (and worse, have convinced themselves it's for a greater good), kid gloves do nothing more than give them the opportunity to manipulate the story like they do everything else.

Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.

[Drudgewire]

Oh I agree; if I stood in Dylan Avery, I'd burn my shoes - but in an ideal world, I prefer people to make that conclusion themselves, rather than other being able to claim they were the victim of a 'hatchet job'.
Again, we agree in principle. However, anything they appear on which doesn't reach the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job is going to wind up being called a hatchet piece the next day anyway. :boxedin:

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Oops!

[jaydeehess]

On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You can find my post on this on page 5. Heres a direct link
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

Of course drudgewire ignores all that and pretends the only problem I found is the "drop out" comment. People think they debunked the arguments quite well, even though in reality they didnt really touch on a whole lot of subjects. Ok, so maybe its just wasnt a great program. Thats fine, I dont care about that. Relevant stuff they ignored to the subjects they did touch upon I have more of a problem with but that isnt the worst part, if you look at the United 93 section they imply that that Dylan is denying the existence of Delta Flight 1989 and even the passengers onboard ever taking the flight. Clearly theres enough crazy claims regarding United 93 to not have to make one up.

EDIT: And you havent been lazy, I wouldnt bother reading all that either.

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!

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

Agreed - to a certain extent.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Again, we agree in principle. However, anything they appear on which doesn't reach the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job is going to wind up being called a hatchet piece the next day anyway. :boxedin:

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

[Edx]

I just watched it and admittedly I did not hit pause every time I left the keyboard. What specifically did they say that implies that Dylan is denying the existance of Delta 89?

"Loose Change" states that a plane reported to be flt 93 landed in Cleveland and the BBC show that the plane that was right behind it, while it still had its transponder on, did in fact land at Cleveland and that ATC conflated the two flights, erroneously attributing flt with the hijacking.

Perhaps Dylan may not deny the existance of flt 89, he just ignores it.

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

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

On the OP, Dylamn's eyes dart around as the interviewer explains what a similie is. This is typical body language for someone who has been caught in a lie or a misdeed. In this case Dylan either already knew that the statement was a similie and was stretching it in much the same fashion the Bush administration stretched Iraqi intel prior to the invasion, OR, he did not realize until that very moment that it was a similie and he had been taking it as a literal statement. The later is less probable than the former but Dylan is, in this specific subject, either delibereately dishonest or rather intellectually slow. The viewer can choose.

Bolding mine.

Which is all fair play - either way, Dylan is hoist by his own petard/stupidity - which is as it should be, ideally.

[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. :p

[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! :D Thats what Ive been trying to say for 9 pages now :D

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! :D It seems we agree in the main anyway Drudge.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

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

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". :jaw-dropp

[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]

The BBC also called Avery "the wunderkind behind the film". :jaw-dropp



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)

[Edx]

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.

Several people in this thread and then again in the last page have said that there is no positive connotation with the phrase drop out. I dont care if you personally think differently or cant accept this. But of course Im a truther because Im saying the same thing they are.

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.

So its not in Loose Change 1? Bear in mind they choose clips from Loose Change 2.

[Jonnyclueless]

Several people in this thread and then again in the last page have said that there is no positive connotation with the phrase drop out. I dont care if you personally think differently or cant accept this. But of course Im a truther because Im saying the same thing they are.

So its not in Loose Change 1?

EDIT: I just checked, you're wrong, it does appear to be there. I think you just make this stuff up hoping to be right.

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage. Now if you can find a way to justify saying he was a drop out in the same way people say about Einstein is worse than telling people he is a reject, be my guest. And somehow because other people see it your way somehow makes it right? You know I can find multiple KKK members too. Does that mean they are right about blacks and Jews? I can find you 100 flat earthers. Does that make them right? It's one thing to simply state you disagree with their choice of wording, it's another to start a topic of how it shows them beimg a misrepresentation because they chose to be a little more polite than they could have and that makes it unfair and unbalanced.

Oh, and here's something for you:

"9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide"

Notice the word "second" in there. And that isn't even the 2nd version, it's simply the version (of many) they refer to as 2nd. You keep getting caught in these lies. Notice how you keep ignoring other claims of yours such as IM warnings of the 911 attacks and the pancake claim too.

[Edx]

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage. Now if you can find a way to justify saying he was a drop out in the same way people say about Einstein is worse than telling people he is a reject, be my guest. And somehow because other people see it your way somehow makes it right? You know I can find multiple KKK members too.

I hope everyone is seeing that everyone that agrees with me about the drop out comment is now a truther, according to John.

Oh, and here's something for you:

"9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide"

Notice the word "second" in there. And that isn't even the 2nd version, it's simply the version (of many) they refer to as 2nd. You keep getting caught in these lies. Notice how you keep ignoring other claims of yours such as IM warnings of the 911 attacks and the pancake claim too.

Can you show me where they claim that Delta Flight never existed in Loose Change 1? And btw they show clips from Loose Change 2 in the film, so it would be very dishonest to pick on Averys old film anyway and make out he still thinks that, even so you havent proven that was what was in Loose Change 1 to begin with. Can you do it or not?

[Walter Ego]

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 he 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.

The alternative is to say that he was a rejected from collage.

Yup, Dylan wasn't even qualified to attend a state college.

[Jonnyclueless]

I hope everyone is seeing that everyone that agrees with me about the drop out comment is now a truther, according to John.

Kinda funny isn't it? You run around screaming about people putting words in your mouth and now look at you. Quote me where I call you a truther and show me where i call people who agree with you truthers. Go right ahead little fella. This again point to you being a fraud/troll. And don't bother responding, we already know that your reply is going to be "strawman'. try not to be so obvious OK? And try not to think that because multiple people think the same thing that it makes them correct. Especially when the subject is regarding opinion.


Can you show me where they claim that Delta Flight never existed in Loose Change 1? And btw they show clips from Loose Change 2 in the film, so it would be very dishonest to pick on Averys old film anyway and make out he still thinks that, even so you havent proven that was what was in Loose Change 1 to begin with. Can you do it or not?

I doubt the original versions are even still around. But they made no mention of the Delta flight. Heck, I bet if the archives on these forums go back far enough you can find the discussions on the subject. There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now. Each one doesn't add new stuff so much as it corrects the previous mistakes. Or at least the mistakes that they can no longer get away with.

And it still doesn't change the point that your whole argument about how they portray Dylan does not even exist. They aren't even saying that Dylan is claiming the Delta flight didn't exist (despite them claiming once that flight 93 was reported to have landed in Cleveland). You're simply using a very far fetched interpretation of the editing. One that pretty much proves you are trolling.

[Edx]

Kinda funny isn't it? You run around screaming about people putting words in your mouth and now look at you. Quote me where I call you a truther

... You cant be serious. You called and implied Im a truther so many times I was spoilt for choice. So how about I quote a few:

"8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) "

I don't need to pretend you are a truther. Your stereo typical behavior makes it obvious... 1000s of others who behave exactly like you and tout the same identical claims as you: "I am not a truther, you just want to pretend I am one to shut me up and not face the truth". My God, could you guys at least try to be original for once?

"Ed is the worst kind of Wooer there is. He's one of the usual ones who goes around pretending to be something he isn't (and doing a very bad job of it). Why is it the truth movement has to be so dishonest?"

As to your little appendix of disclaimers.[which was all about how I am not a truther] I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.


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!

Since all your posts are documented here I wonder why you had me go do that.


and show me where i call people who agree with you truthers. Go right ahead little fella.

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

And don't bother responding, we already know that your reply is going to be "strawman'.
Yea, you'd like me not to respond to this.

try not to be so obvious OK? And try not to think that because multiple people think the same thing that it makes them correct.

Im not saying that, Im saying other people agree with me here and you are calling them truthers as well to dismiss them.

I doubt the original versions are even still around. But they made no mention of the Delta flight.

According to Wikipedia, heres why:

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.

There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now.

It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

And it still doesn't change the point that your whole argument about how they portray Dylan does not even exist.

Even if you were right for the sake of argument and they really did omit mentioning Delta 1989 in Loose Change 1, if they started to quote from Loose Change 2, its dishonest to go back to a claim that they abandoned in Loose Change 1. I cant debunk a first edition of a book when its corrected itself in version 2, and then pretend version 2 is what I was talking about. Thats dishonest.

They aren't even saying that Dylan is claiming the Delta flight didn't exist (despite them claiming once that flight 93 was reported to have landed in Cleveland). You're simply using a very far fetched interpretation of the editing. .

Its not far fetched, they arent actually talking about the argument he made. Hows this difficult to understand? Loose Change 2 is what they quote from and actually says Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland and had its passeners taken off and questioned. The film says he thinks U93 landed at Cleveland and had its passengers removed, but that this was a mistake by the control room that mistook Delta 1989 for U93 implying that he is denying that. They then go even further and show a passenger and her ticket stub as if to show that "see I even have the boarding pass!."

[jaydeehess]

Edx, "Penn." is short for Pennsylvania, not Pentagon

[jaydeehess]

[QUOTE]Thats correct, they do say that.

Which IS the main point that the BBC is addressing.

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.

Why, oh why would Avery even mention Cleveland and the idea that U93 landed there at all if he also believes and knows that it was a confusion with D1989 and not in fact 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 LC or does LC not claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, it does!

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.


He does refuse to acknowledge it was a mistake. He claims that both planes landed there.

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

It goes without saying (but what the h___) , I disagree.

[jaydeehess]

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.



There were many many MANY such faults in the original LC, which is why they have made about 5 versions now.
It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

Which goes to my characterizing them as rewrites or revisions rather than sequels.

However, given the the story actually does change from version to version perhaps 'sequel' does fit if one looks at it as a work of fiction rather than a docuementary.

[Jonnyclueless]

... You cant be serious. You called and implied Im a truther so many times I was spoilt for choice. So how about I quote a few:

"8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) "

I don't need to pretend you are a truther. Your stereo typical behavior makes it obvious... 1000s of others who behave exactly like you and tout the same identical claims as you: "I am not a truther, you just want to pretend I am one to shut me up and not face the truth". My God, could you guys at least try to be original for once?

"Ed is the worst kind of Wooer there is. He's one of the usual ones who goes around pretending to be something he isn't (and doing a very bad job of it). Why is it the truth movement has to be so dishonest?"

As to your little appendix of disclaimers.[which was all about how I am not a truther] I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.


Exactly. Did I call you a truther? No I didn't. remember, we're playing YOUR game now. Do you enjoy it when people use your own tactics on you? Should I start playing victim now? One common trait of yours is that you cannot distinguish between someone discussing behavior and actual quotes. And this is why you have to keep derailing the thread about wether you are a truther or not or about who called who a truther. 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. 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. 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.

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

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?

Since all your posts are documented here I wonder why you had me go do that.

Again, are you trying to make a point?



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?

Yea, you'd like me not to respond to this.

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



Im not saying that, Im saying other people agree with me here and you are calling them truthers as well to dismiss them.

That again would be you lying. I don't dismiss what anyone here says nor do I think they are truthers because they agree with you. This is you being a hypocrite and doing exactly what you are falsely accusing everyone else here of doing. I made a logical argument that simply because others agree with one of your points does not make it correct. And you turn that into me calling them truthers? That's beyond dishonest and what constitutes lying.



According to Wikipedia, heres why:

"While the first edition asserted that Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, Loose Change 2nd Edition and Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut theorise that Flight 93 was actually flown to and landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The third edition returns to the theory put forward by the original film, that Flight 93 was shot down"

So according to this, it wasnt mentioned because he didnt even argue it landed at Cleveland in Loose Change 1.

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


It seems to be 4, but whos counting.

Obviously YOU.


Even if you were right for the sake of argument and they really did omit mentioning Delta 1989 in Loose Change 1, if they started to quote from Loose Change 2, its dishonest to go back to a claim that they abandoned in Loose Change 1. I cant debunk a first edition of a book when its corrected itself in version 2, and then pretend version 2 is what I was talking about. Thats dishonest.

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.



Its not far fetched, they arent actually talking about the argument he made. Hows this difficult to understand? Loose Change 2 is what they quote from and actually says Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland and had its passeners taken off and questioned. The film says he thinks U93 landed at Cleveland and had its passengers removed, but that this was a mistake by the control room that mistook Delta 1989 for U93 implying that he is denying that. They then go even further and show a passenger and her ticket stub as if to show that "see I even have the boarding pass!."

You do realize that they thought flight 93 landed in Cleveland because they got the flights mixed up right? The claim wasn't that both planes landed there. Your mistake is that you think that the segment is simply addressing LC. It's addressing the conspiracy theory that flight 93 was flown to Cleveland and therefore it could not have crashed. It's a claim not just made by LC, but many conspiracy sites. however, they were interviewing key people and Dylan was the only one of them whom addressed that issue. Do you see Fetzer making a film about that area? No, so they aren't going to put him just before the passenger clip, they chose Dylan because he was the only one.

This whole notion that they were trying to mislead people is in your head. It may be wrong of them because it wasn't obvious enough for some people such as yourself, but your claims that this proves they intentionally did so is wrong. Flat out wrong. Just like many of your claims such as IM warnings about 911 or the pancake claim. Just like your claim about them belittling Dylan because they chose a more polite way to describe his educational background.

[sleahead]

Edx, I'll give you your point about the drop-out remark. 'Film school reject' would have been much more appropriate. However, I don't see that you have any case with the Delta 1989 claim. Put simply, I think the BBC's reasoning goes like this:

Avery claims UA93 landed at Cleveland.

A plane did land at Cleveland. Was it it UA 93?

No, it was Delta 1989.

How do we know it was Delta 1989 and not UA93? Just because the govenment says so?

No. Here's a woman who was on board the Delta flight and here's the boarding pass that proves she was on board the flight.

No claim by Avery in relation to Delta 1989 is imputed.

[Edx]

Edx, "Penn." is short for Pennsylvania, not Pentagon

Oops, you're right. Sorry :)

They then go on to state that it landed in Cleveland. Thats correct, they do say that. Which IS the main point that the BBC is addressing.

Thats not Loose Changes point though. Its that they both landed at around the same time. They have no problem with Delta Flight 1989. They make some claims about what happened after the passengers disembarked, which they could have talked about or even asked the passenger they interviewed, but they didnt. They just implied Dylan was saying they didnt exist.

Why, oh why would Avery even mention Cleveland and the idea that U93 landed there at all if he also believes and knows that it was a confusion with D1989 and not in fact U93?

Have you actually watched the section in Loose Change? I did give you a link to the Loose Change Guide where you can read what it was he said about this.

There was confusion over Delta Flight 1989 being confused with U93. But Dylan wasnt disputing that, he didnt even dispute Delta Flight landed and had passengers removed.

Does LC or does LC not claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, it does!

Does Wally Miller not claim he saw no drops of blood? Yes, he does!

He does refuse to acknowledge it was a mistake. He claims that both planes landed there.

Thats right, he does, which is subtly yet substantially different from what the program tried to debunk. They didnt even acknowledge what the actual argument was about U93. I dont understand why not, they had the ability to. They even had the passenger there they could have asked about some of the things Dylan claimed about the passengers, but instead they were arguing against something he didnt say.

It goes without saying (but what the h___) , I disagree.

Thats okay, I dont mind if someone disagrees me as long as they are civil about it which you seem to be at the moment :) Rather refreshing after having to deal with certian other people.

Ed

[Gravy]

Does Wally Miller not claim he saw no drops of blood? Yes, he does! You do agree that Wally Miller saw and collected human remains at the scene on his arrival, and continued to do so for weeks, and personally identified 12 passengers through fingerprints and dental records, and collected and distributed to families the personal effects of the deceased, and has absolutely zero doubt that flight 93 crashed there, as is true with everyone who worked there,

right, Edx?

Or with you are we dealing with a whole new breed of denier?

[Edx]

Edx, I'll give you your point about the drop-out remark. 'Film school reject' would have been much more appropriate. However, I don't see that you have any case with the Delta 1989 claim. Put simply, I think the BBC's reasoning goes like this:

Avery claims UA93 landed at Cleveland.

A plane did land at Cleveland. Was it it UA 93?

No, it was Delta 1989.

How do we know it was Delta 1989 and not UA93? Just because the govenment says so?

No. Here's a woman who was on board the Delta flight and here's the boarding pass that proves she was on board the flight.

No claim by Avery in relation to Delta 1989 is imputed.

Look how you follow the reasoning of that section of the film. None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.

[sleahead]

None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.

No. They prove the passenger took the flight to show that it was the Delta flight that landed in Clevelend, not UA 93. This does not imply that Avery nor anyone else believes the Delta flight did not eixist.

[Edx]

You do agree that Wally Miller saw and collected human remains at the scene on his arrival, and continued to do so for weeks, and personally identified 12 passengers through fingerprints and dental records, and collected and distributed to families the personal effects of the deceased, and has absolutely zero doubt that flight 93 crashed there, as is true with everyone who worked there,

right, Edx?

Or with you are we dealing with a whole new breed of denier?

Im certainly not disputing that! If you read our conversation youd' have seen that my point was that Wally did say he saw no drops of blood, but that was taken out of context in not such a disimilar similar way.

[Edx]

No. They prove the passenger took the flight to show that it was the Delta flight that landed in Clevelend, not UA 93. This does not imply that Avery nor anyone else believes the Delta flight did not eixist.

What point is it to prove Delta Flight 1989 existed, and even show the ticket stub of the passenger if it isnt to prove the flight and passengers took the flight? None of that section address' the section in Loose Change, but it implies to the audience that Dylan is disputing what they try and show about D1989

[sleahead]

What point is it to prove Delta Flight 1989 existed, and even show the ticket stub of the passenger if it isnt to prove the flight and passengers took the flight? None of that section address' the section in Loose Change, but it implies to the audience that Dylan is disputing what they try and show about D1989

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.

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.

[Gravy]

Look how you follow the reasoning of that section of the film. None of it is actually addressing the argument Loose Change actually makes, they dont need to prove the passenger took the flight as if he denies Delta Flight actually existed.They addressed the fact, through several witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 did crash outside Shanksville.

Do you agree?

They also addressed the fact that the plane that was briefly mistaken for flight 93 (a mistake that was almost immediately retracted: a claim Loose Change omits) was indeed Delta 1989, which was the plane that landed at Cleveland with a suspected bomb on board: no other such plane landed there (Oh, and it had a passenger in first class who wouldn't get off his cell phone when in the air – another fact Loose Change omits).

Do you agree?

So, Edx, what salient facts did the BBC program omit? How did they misrepresent the truth?

[Gravy]

From Loose Change Second Edition:

However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville.

...It would seem that, on one day, for the second time in history, an entire plane, along with its passengers, disappeared upon impact.

...So if Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville, then where?

You ready for this? Cleveland.Allow me to refresh your memory about these claims. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1)

So, to sum up.
Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, was evacuated at 12:30, almost two and a half hours later, and 69 passengers were taken to FAA Headquarters. Flight 93 landed at 10:45 and evacuated within a half hour, 200 or so passengers quickly taken to an empty NASA Research Center. Why did it take 140 minutes to evacuate 69 passengers, when 200 were evacuated in a half hour?

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?Note that Avery claims that United 93 had about 200 passengers on board. United 93 had 44 people on board, including crew and hijackers.

I was there when these Looser scumbags came to New York City to tell the family members of the flight 93 murder victims that the story that their loved ones behaved heroically is a government lie, and that their loved ones did not speak their last known words to them by phone, but instead they were fooled by an evil government machine that sounded exactly like their loved ones.

I saw these vicious scumbags do that to the family members. The same scumbags whose video begins, "Dedicated to the lives we lost on 9/11/01."

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?

[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! :D

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 differentThey 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. :confused:

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.

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3417067&postcount=356), 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:D, 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:D,

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! :p

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 [I]{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.

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

So now you understand your own hypocrisy I hope? I understand that you missed the actual point of those comments and took them out of context. but do you understand your hypocrisy that those comments were pointing out?

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.

No you don't go to the primary sources and you have proven this to be the case by your use of false information that comes from truther web sites, not the original sources. Had you actually done so you would know that some of your claims that you used to say the documentary was a misrepresentation were completely false. And they weren't just wrong, but they were from unreliable sources. You cannot provide your source for the IM messages because if you did you would out yourself. Or if you went and found the real sources after the fact, it would also out you. Same with the pancake argument. That claim you made was not from valid sources, it's from truther web sites. The ONLY place you could have gotten that claim from is from the truther web sites. And yet you wonder why people think you are one. And you think people are stupid to think you can get around it by careful wording. you're a fraud, face it. You're dumb enough to even think you're being original. Yes, you ARE a truther. You wanna whine about me coming out and saying it.

YOU ARE A TRUTHER. Go ahead and cry.


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

NO YOU HAVE NOT.


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


Those were not the websites that refer to what we are talking about. And they do not confirm your 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.

NIST never made the pancake thoery. HELLO???? It was an initial assessment made by FEMA before they had any chance to collect data. A general guess. Not meant to be any kind of formal conclusion. It was never presented as an offical declaration or anything. This is where you are misleading people. And also, as has been pointed out, there was most certainly a pancake effect. The issue is the initiation. Not wether there was pancaking or not. Why are you making me repeat this stuff over and over?

And now you just say you're being overly picking in using false information to claim that the documentary was a hit job? And you are hurt that people are disagreeing with you???


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

Now you're acting like a complete idiot. Because I in no way EVER compared you to a KKK member. The fact that you actually think I did brings into question your comprehension ability. Now go back and READ. Don't just read the big capitol letters KKK and make assumptions. READ what I wrote before getting it completely wrong. If you have a hard time reading english, let me know and I will try to re-post it in a language of your choice. I won't even touch the murderer part because God only knows where your challenged mind got that from.


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

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now go READ what I actually wrote. It's getting very hard not to throw out insults here because this is absolutely absurd. GO READ WHAT I WROTE! lol!

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"

Ah yes, what makes people sensible is that they agree with you. Really logical there kid. I am obtuse yet you're the genius who thinks I compared you to hitler and call everyone who agrees with you on a single point also truthers like yourself. Learn to read. I can't say it enough, learn to read.

I am calling you a truther because you are using truther arguments from truther sources to use false information against a documentary that correctly protrays popular conspiracy theories. Your claim to not being one is that you agre with another documentary and that you didn't say you were one.

At east some people aren't cowards and don't go around pretending to be something they aren't.



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...



WTF??? Are you a complete idiot? GO READ WHAT I WROTE. No one can possibly be this stupid. No wonder you keep getting EVERYTHING wrong. Are you reading the same thread???? Are there some neurons not firing here? Please let us know so we can adjust to this absurdity.


Then dare I say it, your logic is faulty.

You have no business judging ANYONEs logic.

Here's your logic.

YOU: Well others agree with me (implying you are right).

ME: Well if a bunch of KKK members agree with each other, does them simply agreing make their beliefs correct?

YOU: Now you're calling me a Nazi!

You call that logic? YOU don't even get a simile. Forget about Dylan.


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.

Once again, learn to read. Reading is fundamental. It;s not what I meant and you should learn reading comprehension. You shouldn't read if you don't know how.

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.

No I did NOT. You cannot possibly be this incompetent. GO READ WHAT I WROTE. Please??????? Just do us a favor and go back and READ. Stop making this crap up. How many times do I have to explain it to you??

You make the argument that because they left out things that only YOU feel were important, that they are misrepresenting and being unfair. But that's not a fair argument since that can be made based on it being impossible to show everything. Anything short of everything leads to the argument "well they left important things out". Had they put in the things you wanted and left others out, then there would still be the argument that it's invalid because important things were left out.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Because only a complete idiot would translate that into me claiming you said they have to include everything? Do you now still feel that way?


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.

They weren't simply addressing him. They were addressing the conspiracy theory. Do you still not understand this? You seem to think that this is a documentary about LC and Dylan. it's not. They were showing the premise for the whole misunderstanding and how it started. This wasn't a direct response to his last clip. Of course this is about the 4th time I have already explained this. You just don't get it.


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.

Again, you just don't get it. And you probably never will. You have it completely wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. The problem isn't the film, it's your misunderstanding of it.


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.


yes they do, and they also talk about the whole background about how the whole misunderstanding came about. How it was a case of an initial misunderstanding that was then taken as a vehicle by the conspiracy theorists. A common tactic is taking false early reports and misleading people to believe they haven't been corrected. This isn't about simply LC. LC eventually under pressure had to fess up, but not everyone does. But more importantly, it was to show how these theories get started. just like many of the other points that you think are wrong. But the problem is simply you not understanding what the film is trying to show.

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.


There you go again, thinking this is a film about LC. There you go missing the point again. There is EVERY reason for them to do that, you just aren't getting it.


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.

Eventually it was what they said. But again, not the point. You jsut don't get it.


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! :D

Again, go back and watch it again, but instead of watching it with a truther mindset (yes I know you didn't claim to be one, so you can't be and that if I imply you are or outright say it then I am somehow accusing everyone who knows you of being a truther and of being in the KKK, etc blah blah blah more BS BS) of thinking it's a hit piece and see it for what it really is.

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

No they don't go debunking another one. Like many of the segments, they show how the conspiracies got started. They show why some people think there was a conspiracy behind flight 93 to begin with and how it all began. just like they do with the Jew warnings. They show how it got started. just like they do with the X files writer. They show how the rumors got started and the mindset that causes these things to happen. But you just don't get it. And It's pretty obvious as to why. Because all the truther propaganda films have a standard format. Here's what they claim/ here's the "truth". Back and forth. This one doesn't do that in the same way. You seem to think it does. it brings up a topic and talks about it, concentrating more on the reasoning behind it.

I know you aren't going to understand anything i said, but it's not for a lack of trying.

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

He's just not gonna get it.

[Walter Ego]

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3417067&postcount=356), 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?

It always gets back to you and how misunderstood and mistreated you are on this forum, doesn't it? I'm surprised you continue to put up with such dense and rude people. You truly have the patience of Job in your efforts to education us.

[Walter Ego]

He's just not gonna get it.

This thread reminds me of the story about the man who when to visit a farmer who was training a mule. The farmer starts out by knocking the mule up side the head with a two-by- four. Shocked, the man asks, ‘Why did you do that?’ Well, the farmer replied, ‘Mules are stubborn so first you have to get their attention.’

[Myriad]

Edx, when I evaluate some of your objections to the documentary's arguments and to the replies you've received this thread, it appears that you believe that there is some rule of discourse that says that it is somehow unfair to point out and address the implications of a statement, rather than only the literal statements made.

For instance, if someone said that my wife had been out walking the streets for money, I could counter-argue only to the effect that she was (a) not walking, (b) not on any streets, and/or (c) did not obtain any money. To point out that she went to the ATM would be bringing up irrelevant distracting facts because the accuser never said she didn't go to the ATM, and to state that she was not a prostitute would be misrepresenting the person's claim because the accuser didn't explicitly say she was.

Fortunately for people defending themselves and others from false insinuations, there is no such rule.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutely no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting to descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.

[DGM]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutley no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting do descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.
I agree with you. This thread has been an exorcise in pointless for pages now.

Simple fact is mainstream media is not un-bias and never has been and never will be. Mainstream media is driven by popular opinion (give them what they want). It's simply unrealistic to expect anything different, like it or not. I say drop it and move on.

[Jonnyclueless]

I feel as though I am the only person in this thread who comprehends what EDx is essentially getting at. He is not 'feeling sorry for the 'poor misunderstood' truthers'; he is simply pointing out that the BBC put a certain amount of spin on their documentary which the CTers could possibly use to their advantage, when there was absolutely no need to do so - the facts speak for themselves.

The guy is practically being labelled a truther by some, and frankly I think people are being overly hostile.

Also this thread is starting to descend into semantics.

As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with EDx - in my opinion there was a certain amount of unnecessary spin in the documentary which could potentially give Avery (and supporters) cause to whine about a 'hatchet job' and dismiss the documentary, when in actual fact he was 'pwned', as the kids do say.

No, we all understood that 11 pages ago. We know exactly what he means. Please don't pretend that because people disagree with him and are pointing out exactly why we think he is wrong means that we don't understand what he is saying. Some of us are disagreeing with his opinion BECAUSE we understand what he is saying. The problem you are pointing out is actually with Ed himself, not everyone else. he is trying to use the argument that everyone misunderstands him as a decoy. Then he goes off on these long tangents about people misunderstanding him which makes it look more that way. So whern Gravy throws in a side comment about him sympathizing with Dylan, or me calling him a truther, he focuses on those minor comments rather than what people are actually saying.

Unfortunately you don't get it. I suspect you haven't been reading every post. And I wouldn't blame you as it's too much for anyone to read. But if you had, you wouldn't be saying that.

You can agree that there is spin, there's nothing wrong with that. The part you ignored on Ed's part is his use of false information to make these claims. The crime here isn't him thinking they put spin on the film. it's him making false accusations and misleading information.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

No, we all understood that 11 pages ago. We know exactly what he means. Please don't pretend that because people disagree with him and are pointing out exactly why we think he is wrong means that we don't understand what he is saying. Some of us are disagreeing with his opinion BECAUSE we understand what he is saying. The problem you are pointing out is actually with Ed himself, not everyone else. he is trying to use the argument that everyone misunderstands him as a decoy. Then he goes off on these long tangents about people misunderstanding him which makes it look more that way. So whern Gravy throws in a side comment about him sympathizing with Dylan, or me calling him a truther, he focuses on those minor comments rather than what people are actually saying.

Unfortunately you don't get it. I suspect you haven't been reading every post. And I wouldn't blame you as it's too much for anyone to read. But if you had, you wouldn't be saying that.

You can agree that there is spin, there's nothing wrong with that. The part you ignored on Ed's part is his use of false information to make these claims. The crime here isn't him thinking they put spin on the film. it's him making false accusations and misleading information.

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

[tsig]

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

So we agree he's a concern troll.

Seems to me he's been claiming that the documentary was a hatchet job. He just uses his "concern" to avoid any real questions.

[jaydeehess]

Oh, I understand what Edx is getting at. I just don't agree that the BBC was doing what he accuses them of doing.
I saw a piece in which claims were made by Avery et al and in which actual facts were presented.

Is Dylan a drop-out? That seems to depend on what Dylan told the BBC and what the definition of "drop-out" is to the interviewer.

Does Dylan claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, he does (that's his latest story anyway, isn't it?). Does he acknowledge that D1989 landed there as well? Yes, he does. Does he give any details as to why D1989 was thought to have been the plane with a bomb? Yes, scant details, only enough so that his viewers do not question his contention that U93 landed there too. The BBC then goes into greater detail and shows why D1989 was confused as being U93. They also interview a passenger who tells of the actions of the police and what occured to her and her fellow passengers and then proves that she was on D1989 by producing a ticket. One very troubling aspect of the Troof is that they will always question whether or not a witness is a 'plant'. Perhaps that is why they had her prove she was on D1989.

As I said before, you want an example of a hatchet job, watch Micheal moore's films.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So we agree he's a concern troll.

Seems to me he's been claiming that the documentary was a hatchet job. He just uses his "concern" to avoid any real questions.

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

Thankyou.

[Jonnyclueless]

Other issues aside; you don't think it is perhaps a bit frustrating for the guy to be labelled a truther, or be accused of sympathising with the Truth Movement? He may (or may not) have his facts 100%, but his overriding concern seems to be why the BBC would potentially leave themselves open to cries of 'hatchet job' by the Truth Movement.

Could you quote some claims or provide some links as to where he provides or uses false information to base his claims of spin upon? Thankyou.

Labeling him a truther is just for the sake of treating others as they treat you. He came in calling people liars, so it's just to show him how it feels. And the comments you are referring to were not the part of the argument. It would be like me harping on you using the word hatchet and making the thread about your use of the word hatchet. Now if we kept going on and on about it, making the thread about the word hatchet, it would be easy to say it's unfair. But the point is that we aren't harping on these issues that you say he is being unfairly accused of. HE is. These were mere side comments that he is using to derail the thread and completely missing the actual posts that they were included in. He (and maybe you didn't notice either) that Gravy in his comment made some really valid points. Those went ignored. Instead what was focused on? Him making some side comment that didn't really mean much.

So what does that say? It says many people here are not really reading the posts and are just looking for excuses to dismiss them. Who gives a crap if he is a truther or sympathizing? It has nothing to do with the argument. Gravy for example is not arguing that he is being sympathetic, he is arguing that the guy is factually wrong.

And I apologize, but it's simply not worht my time to go through 11 pages of this thread to copy/paste the hundreds of examples, especially after I have had to address them repeatedly over and over already. It's like I covered them like 5 times each throughout the thread and people are saying "show me"? Again, this points to the issuer being that people aren't reading everything (understandably).

But do you also see that you are criticizing my posts, but not even aware of what my posts are about other than some side comments about calling someone a truther. What does that say? Some of those posts are extremely long and the only thing read is that part? Gravy on the last page made like 10 posts all bringing up exact quotes and showing exactly why Ed is wrong in his claim about how the film portrayed Dylan. And the response is "He called him a sympathizer?"

I mean who are we kidding here? This is what a troll does. Makes posts to try to get a rise out of people. Hence the focusing on the meaningless parts of the posts and completely ignoring the actual arguments.

[Jonnyclueless]

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

Thankyou.

I hope you do understand that none of those questions have anything to do with the discussion at hand. This is simply a further derailment of the thread.

[Horace Wheeljack]

I tend to agree with Satansmalevoicechoir that Ed has been harshly treated at times in this thread. I contributed to the thread early on and i was dismissive of Edx's claims, i still dont agree with Edx but i do now see his point about the 'drop out' tag, if i was working in the production team i would have argued against using that label, i would have said 'creator of loose change' is all that needs to be said, it is simple enough to expose Dylan's dishonesty without using this unnecessary term. I think its important to be 'whiter than white' when you are confronting dishonesty. I still dont believe this was a conscious decision to smear Dylan though, i think it was just poor judgement over a trivial point. It has been discussed to death but if they were trying to smear him they would have used the more accurate 'film school reject'

However i completely disagree with Edx's claims that the BBC were guilty of 'deception by ommission', they couldnt have covered every theory going and they also stayed away from some of the more whacky theories. So i dont accept this at all. I also think the bbc were entitled to use the x-files producer to provide insight into the psychology of truthers. They had presented the many lies and distortions of the truth movement throughout the programme so i feel they were right to try and explain what might motivate such people in the conclusion.

I dont believe Ed is a truther though. I think he's just over reacted to Avery and Jones' complaints. As we saw with the Popular mechanics piece, truthers will find any tenous link (Chertoff's cousin) to support their 'hit piece' theory. They would have been equally vitriolic with or without the 'drop out' tag.

[beachnut]

Oh, I understand what Edx is getting at. I just don't agree that the BBC was doing what he accuses them of doing.
I saw a piece in which claims were made by Avery et al and in which actual facts were presented.

Is Dylan a drop-out? That seems to depend on what Dylan told the BBC and what the definition of "drop-out" is to the interviewer.

Does Dylan claim that U93 landed in Cleveland? Yes, he does (that's his latest story anyway, isn't it?). Does he acknowledge that D1989 landed there as well? Yes, he does. Does he give any details as to why D1989 was thought to have been the plane with a bomb? Yes, scant details, only enough so that his viewers do not question his contention that U93 landed there too. The BBC then goes into greater detail and shows why D1989 was confused as being U93. They also interview a passenger who tells of the actions of the police and what occured to her and her fellow passengers and then proves that she was on D1989 by producing a ticket. One very troubling aspect of the Troof is that they will always question whether or not a witness is a 'plant'. Perhaps that is why they had her prove she was on D1989.

As I said before, you want an example of a hatchet job, watch Micheal moore's films.
He demonstrates lack knowledge on 9/11. Your post clears the smoke screen; his ignorance on the subject. I can not follow his reasoning. He lacks a basic knowledge of Dylan's work. Using what Alex Jones says; a red flag for lack of knowledge and a partiality to the lies and misinformation Alex Jones peddles. It impossible to follow his logic, when he neglects key points and twists them around. He calls the discussion he started a pointless debate, and then returns with a vengeance to make it more pointless. I expected edx to gain knowledge slowly, despite the truth movement "twaddle" laden posts and faulty logic. He would do best to read and study, instead of picking the most trivial "claptrap" to pound deep into what he labels "pointless" debate.

Darn, all this junk to say, your post was concise; good job.

[cisco]

I tend to agree with Satansmalevoicechoir that Ed has been harshly treated at times in this thread. I contributed to the thread early on and i was dismissive of Edx's claims, i still dont agree with Edx but i do now see his point about the 'drop out' tag, if i was working in the production team i would have argued against using that label, i would have said 'creator of loose change' is all that needs to be said, it is simple enough to expose Dylan's dishonesty without using this unnecessary term. I think its important to be 'whiter than white' when you are confronting dishonesty. I still dont believe this was a conscious decision to smear Dylan though, i think it was just poor judgement over a trivial point. It has been discussed to death but if they were trying to smear him they would have used the more accurate 'film school reject'

They didn't just call him a dropout, though. They called him a self-confessed dropout. To whom did he refer to himself as a dropout? That's who needs to be asked before anyone loses their panties over this, and that's why Edx's complaint has no merit in my eyes.

Until further proof is established, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the BBC over known liar and story-changer Dylan Avery.

[Edx]

They didn't just call him a dropout, though. They called him a self-confessed dropout. To whom did he refer to himself as a dropout? That's who needs to be asked before anyone loses their panties over this, and that's why Edx's complaint has no merit in my eyes.

Until further proof is established, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the BBC over known liar and story-changer Dylan Avery.

Already replied to this idea many times, but you may have missed it last time you asked 2 pages back. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415578&postcount=331

[Edx]

"A concern troll"?! New one on me.

As far as avoiding real questions go, there's only one way to settle this:
Jon is telling porkies and knows it, I have never avoided real questions. I alwasy replied to every point, if someone thinks I missed something critical I say tell me where and I'll respond. Jonny also keeps saying Ive never told him what sources I was refering to about the instant message warnings. And when I call him on his claim that he never called me a truther (even though he and others did, specifically not just implied, many times (in addition to also being called an anti-semite!), he says he was only trying to show my hypocrisy. :rolleyes::D

EDx; in order to enable people here to fully understand your motives, can you answer the following questions as directly as possible:

I'd be happy to. :)

1. Is your primary concern that the BBC have perhaps left themselves open to accusations of a 'hatchet job' by the truth movement, thereby detracting from the actual debunking of Avery's claims?

Theres a few points. That is certainly one of them. I have tried to draw a parallel between Creationism many times as to try and show why I'd be annoyed with a similar film doing what Conspiracy Files did to 911 CTs, with a film on Creationism. I think Creationists are wrong 100% of the time, and Ive spent a lot of time arguing against their nonsence. But I wouldnt just be annoyed with the BBC for making a documentary that misrepresented their arguments, I'd be annoyed with the producer for feeling they had to try and make them look worse than they are. Also, I'd be more forgiving if the program claimed to be "debunking" CT claims, but it isnt. It claims to be a fair and honest objective investigation, so that makes it even worse.

Personal emotions regarding 911 aside (Gravy), I think the facts should stand on their own. You shouldnt need to misrepresent someones argument if you are right. If two people are arguing about a topic and they both misrepresent each other its pretty annoying, I want to get to the truth and that wont happen that way. I hate when I sometimes see some rude idiot arguing with a Creationist. In the end I think should apply the same standards you expect of others to yourself. I think Conspiracy Files was a wasted opportunity.

2. Do you have any sympathy towards Avery or his beliefs?
I dont have sympathy towards Avery. What I dislike is he produced a film (Loose Change) that was based on speculation and ignorence. If he admitted what it was he did that wouldnt be so bad, but even when he made the followups I keep hearing him say that at least most of the things they cut out havent been disproved! I dont understand that. He really cant seen to admit when he is wrong, as the OP only hints at. I cant remember what that Ex-Truthers website is called but I saw a link on here for it not long ago, I saw a video on there which showed Dylan being very insensitive to some poor lady whoes husband had died. Not cool Dylan. Why did he have to be the poster child for people skeptical of 911 offical claims?

Alex Jones is similar. I have a weird like-dislike of Alex Jones because he has brought to attention things in the mainstream press hasnt. I dont think I'd have looked into things like the Patriot Act quite as fully if it wasnt for him. I think the general idea of reporting stories no one else seems to give much attention to is an admirable one. But unfortunatly, I conclude the same thing about him as the Channel 4 Producer guy (whos name escapes me) that went with him to Bohemium Grove and then made his own documentary on the Bilderberg (which was very nicely done and an example of what Conspriacy Files should have been btw). I watched Alex' film first and kept wondering at the time, because I couldnt understand why he kept saying the Owl was meant to be this Moloch deity and I couldnt understand why he had to put Carmen Burana music over the top while slamming us with his sensationalism. I went to his website and tried to find the reason why he thought it was Moloch, I couldnt find anything. I couldnt find anything to back up the leaps from a genuine concern about what might happen at Bohenium Grove to Satan worship! What he did was great, getting in there and filming this thing that no one else had been able to do. But why could he not just report on the facts, instead of trying to bash his own speculative opinion over peoples heads? So I wish Alex was more skeptical, he does collect a lot of interestesing news reports and research. I really think its a shame that if only he could cover that with some skepticism he could be a really awesome journalist. Because of that, anything good I have to say is invariably outweighted by the ton of bad. I hate having to crosscheck everything he says because they almost always contain so much speculation I cant just take his word for it. He also goes so mental sometimes, I saw a link on Gravys site to one of his radio shows and he just goes absolutely off his nut crazy, so I dont think he'll ever change. Funniest thing I'd ever heard though. :D

As far as his overall beliefs, I tend to be in some way sympathetic, but I'll explain why because its not in the way that you might think. I think 911 Truth is a vast wasted opportunity to voice real concerns regarding the governments competence prior to 911 and their actions after it. So I am far more sympathetic with films like Press for Truth, which essentially concludes much the same as Conspiracy Files ironically.

3. Regarding the events of 11 Sep 01, do you completely support the official account; support it - but with certain reservations; believe the Government LIHOP/MIHOP - or a variation on one or both? Or do you simply have no firm idea either way?

I do have some "reservations", but I know not to claim I have evidence enough to actually say the things most 911 Truthers do. And you see this is the funny thing, I agree with Conspriacy Files' conclusion. Ive said so several times.

[DGM]

Edx:
You have mentioned an interest in the "Patriot act". I for one would like to see what your concerns are and possibly start a discussion on them. Do you have any interest in starting a new thread on this so these concerns can be addressed? If so why don't you?

[Edx]

[COLOR=black] It impossible to follow his logic, when he neglects key points and twists them around.

Show which points I have neglected, and how I have twisted them around. Just one or two will do.

[cisco]

Already replied to this idea many times, but you may have missed it last time you asked 2 pages back. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415578&postcount=331
Wrong. Your reply is a non sequitur, and one I've responded to (that'll teach me to respond to non sequiturs!)

Why don't you go and read this post from a few pages back (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415633&postcount=333) and then post a topical reply.

[Edx]

Edx:
You have mentioned an interest in the "Patriot act". I for one would like to see what your concerns are and possibly start a discussion on them. Do you have any interest in starting a new thread on this so these concerns can be addressed? If so why don't you?

I would like to, maybe another time. I still need to get around to repling to gumboot on Norad. And considering the crazy reactions I got to what I thought was an at least an understandable criticism of a documentary, ie. its not actually that fair and balanced, Im somewhat apprehensive about jumping in again.

[Edx]

Wrong. Your reply is a non sequitur, and one I've responded to (that'll teach me to respond to non sequiturs!)

Why don't you go and read this post from a few pages back (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415633&postcount=333) and then post a topical reply.

I apologise, I missed that responce.

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."

Thats very speculative. Guy Smith is the producer, he also is the one that interviewed Dylan. When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy smith says all a drop out means in England is that you didnt go to University. He said "self confessed" therefore before Dylan did tell him he never attended University. Theres nothing in Guys responce to suggest what you're saying.

[DGM]

I would like to, maybe another time. I still need to get around to repling to gumboot on Norad. And considering the crazy reactions I got to what I thought was an at least an understandable criticism of a documentary, ie. its not actually that fair and balanced, Im somewhat apprehensive about jumping in again.
Understandable:
One observation that I have made it this thread that you may benefit from if you don't mind. Your point is not completely clear, You need to state more clearly your intentions for your criticisms (like it or not some of your arguments lead to the assumption that you are a full out "truther"). This is a skeptics site that has seen more than it's fair share of "just asking questions" from people that have no intention of listening to answers. I agree that you are getting bombed for opinions that I don't think you hold but most of this you seem to have brought on yourself. Don't be afraid to ask for clarification from other posters as to what they mean (you have fallen into the trap of misunderstanding many times). Also I would suggest not to dwell on the minute details when an argument becomes futile, This only prolongs and obscures the point you were trying to make in the first place.

Good luck with the NORAD argument. Gumboot has done outstanding research on this subject.

DGM

[cisco]

Thats very speculative. Guy Smith is the producer, he also is the one that interviewed Dylan. When asked why he called Dylan a drop out, Guy smith says all a drop out means in England is that you didnt go to University. He said "self confessed" therefore before Dylan did tell him he never attended University. Theres nothing in Guys responce to suggest what you're saying.
Nothing . . . except the preinterview where most of the non-televised info is gathered, which is typically done by a different person. I say your theory is just as speculative as mine if not more, and you're jumping to conclusions.

If this really concerns you so much you need to contact the BBC and get to the bottom of it. It would take a fraction of the time and energy you've poured into arguing about it on the internet.

[Walter Ego]

I would suggest not to dwell on the minute details when an argument becomes futile, This only prolongs and obscures the point you were trying to make in the first place.



Good advice. Just stick with something simple like 'the Jews did it.'

[Edx]

Labeling him a truther is just for the sake of treating others as they treat you. He came in calling people liars, so it's just to show him how it feels.
Why dont you go back and see at what point I started saying the program was "lying".

And since you're just being noble I suppose I can ignore all your posts as all they contain are personal attacks and strawmen because you say you're just trying to teach me some kind of lesson.

were mere side comments that he is using to derail the thread and completely missing the actual posts that they were included in.

No, I was asked why I didnt like the rest of the documentary, so I replied.

He (and maybe you didn't notice either) that Gravy in his comment made some really valid points. Those went ignored. Instead what was focused on? Him making some side comment that didn't really mean much.

Show me one place I ignored something.

Gravy for example is not arguing that he is being sympathetic, he is arguing that the guy is factually wrong.

Jonny, do you really want me to go back and get quotes for you to prove that he did actually argue I was being sympathetic to Dylan and truthers? Unlike you I will back up my accusations.

And I apologize, but it's simply not worht my time to go through 11 pages of this thread to copy/paste the hundreds of examples, especially after I have had to address them repeatedly over and over already.

You're just irony on fire.

Gravy on the last page made like 10 posts all bringing up exact quotes and showing exactly why Ed is wrong in his claim about how the film portrayed Dylan. And the response is "He called him a sympathizer?"

If thats all you saw you didnt really read my reply. Maybe you're just trying to teach me another one of your lessons

[Edx]

Nothing . . . except the preinterview where most of the non-televised info is gathered, which is typically done by a different person. I say your theory is just as speculative as mine if not more, and you're jumping to conclusions.

If this really concerns you so much you need to contact the BBC and get to the bottom of it. It would take a fraction of the time and energy you've poured into arguing about it on the internet.

As much as I hate to keep talking about this point, once more...

If we assume that was true you're saying suggesting he didnt know what was in his own script, because he could have replied that someone else told him that Dylan had said he was a drop out. Or, he could have stepped in at the time and asked the researcher/s why they were calling Dylan a drop out when he told Guy he didnt go to University. He could have said or implied any of this in his responce to the comment, but he just said drop out means someone who didnt go to University and so didnt have the negative connotation that it does in the US

[Edx]

Good advice. Just stick with something simple like 'the Jews did it.'

Following DGMs advise, are you suggesting that I have ever said that?

[tsig]

Why dont you go back and see at what point I started saying the program was "lying".

And since you're just being noble I suppose I can ignore all your posts as all they contain are personal attacks and strawmen because you say you're just trying to teach me some kind of lesson.



No, I was asked why I didnt like the rest of the documentary, so I replied.



Show me one place I ignored something.



Jonny, do you really want me to go back and get quotes for you to prove that he did actually argue I was being sympathetic to Dylan and truthers? Unlike you I will back up my accusations.



You're just irony on fire.



Not true, you didnt read my reply. Maybe you're just trying to teach me another one of your lessons

EDx here's what I've seen you bring up. You were so concerned that Dylan had been called a drop out, then you were concerned that his position on flight 93 was being misconstrued and finally that the "4000 Jews were warned" had not been explained properly and that there was a "grain of truth there" .


When all these things were explained in excruciating detail you just went back to your original assertion.

You seem to want to sit on the the fence and throw rocks both ways.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Labeling him a truther is just for the sake of treating others as they treat you. He came in calling people liars (edit)

And I apologize, but it's simply not worht my time to go through 11 pages of this thread to copy/paste the hundreds of examples, especially after I have had to address them repeatedly over and over already. It's like I covered them like 5 times each throughout the thread and people are saying "show me"? Again, this points to the issuer being that people aren't reading everything (understandably).

You make the claim that he has lied Johnny, but as always the burden of proof is on you to provide examples of Edx's "hundreds" of lies.

I also don't feel my questions to EDx were off-topic; the OP was not much more specific than "here's a video clip"; my questions to EDx were to help me (others) understand his reasoning and motivation behind his complaints about the video.

Regarding Edx's answers to my questions; thankyou, and 'fair enough'.

[DGM]

Following DGMs advise, are you suggesting that I have ever said that?
One last piece of advice:
No one wins a pissing contest. (although extra points are added if your's is not in your own penmanship)

[tsig]

As much as I hate to keep talking about this point, once more...

If we assume that was true you're saying suggesting he didnt know what was in his own script, because he could have replied that someone else told him that Dylan had said he was a drop out. Or, he could have stepped in at the time and asked the researcher/s why they were calling Dylan a drop out when he told Guy he didnt go to University. He could have said or implied any of this in his responce to the comment, but he just said drop out means someone who didnt go to University and so didnt have the negative connotation that it does in the US

Let it drop-out of this thread.

I feel your repeated use of the same argument in the same words post after post is close to the line

[Edx]

I also think the bbc were entitled to use the x-files producer to provide insight into the psychology of truthers. .

Just a small thing, I wasnt suggesting he irrelevant to bring on. Because of the Long Gunmen episode, he certianly was relevabt. But one of my points was because people said they didnt have enough time to cover any of the points I brought up, they I didnt feel it was necessary to tstay on X-Files and Spotniz for around 10 minutes. Im sure they could have cut that down if they wanted to include more information.

[Edx]

Let it drop-out of this thread.

I feel your repeated use of the same argument in the same words post after post is close to the line

Believe me I dont like having to repeat myself :D

[tsig]

One last piece of advice:
No one wins a pissing contest. (although extra points are added if your's is not in your own penmanship)

Gee I always thought the rule was " He who drinks the most beer pisses the longest" but then I was never conscious long enough to prove it.

[Walter Ego]

EDx here's what I've seen you bring up. You were so concerned that Dylan had been called a drop out, then you were concerned that his position on flight 93 was being misconstrued and finally that the "4000 Jews were warned" had not been explained properly and that there was a "grain of truth there" .


When all these things were explained in excruciating detail you just went back to your original assertion.

You seem to want to sit on the the fence and throw rocks both ways.


We agreed several hundred posts ago the dropout characterization was irrelevant to the discussion but Edx keeps bringing it up. He also complains continuously that he’s being misunderstood.

I started this thread hoping some people would watch my little video and now it’s a runaway train . (Yes, I know I don’t own the thread but still...) Edx began ignoring me pages ago and now I’m doing the same with him. Good luck to the rest of you butting your heads up against the brick wall.

[cisco]

As much as I hate to keep talking about this point, once more...

If we assume that was true you're saying suggesting he didnt know what was in his own script, because he could have replied that someone else told him that Dylan had said he was a drop out.Already covered in my earlier post. Or, he could have stepped in at the time and asked the researcher/s why they were calling Dylan a drop out when he told Guy he didnt go to University.You don't know what he told Guy! That's my whole point - you're speculating just as much as anyone else. He could have said or implied any of this in his responce to the comment, but he just said drop out means someone who didnt go to University and so didnt have the negative connotation that it does in the USYou never responded to my question several pages back: could the term mean something different to an older person?

You also didn't respond to the part in my recent post where I suggested you contact the BBC. Have you started working on that yet?

[Edx]

EDx here's what I've seen you bring up. You were so concerned that Dylan had been called a drop out,
Yes, that I felt was unreasonable considering Guy Smith said drop out didnt mean you dropped out of anything and it wasnt something negative in the UK.

then you were concerned that his position on flight 93 was being misconstrued

Yes well I still think it wasnt addressing what Loose Change claimed, and mostly seemed to try and disprove something that wasnt disputed.

and finally that the "4000 Jews were warned" had not been explained properly and that there was a "grain of truth there" .

I have accepted the two original stories may not be connected because I cant prove they are, but they are dealing with similar issues. Israeli warnings of 911, and I have seen both stories and the myth getting mixed up. So I feel that if someone only knew what Conspiracy Files told them, they'd assume that if someone said some employees of an Israeli company got warnings prior to 911, that this the same claim Conspiracy Files debunked. Maybe this was just an honest oversight, but I still think its an oversight.

When all these things were explained in excruciating detail you just went back to your original assertion.

There were more points (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185), but those are 3 yes. You make it sound like I accepted their points? I still dont.

[Edx]

Already covered in my earlier post.

All of what you suggested are good points but it doesnt fit Guy Smiths responce. You said the research could have been done by someone else, so Guy could have said that. He didnt. He could have said that his researchers had told him Avery said he was a drop out. He didnt. All he did do in responce to Averys question is accept what Avery had told him about not dropping out of something he never attended, and then say in the Uk it doesnt mean you dropped out of something and so in the UK it doesnt mean something negative. If he is trying to defend his researcher with the same bull, I obviously have the same problem.

ould the term mean something different to an older person?

If so you should be able to find some examples of someone using it like he did. I have never heard anyone using it that way, and never known anyone ever using it that way and several rather a lot quieter people here have agreed with that. I cant prove a negative, so if you wanted to say this is what happened, then you'd have to show that.

You also didn't respond to the part in my recent post where I suggested you contact the BBC. Have you started working on that yet?
I only cared enough to argue about it here because people seemed to be so obtuse with me. I dont care that much, its not like anything would be done anyway.

[Edx]

We agreed several hundred posts ago the dropout characterization was irrelevant to the discussion but Edx keeps bringing it up. He also complains continuously that he’s being misunderstood.

Actually other people keep bringing it up, I keep replying or they say Im ignoring them. I stopping "bringing it up "in page 5, if you had noticed.

Edx began ignoring me pages ago and now I’m doing the same with him. Good luck to the rest of you butting your heads up against the brick wall.
Of course I ignored you, you were personally attacking me for no reason.

[cisco]

All of what you suggested are good points but it doesnt fit Guy Smiths responce. You said the research could have been done by someone else, so Guy could have said that. He didnt. He could have said that his researchers had told him Avery said he was a drop out. He didnt. All he did do in responce to Averys question is accept what Avery had told him about not dropping out of something he never attended, and then say in the Uk it doesnt mean you dropped out of something and so in the UK it doesnt mean something negative. If he is trying to defend his researcher with the same bull, I obviously have the same problem.


He didn't triple factcheck it because it's an insignificant point! If Dylan claimed to be a dropout why should he investigate any further? His "it's used different here" response was either handwaving an insignificant point, or it really is used differently by some people. Either way, you're speculating.

You accuse us of strawmen and you build strawmen.
You accuse us of speculating and you speculate.
You accuse us of putting words in your mouth and you put words in our mouths.
You accuse people of spinning things their way and you drastically spin things your way.

You're a hypocrite, dude.

[tsig]

We agreed several hundred posts ago the dropout characterization was irrelevant to the discussion but Edx keeps bringing it up. He also complains continuously that he’s being misunderstood.

I started this thread hoping some people would watch my little video and now it’s a runaway train . (Yes, I know I don’t own the thread but still...) Edx began ignoring me pages ago and now I’m doing the same with him. Good luck to the rest of you butting your heads up against the brick wall.

Funny he should complain about being misunderstood.

Look at comment #440 where he completely misunderstands my final sentence.

I'm done here it's impossible to communicate with someone who can read "white" but understand "black".

I still think there is the mark of woo there but i do not care enough to tease it out of him.

Bye-all.

[Walter Ego]

Funny he should complain about being misunderstood.

Look at comment #440 where he completely misunderstands my final sentence.


I can't read comment #440. Guess why.

I'm done here it's impossible to communicate with someone who can read "white" but understand "black".

I still think there is the mark of woo there but i do not care enough to tease it out of him.

Bye-all.


There’s a certain type of dunderhead who will cease on any minor inconsistency (they called Dylan a dropout, he is not a dropout!) and worry it to death like a dog with a favorite bone. Edx is a university student in the UK (he says). Can you imagine how much fun he is in classroom discussions? There must be clumps of hair on those classroom floors… pulled out by professors from their own heads in frustration.

[Edx]

You cannot provide your source for the IM messages because if you did you would out yourself.

Yea, not even once (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3413004&postcount=248) right?


Same with the pancake argument. That claim you made was not from valid sources, it's from truther web sites.

Depends what you claim Im saying about the pancake theory.

Those were not the websites that refer to what we are talking about. And they do not confirm your claims.

What do you say my claims are regarding the instant messages?

NIST never made the pancake thoery. HELLO???? It was an initial assessment made by FEMA before they had any chance to collect data.

Read what I wrote, i didnt say NIST made the pancake theory I said they were shown to be inaccurate by NIST. Inaccurate doesnt mean totally wrong.

A general guess. Not meant to be any kind of formal conclusion. It was never presented as an offical declaration or anything. This is where you are misleading people.
No, you're pretending I said something I didnt.

And also, as has been pointed out, there was most certainly a pancake effect. The issue is the initiation. Not wether there was pancaking or not.
Evolution can still be right while the "theory" is flawed. Its also the graphic itself that is inaccurate, but I said I was being picky! I explained it was to point out a possible factual error. Yet you keep harping on about it as if its some big point of mine.

Why are you making me repeat this stuff over and over?
Why do I have to repeat myself to show Im not saying what you say Im saying? :boggled:

And you are hurt that people are disagreeing with you???
Several people have disagreed with me, I dont care. Its the way they do it.

Now you're acting like a complete idiot. Because I in no way EVER compared you to a KKK member.

Well you gave an analogy and decided to pick a "KKK member", then you did the same with a murderer. Not the nicest way to make your point, is it?

...HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now go READ what I actually wrote. It's getting very hard not to throw out insults here because this is absolutely absurd. GO READ WHAT I WROTE! lol!
Trying to teach me a 'lesson' again by acting this way?

YOU: Well others agree with me (implying you are right).

No I was implying other people agree with me but that you arent attacking them like you are me. I can see how you might misunderstand me, but Im glad you do understand what "implication" means. Maybe you should apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.

ME: Well if a bunch of KKK members agree with each other, does them simply agreing make their beliefs correct?

Except 1. I never said it made them correct. 2. Saying KKK members agree with each other is implying its easy to find truthers that agree with each other.


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.

No I did NOT.

Really?

"He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue,"

" then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show."

"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.

" your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part.

Once again pointing out your strawman argument in that anything short of "everything" would allow your argument.

[emphasis mine]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Because only a complete idiot would translate that into me claiming you said they have to include everything? Do you now still feel that way?

Ahh so only a complete idiot would look at the quotes from you above and think my interpretation was right? Really... well you sure showed me.

{snipped rest, no point repeating myself}

{i also snipped most of the insults and personal attacks}

Ed

[Edx]

Funny he should complain about being misunderstood.

Look at comment #440 where he completely misunderstands my final sentence.

I asked you what you meant with a polite and civil question. :confused: Apparently thats the same as attacking someone without bothering to ask what they think.

[cisco]

Edx is a university student in the UK (he says). Can you imagine how much fun he is in classroom discussions?
"You said the cow jumped over the moon. If you watch the tape she clearly leaped. SHE LEAPED!!!!! Oh for the love of humanity why won't anybody listen to me? The sheeple are going to think she jumped!"

[Edx]

He didn't triple factcheck it because it's an insignificant point! If Dylan claimed to be a dropout why should he investigate any further? His "it's used different here" response was either handwaving an insignificant point, or it really is used differently by some people. Either way, you're speculating.

If thats true, he didnt say it. If thats true, he wouldnt have said drop out is not a negative term in the UK. If he is defending his researcher, then hand waving is not a positive thing to say about him. If it was a term used that way by some people, no ones been able to show any example of that.

You're a hypocrite, dude.
You cant show me once where I have ever done what you say Ive done. And if Im twisting the drop out comment then so are the other people that have agreed with me, but you arent badgering them about it are you? But thats right just fixate on me.

[tsig]

"You said the cow jumped over the moon. If you watch the tape she clearly leaped. SHE LEAPED!!!!! Oh for the love of humanity why won't anybody listen to me? The sheeple are going to think she jumped!"

It wasn't a cow it was clearly cattle.

(Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows (though technically cow refers only to female bovines), are domesticated ungulates, a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae.(Wikipedia))

I don't know why you would slander a female bovine so, but you are mistaken. You are giving ammunition to those who want to do a hatchet job on the bovine-moon theory.

I don't think it was a real moon either.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yea, not even once (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3413004&postcount=248) right?

My God. Look at those sources. No wonder you have bad information. Remind me to use some blogs and call that a source. Now look at the sentence the columist uses:

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen"

But where is the quote? What did the guy actually say? The quotes you do find from him (Micha Macover) are all of him saying that the was nothing related to the WTC in the message. Yet isn't it funny how you ONLY look for vague articles by vague sources that paraphrase? And YOU are the one who is claiming misrepresentation? YOU? The one who goes and sorts through all the reports and finds the ones that are the most misleading? You're a con artist. It's that simple. You don't bring up any credible articles because you just wanted the ones that make it look like there was some kind of conspiracy theory. hence the need to use archives because the sources don't even last long enough.


Depends what you claim Im saying about the pancake theory. What do you think they are?

Are you on drugs? What does what I think pancaking is have to do with anything? You are claiming the pancaking graphics were wrong. They are NOT. This again stems from FEMA initially guesing that the collapse was started by pancaking. it wasn't. But the conspiracy sites which you use for your research try to mislead people by claiming that there wasn't pancaking period. This is 100% wrong. And this proves you are using conspiracy sites as your source.


What do you say my claims are regarding the instant messages?

You said that warnings of the attacks were sent. Why are you asking me what you wrote in this very thread?



Read what I wrote, i didnt say NIST made the pancake theory I said they were shown to be inaccurate by NIST. Inaccurate doesnt mean totally wrong.

And there you are WRONG. 100% WRONG. I have pointed out WHY you are wrong. You haven't bothered to read. And you said NIST backed away from the pancake claim. Which means that at some point they were behind it. That is WRONG. And there is no dispute over inaccurate here. There is the difference between the initiation and post-initiation. There was absolutely pancaking. No one denies this except the conspiracy sites. NIST points this out very clearly. Nothing inaccurate about it. You're simply mis-using a popular conspiracy claim.

No, you're pretending I said something I didnt.

There you go pretending again. Stop being such a coward.


Evolution can still be right while the "theory" is flawed. Its also the graphic itself that is inaccurate, but I said I was being picky! I explained it was to point out a possible factual error. Yet you keep harping on about it as if its some big point of mine.

Once again, the graphic is in no way inaccurate. Please back this claim up for once. Don't just make ignorant statements that it's inaccurate. WHY is it inaccurate? I keep harping about how it's a big point of yours? Like you keep harping about people saying you are saying something you aren't or calling you a truther?

YOU are the one making baseless claims about the film. YOU are the one using false information to do so. YOU made the point, you made many points. You can easily claim that none of them are a big point. But you made them. You made a lot of false and baseless claims. And it's not a factual error except for on your part.


Why do I have to repeat myself to show Im not saying what you say Im saying? :boggled:

Because you're clearly delusional. Oh the irony in you complaining about repeating yourself. I think everything I have had to say in the past 10 posts of mine are me repeating to you everything I already said because you don't get it. You're a typical troll.


Several people have disagreed with me, I dont care. Its the way they do it.

So then by your logic you are wrong because people disagree with you. Wouldn't that make sense since you implied that since others agree with you it must give you merit? It was your response to me saying you were wrong. And I don't care what you think about the way people do it. If you can't handle people pointing out your false and baseless claims, then you shouldn't be in a discussion forum. If you want to come in calling people liars and using false information as an excuse to make your opinion seem more valid, then expect to be called on it.


Well you gave an analogy and decided to pick a "KKK member", then you did the same with a murderer. Not the nicest way to make your point, is it? And you also didnt call be a truther either. I know I know...

And anyone who doesn't get the simile is a complete idiot. It seems you don't understand the simile. All you see is "KKK" and not the point. Gosh, you're just a genius.

Trying to teach me a "lesson" again by acting this way?

Wow, you don't get anything do you? I treat you the way you treat others. The real crime here is your ignorance of your own behavior.



No I was implying other people agree with me but that you arent attacking them like you are me. I can see how you might misunderstand me, but but Im glad you do understand what "implication" means. Maybe you should apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others.

Those other people (which I think is 1 person) are not making false claims. As has been pointed out but you are incapable of reading is that the issue is not people thinking the film is unfair. It's you using false information to mislead people as to why.


Except 1. I never said it made them correct. 2. Saying KKK members agree with each other is implying its easy to find truthers that agree with each other.

Only a complete idiot would think that's what it means. Anyone who has at least a 1st grade education would understand that it simply means having someone agree with you does not make your claims correct.



Really?

"He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue,"

" then the standard wooer tactic of making the argument that because they didn't include all of the nonsense theories that somehow it legitamizes the ones they did show."

"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.

" your argument that unless they include EVERYONE that YOU deem right somehow makes it unbalanced is a completely bogus argument on your part.

Once again pointing out your strawman argument in that anything short of "everything" would allow your argument.

[emphasis mine]



Ahh so only a complete idiot would look at the quotes from you above and think my interpretation was right? Really... well you sure showed me.

{snipped rest, no point repeating myself}

{i also snipped most of the insults and personal attacks}



Thank you for proving my point with those quotes. Notice the terms such as "using xxx tactics", "standard xxx tactic". Notice the attack is on the tactics used. This is what you claim is directly calling you something. This is where you become a hypocrite. The claims didn't accuse you of being a truther, they accused you of using such tactics. But only an idiot wouldn't get that.

Now learn to read. Learn the difference between personally attacking someone and a behavior. And lastly, please grow up.

[Jonnyclueless]

If so you should be able to find some examples of someone using it like he did. I have never heard anyone using it that way, and never known anyone ever using it that way and several rather a lot quieter people here have agreed with that. I cant prove a negative, so if you wanted to say this is what happened, then you'd have to show that.


you were already given a great example. Einstein. He is always described as a drop out. The point being to emphasize that just because someone doesn't have a formal education does not mean they can't achieve great things. Same with the film. Despite getting rejected from school, he went on to make one of the most well known conspiracy films. Except to say he was rejected would be demeaning.

And you are making a faulty argument as well. you're trying to raise the argument that unless it's used commonly that the meaning is different. But this is based on your false claim that because he said it's what it means in the UK means that he is claiming its a UK expression. that's clearly not the case as has been pointed out. He is not saying it's a common UK term as you are trying to imply by requesting others who it being used.

This is as usual an example of you misunderstanding what is being said.

[Jonnyclueless]

It wasn't a cow it was clearly cattle.

(Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows (though technically cow refers only to female bovines), are domesticated ungulates, a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae.(Wikipedia))

I don't know why you would slander a female bovine so, but you are mistaken. You are giving ammunition to those who want to do a hatchet job on the bovine-moon theory.

I don't think it was a real moon either.

Well you're being unbalanced because in your post you didn't cover all the past conspiracy claims about cisco and how you think he is known for false flag operations.

And you're also being unfair by harping on one of his arguments. Clearly if you have proven your point then the argument becomes nitpicking. So better switch to one of his other arguments until that moves to the nitpicking bin.

It's also unfair that you didn't discuss all the other areas claimed by the Cow jumpers. I'm not saying you have to bring up every cow jumping claim, just ones that you didn't include. Before the cow was brought up, I should have been consulted to say which cow issues should have been discussed, otherwise it's all a misrepresentation.

[beachnut]

If thats true, he didnt say it. If thats true, he wouldnt have said drop out is not a negative term in the UK. If he is defending his researcher, then hand waving is not a positive thing to say about him. If it was a term used that way by some people, no ones been able to show any example of that.

You cant show me once where I have ever done what you say Ive done. And if Im twisting the drop out comment then so are the other people that have agreed with me, but you arent badgering them about it are you? But thats right just fixate on me.
Who agrees with you; only Alex Jones, before the fact. Everything you say breaks your own rules you try to set for others, and most of your ideas are faulty in logic (more complicated, but since you ruled this all pointless, I am not wasting time fixing you errors in logic and hypocritical mistakes). You make up what things mean to others, as if you are all knowing. Sorry, many of your fits of logic are bound in hypocrisy. Using Alex Jones as a source of ideas is pure funny. You lack of knowledge on 9/11 and inside out thinking is amusing. Keep up the smoke screen of what ever you are doing so well. (I would look up the real names for your logical, faulty, hypocrisy stuff, but it would be pointless; as you say)

[tsig]

Well you're being unbalanced because in your post you didn't cover all the past conspiracy claims about cisco and how you think he is known for false flag operations.

And you're also being unfair by harping on one of his arguments. Clearly if you have proven your point then the argument becomes nitpicking. So better switch to one of his other arguments until that moves to the nitpicking bin.

It's also unfair that you didn't discuss all the other areas claimed by the Cow jumpers. I'm not saying you have to bring up every cow jumping claim, just ones that you didn't include. Before the cow was brought up, I should have been consulted to say which cow issues should have been discussed, otherwise it's all a misrepresentation.

Hah! cisco is on the bovine-leapers side not the jumping side. Now I'm not saying I agree with the bovine-leaping-moon theory but if we criticize it we should make sure we get all the details right.

Why are you attacking me? I am just concerned that we get it just exactly right.

[Edx]

My God. Look at those sources. No wonder you have bad information. Remind me to use some blogs and call that a source. Now look at the sentence the columist uses:

Its Haaratz and Newsbytes (The Washington Post). They are proper news sources, not the same things as random blogs.

And yes it doesnt mention the WTC specifically, I know that, all it says is it warned of the attacks. It was considered so important it was reported to the FBI. That is at least, what is reported on those news reports.

Conspiracy Files quote The Jerusalem Post, so they could have touched on Haaratz and The Washington Post.

Depends what you claim Im saying about the pancake theory. What do you think they are? Are you on drugs? What does what I think pancaking is have to do with anything?

Huh? Im asking you what you think it is Im saying about it.

You are claiming the pancaking graphics were wrong. They are NOT.

If the graphic was totally correct the towers would have taken over a minute to collapse. If the graphic was totally correct the core would still be standing. Pancaking did not cause the collapse, pancaking happend after that, but the graphic does not take this into consideration. Im being picky, but I said that!!

This again stems from FEMA initially guesing that the collapse was started by pancaking. it wasn't. But the conspiracy sites which you use for your research try to mislead people by claiming that there wasn't pancaking period.
:boggled: Why are you debunking conspiracy sites? I never said there wasnt pancaking period. Sheesh!

You said that warnings of the attacks were sent. Why are you asking me what you wrote in this very thread?

Im saying we have news reports of warnings being sent and they could have addressed those reports, in the same way as they did address The Jerusalem Post report.

And you said NIST backed away from the pancake claim. Which means that at some point they were behind it. That is WRONG.
The very first time you said that to me I said I shouldnt have used the word "backing" to describe what I meant, I then told you what I meant, but now you're acting like I never said that?

And there is no dispute over inaccurate here. There is the difference between the initiation and post-initiation.

Yup, and the graphic does not show that.


Several people have disagreed with me, I dont care. Its the way they do it.
So then by your logic you are wrong because people disagree with you.

Look at what you're replying to and tell me where you gleaned that impression from what i wrote.

And anyone who doesn't get the simile is a complete idiot. It seems you don't understand the simile. All you see is "KKK" and not the point. Gosh, you're just a genius.

No, the relevant part of your post was KKK MEMBER

Wow, you don't get anything do you? I treat you the way you treat others. The real crime here is your ignorance of your own behavior.

Oh really? I personally attack people the way you have attacked me? Want me to take one of your posts and cut out all the content and leave only the personel attacks and see how long it is?

Those other people (which I think is 1 person) are not making false claims. As has been pointed out but you are incapable of reading is that the issue is not people thinking the film is unfair. It's you using false information to mislead people as to why.

Several people are agreeing with me in varying different amounts. No one is attacking them for it.

Thank you for proving my point with those quotes. Notice the terms such as "using xxx tactics", "standard xxx tactic". Notice the attack is on the tactics used. This is what you claim is directly calling you something.
Why say Im using the tactics Im not then? To tell people Im making the argument that they need to include everyone and discuss every possible argument, you're saying is not really saying I think they should have included everyone and discuss every possible argument.:boggled:

"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.

Why say that?

The claims didn't accuse you of being a truther, they accused you of using such tactics. But only an idiot wouldn't get that.

Uh...Those quotes werent you saying Im a truther, they were showing where you exaggerated my argument to make it seem very unreasonable. The quotes where you said I was a truther was on on the previous page

Learn the difference between personally attacking someone and a behavior. And lastly, please grow up.
You're attacking me as strongly as one can on a message board on the internet.

Ed

[Jonnyclueless]

Hah! cisco is on the bovine-leapers side not the jumping side. Now I'm not saying I agree with the bovine-leaping-moon theory but if we criticize it we should make sure we get all the details right.

Why are you attacking me? I am just concerned that we get it just exactly right.

Are you calling me a bovine-leapers???

And my god, I was just being picky, why must you keep harping on it?

BTW, his cow graphic was inaccurate.

[Walter Ego]

Who agrees with you; only Alex Jones, before the fact. Everything you say breaks your own rules you try to set for others, and most of your ideas are faulty in logic (more complicated, but since you ruled this all pointless, I am not wasting time fixing you errors in logic and hypocritical mistakes). You make up what things mean to others, as if you are all knowing. Sorry, many of your fits of logic are bound in hypocrisy. Using Alex Jones as a source of ideas is pure funny. You lack of knowledge on 9/11 and inside out thinking is amusing. Keep up the smoke screen of what ever you are doing so well. (I would look up the real names for your logical, faulty, hypocrisy stuff, but it would be pointless; as you say)


Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337)) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.

Highlights (or rather lowlights) from my notes:

10:20- Dylan and Jones mention Wally Miller.

9:20- Dylan mentions ‘unburned’ passports at Shanksville.

Jones comes on at about the 23:30 mark

30:30- Jones complains endlessly about only getting 3 minutes of airtime on the BBC show.

57:00-- The dropout issue is discussed. Dylan gives a rationalization of why he couldn’t get into film school. (See my original post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337) for my take on why he didn't get into the school.)

Towards the end of the show, Jones begins to refer to Smith mockingly a your ‘Lordship.’ There’s much, much more for the masochists who want to listen to the whole program.

Edit: Here's the link to the Alex Jones radio show.

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

[Edx]

Well you're being unbalanced because in your post you didn't cover all the past conspiracy claims about cisco and how you think he is known for false flag operations. .

...

[Edx]

Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337)) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.
.

So? I listened to the radio show, and I said I agreed with most of what he said.

[Edx]

Who agrees with you; only Alex Jones, before the fact.

Look over the past few pages. Several people have said they have agreed with me to varying degrees.

[Edx]

you were already given a great example.
Einstein. He is always described as a drop out.

[snip]

The point being to emphasize that just because someone doesn't have a formal education does not mean they can't achieve great things.
Thats what they should have said... except the "great things" part. Drop out does not have a positive connotation in normal usage. Einstein was a drop out but he is also Einstein who we all know is educated. To say he is a drop out - which is negative - but also ended up being who Einstein is, ends up being a compliment.

Thats simply not what Guy claims drop out means, which is that it doesnt mean you dropped out of anything in the UK which is his reasoning for his film calling Dylan a drop out. Einstein isnt an example of that usage.

[beachnut]

Look over the past few pages. Several people have said they have agreed with me to varying degrees.
Yes, I agree you have a problem needing to be right and you have proven it with posts and discussion you call pointless. You define the terms you want for the reality you seek to be right. What is it called, the need to be right? Alex Jones, funny stuff.

As you blunder off topic further and further. You will be back to prove you are right. Over, and over again. Supporting the "dropout" and the idiot Alex Jones. When Alex Jones speaks, it is a hit piece if you are a rational person. Do you think his brain is damaged for too much roids? Is that possible?

I seel all you points as you said; pointless; relax you were right! I also think the OP video, was a great example of the mindless ways of Dylan, and your response is indicative of Alex Jones thinking.

[tsig]

Are you calling me a bovine-leapers???

And my god, I was just being picky, why must you keep harping on it?

BTW, his cow graphic was inaccurate.

Look like a b-l, talk like a b-l I call b-l.

You are being pedantic not picky, and it's bovine-leaping-moon not just b-l why will you keep giving them ammunition to shoot us with.

Close one eye and squint, then turn the graph 45 degrees. When you transpose the axis it totally proves the point although I do not agree with the conclusions.

Are you so deaperate that you have t attak me personally. I as just asking questions but you mean JREFer's are making me cry so I cannot tyoe more.

[Jonnyclueless]

Its Haaratz and Newsbytes (The Washington Post). They are proper news sources, not the same things as random blogs.

It was a guys column. Oh and here's one of my favorites. it's a disclaimer form the top of one of your sources:

"This is a primary (original) document representing antisemitism post 9-11. It is posted here as an archival example, and it does not in any way represent the views of Political Research Associates, the Public Eye website, or our funders and supporters. This page is part of a larger collection on Conspiracism after 9-11. Read more about why we post this type of document."

But the main point which was brought up some 10 pages ago is that there was no warning of the 9/11 attacks. There is no basis to the conspiracy theory. It is however one of the factors that contributed to the common conspiracy that Jews were warned of the attacks along with the rumors about the 4000 Jews being warned.


And yes it doesnt mention the WTC specifically, I know that, all it says is it warned of the attacks. It was considered so important it was reported to the FBI. That is at least, what is reported on those news reports.

There you go again. You say it warned of the attacks. That is WRONG. It did NOT warn of the attacks. If you read what the owner of the company says and not what the columist says, you can see that. But THIS is exactly how these conspiracy theories get started. People such as yourself misread these things (with the aid of badly written columns) and make broad assumptions. And of course it would be reported. Everything that could possibly be connected no matter how unlikely was reported. Just like Vans that had pictures of the WTC on it were reported too. Just like everyone reported anything they possibly could just in case it may have some connection.

The implication is falsly being made that the message was about 9/11. That is a stretch. And if it had been, it would make even less sense. Any way you stretch it, it's an absurd claim.


Huh? Im asking you what you think it is Im saying about it.

Go back and read the many posts where I address this.


If the graphic was totally correct the towers would have taken over a minute to collapse. If the graphic was totally correct the core would still be standing. Pancaking did not cause the collapse, pancaking happend after that, but the graphic does not take this into consideration. Im being picky, but I said that!!

So now you are trying to back up incorrect information with more incorrect information> No you are not being picky, you are using incorrect information that comes from conspiracy sites. you are using claims that have been proven wrong over and over again on this forum. Tell you what, how about you present the scientific information that proves that if pancaking occurs that it would take over a minute to collapse. Go ahead, show us. Even better, show us your source for that claim. I'm sure you can present a legitimate peer reviewed scientific paper to back up this point.


:boggled: Why are you debunking conspiracy sites? I never said there wasnt pancaking period. Sheesh!

You still don't get it. After about 10 times o explaining it to you you still don't get it. You don't even understand what NIST said about pancaking. You don't understand the difference between the collapse initiation and the collapse itself. That's why you keep thinking I am saying you are claiming it wasn't there period. That's why you think it would take a minute for the building to collapse. I suppose it just happened slightly right? I guess some floors collapsed on others and other floors just kinda fell on their own?


Im saying we have news reports of warnings being sent and they could have addressed those reports, in the same way as they did address The Jerusalem Post report.

There weren't new reports of warnings being sent. There was an incident where a generic message was sent to 2 employees in Israel and it was reported to the FBI just in case it could have had anything to do with the WTC attacks. They could have also addressed the demolition company that had pictures of the WTC and explosives on their van too. But since it too ended up having nothing to do with 9/11 it wasn't included.


The very first time you said that to me I said I shouldnt have used the word "backing" to describe what I meant, I then told you what I meant, but now you're acting like I never said that?

Are you on some kind of substance? Or are you reading a completely different post than me?


Yup, and the graphic does not show that.

This could be s stundie if it wasn't spread over so many posts. The graphics isn't supposed to. The graphics show how the trusses were weakened and pulled together. Another showed how the pancaking works.


Look at what you're replying to and tell me where you gleaned that impression from what i wrote.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.


No, the relevant part of your post was KKK MEMBER

Again, only a complete idiot would think that. Only a complete idiot would completely miss the point of the post and focus on the word KKK. I guess that was over your head completely. But kind of ironic being that this started from a discussion based on Dylan doing the same exact mistake you are.


Oh really? I personally attack people the way you have attacked me? Want me to take one of your posts and cut out all the content and leave only the personel attacks and see how long it is?

Oh stop playing the victim. Grow up. You didn't feel it was a personal attack to call me and others liars for disagreeing with you when you first posted huh? And I am attacking ignorant actions, not you. You just happen to be making a lot of them. And YOU are the one who keeps going in circles on this. We pointed out why you are wrong. YOU keep bringing this into a personal issue.

Tell you what, let's leave only the false and inaccurate claims you have made in your posts and see how long they are. Go cry if you need to.

Several people are agreeing with me in varying different amounts. No one is attacking them for it.

Does this really need to be explained to you again? Really? Can you save us some time, go to the post you are responding to which has the exact answer to what you are saying and read it? Please? For the 100th time?

Why say Im using the tactics Im not then? To tell people Im making the argument that they need to include everyone and discuss every possible argument, you're saying is not really saying I think they should have included everyone and discuss every possible argument.:boggled:

Wow. Just wow. You still don't get it? My God. I would explain it again, but after about 10 times, why would you get it now? I suppose if you have to sit here and act like an idiot by thinking I am claiming you are claiming that they have to include everything, then so be it. I cannot be helped if after about 10 times of explaining you still just don't get it.

"it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything.

Why say that?

Well, if you read my posts the first few times I explained it to you, you would know wouldn't you?

You made the argument that they are being unfair and dishonest because they left things out. That's not a valid argument because it's impossible to include everything. Thus that argument can be made so long as they don't include everything. It's an empty argument because it prays on the fact that not everything can be included. It's an argument that can be made about any and every documentary that has ever existed.

But of course somehow you keep pretending that that is some how accusing you of claiming they should include everything. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could possibly jump to such an absolutely absurd conclusion. But somehow you keep doing it. And I imagine you will continue to do so.

You bring up arguments of things that they should have included to make it fair, and we pointed out as to why that simply isn't true. You don't like that, so instead you change the argument into peopel claiming you said something when no one is actually making such claims about you. And then to top it of, you go on and on about how its nothing but personal attacks against you because you keep making these false claims about things like this.


Uh...Those quotes werent you saying Im a truther, they were showing where you exaggerated my argument to make it seem very unreasonable. The quotes where you said I was a truther was on on the previous page

They were not an exaggeration what so ever. How can you even say that? Did you even read them? You use the same methods used by many truthers use on these forums. You cannot deny that, it's a fact. Only you know your intent, but you can't sit here and lie about the methods used.

I eventually just said you were a truther because many of us are tired about you trolling and derailing the thread to pretend you are playing the victim and being called a truther. Calling you a truther outright is an attempt to simply shortcut your nonsense and your trolling. But yet here you are. I think it's time for ignore.


You're attacking me as strongly as one can on a message board on the internet.

Bullcrap and you know it. Stop being a whiney little baby, grow up, and try to stick to the actual arguments instead of prancing around like a drama queen because God forbid people actually discuss something other than YOU. God forbid you have to stand behind your claims and address them.

Ed, one more derailment post going on and on about YOU and I am using ignore. leave the nonsense out and stick to the real issues without surrounding them with these tirades about you.

[beachnut]

Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337)) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.

Highlights (or rather lowlights) from my notes:

10:20- Dylan and Jones mention Wally Miller.

9:20- Dylan mentions ‘unburned’ passports at Shanksville.

Jones comes on at about the 23:30 mark

30:30- Jones complains endlessly about only getting 3 minutes of airtime on the BBC show.

57:00-- The drop issue is discussed. Dylan gives a rationalization of why he couldn’t get into film school. (See my original post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337) for my take on why he didn't get into the school.)

Towards the end of the show, Jones begins to refer to Smith mockingly a your ‘Lordship.’ There’s much, much more for the masochists who want to listen to the whole program.
And the BBC was not fair and balanced. lol, I think the BBC gave the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth too much room to breath, they do it to make a show. It was hard to listen to pure stupid as Dylan, and Alex Jones spewed dumb ideas.

[tsig]

Edx gets ALL of his talking points from Alex Jones. The ‘gang up’ of experts vs. truthers, the dropout description, etc. It’s all there. I made a post pages and pages ago with an mp3 from Jones’ radio show (link here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337)) where Jones and Dylan raked BBC producer Guy Smith over the coals for almost two hours. That show was the real ’hit job‘.

Highlights (or rather lowlights) from my notes:

10:20- Dylan and Jones mention Wally Miller.

9:20- Dylan mentions ‘unburned’ passports at Shanksville.

Jones comes on at about the 23:30 mark

30:30- Jones complains endlessly about only getting 3 minutes of airtime on the BBC show.

57:00-- The drop issue is discussed. Dylan gives a rationalization of why he couldn’t get into film school. (See my original post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3415817&postcount=337) for my take on why he didn't get into the school.)

Towards the end of the show, Jones begins to refer to Smith mockingly a your ‘Lordship.’ There’s much, much more for the masochists who want to listen to the whole program.

Hi Walter

I knew he was getting it all from some woo site.

He has all the marks. Refusal to read, saying the same thing over and over, JAQing and whining and whining and.....

Thanks.

[Jonnyclueless]

I am only interested in his source for his claim that pancaking would cause the collapse to take over a minute.

The claim that they are being dishonest because they didn't address that the government has pulled off falseflags in the past is also a dead give away.

Also using the example of Jewenko who was mislead by truthers is another one. I am sure he would likely prefer that they leave out the parts where he says he needs more data and says WTC 1&2 were not demolitions. Just the building he wasn't familiar with and was given no more evidence than a simple video an then asked how he would go about demolishing it.

[Gravy]

I have accepted the two original stories may not be connected because I cant prove they are, but they are dealing with similar issues. Israeli warnings of 911, and I have seen both stories and the myth getting mixed up. So I feel that if someone only knew what Conspiracy Files told them, they'd assume that if someone said some employees of an Israeli company got warnings prior to 911, that this the same claim Conspiracy Files debunked. Maybe this was just an honest oversight, but I still think its an oversight. Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?

[tsig]

Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?

Shame on you Gravy! He only lies when his is using his keyboard.

[jaydeehess]

Alex Jones is similar. I have a weird like-dislike of Alex Jones because he has brought to attention things in the mainstream press hasnt. I dont think I'd have looked into things like the Patriot Act quite as fully if it wasnt for him.

I watch MSNBC and see Keith Olberman do a much better job of holding the administration accountable for their actions, including the Patriot Act, than does Jones.

Olberman is just not the wild eyed nutbar that Jones is so he is less well known

[Walter Ego]

I watch MSNBC and see Keith Olberman do a much better job of holding the administration accountable for their actions, including the Patriot Act, than does Jones.

Olberman is just not the wild eyed nutbar that Jones is so he is less well known


Olbermann (two 'n's) is much better known than Alex Jones. Just ask Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann is on basic cable on a division of NBC. Jones is on a handful of mostly Christian radio stations and the internet. Jones is king with the kooks; Olbermann is MSM (mainstream media).

[Edx]

Are you always this dishonest, or just when posting here?
Care to explain how? And care to explain how you've never acknowledged your misunderstanding any of my points or when you kept accusing me falsely of supporting Loose Change?

[Edx]

It was a guys column. Oh and here's one of my favorites. it's a disclaimer form the top of one of your sources:

"This is a primary (original) document representing antisemitism post 9-11. It is posted here as an archival example, and it does not in any way represent the views of Political Research Associates, the Public Eye website, or our funders and supporters. This page is part of a larger collection on Conspiracism after 9-11. Read more about why we post this type of document."



So The Washington Post and the Israeli paper Haaretz are anti-semitic newspapers are they? And the above disclaimer is talking about what the anti-semtic twist on these original sources are.

Btw my link to Haaretz was not a link to a guys column, it was a cashed page from their official website.

But the main point which was brought up some 10 pages ago is that there was no warning of the 9/11 attacks.

Not according to those newspaper articles, the newspapers articles are what I am refering to. Even if it truned out it didnt happen (even though Ive not seen any followup stories anywhere that show those reports are inaccurare) the point is its a story they didnt cover that I think they should have. If you dont agree that they should I really dont care anymore, but at least show you understand what Im saying.

It is however one of the factors that contributed to the common conspiracy that Jews were warned of the attacks along with the rumors about the 4000 Jews being warned.

Funny people here told me it had "nothing" to do with it, but that was my original point about why they should have brought it up.


There you go again. You say it warned of the attacks. That is WRONG. It did NOT warn of the attacks.If you read what the owner of the company says

According to the article it warned of the attacks but that the CEO says it didnt specifically mention the WTC as a target but couldnt say any more.


The implication is falsly being made that the message was about 9/11. That is a stretch. And if it had been, it would make even less sense. Any way you stretch it, it's an absurd claim.

Has anyone followed up the story and showed that Haaretz and The Washington Post were wrong when they said it warned of the attacks?

Go back and read the many posts where I address this.
Well as far as I can see you dont understand what I think about it, thats why Im asking you to clarify.

If the graphic was totally correct the towers would have taken over a minute to collapse. If the graphic was totally correct the core would still be standing. Pancaking did not cause the collapse, pancaking happend after that, but the graphic does not take this into consideration. Im being picky, but I said that!!
So now you are trying to back up incorrect information with more incorrect information>

You are the one that says the graphic is completely accurate, not me.

Tell you what, how about you present the scientific information that proves that if pancaking occurs that it would take over a minute to collapse.

I didnt say that, I said if the graphic was completely accurate like you claimed it was it would have taken over a minuite to collapse.

You don't understand the difference between the collapse initiation and the collapse itself.

Yes I do which is one of the reasons why I say the graphic is inaccurate.

There weren't new reports of warnings being sent. There was an incident where a generic message was sent to 2 employees in Israel and it was reported to the FBI just in case it could have had anything to do with the WTC attacks. They could have also addressed the demolition company that had pictures of the WTC and explosives on their van too. But since it too ended up having nothing to do with 9/11 it wasn't included.

They are addressing Conspiracy Theories, the messages being sent to Odigo employees story does get mixed up with the story they did report in The Jerusalem Post regarding the missing 4000 Jewish Workers. Thats why I say it would have been relevant.

And you said NIST backed away from the pancake claim. Which means that at some point they were behind it. That is WRONG. The very first time you said that to me I said I shouldnt have used the word "backing" to describe what I meant, I then told you what I meant, but now you're acting like I never said that?
Are you on some kind of substance? Or are you reading a completely different post than me?

Look, you said when I used the word "backing" it implies that I am saying NIST originally was behind the idea. I said I know they didnt, I shouldnt have used that word as it doesnt describe what I meant. You dont need to tell me its "WRONG" like you did above, I know it is.

This could be s stundie if it wasn't spread over so many posts. The graphics isn't supposed to. The graphics show how the trusses were weakened and pulled together. Another showed how the pancaking works.

The graphic they used is not "totally" accurate, I said Im being picky, why cant you just accept that? Why do you have to act like Im making some big deal about it?

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Didnt think you could.

Again, only a complete idiot would think that. Only a complete idiot would completely miss the point of the post and focus on the word KKK.

I bolded the word "member" for you but apparently you didnt see it, again.

Oh stop playing the victim. Grow up. You didn't feel it was a personal attack to call me and others liars for disagreeing with you when you first posted huh?
When did I call people liars that just didnt agree with me? And when was the first time I called someone a liar? I know you wont bother to back up your accusations, you never do! :D

I called you a liar, Jonny, because you kept misrepresenting me so badly even after I explained it to you several times, and that it couldnt be an honest mistake anymore. I proved that when I quoted you in the last post. You even denied you said Im a truther, I proved you did, and then you claimed you were just trying to teach me some kind of lesson.

We pointed out why you are wrong. YOU keep bringing this into a personal issue.

You dont think I should take any personal offence to the kind of posts you are giving me and have been giving me since the start?

Tell you what, let's leave only the false and inaccurate claims you have made in your posts and see how long they are.

Thats your opinion of what is and what isnt false and inaccurate, but you claim you arent personally attacking me. Thats not an opinion, its obvious that you are.

Several people are agreeing with me in varying different amounts. No one is attacking them for it.
Does this really need to be explained to you again? Really? Can you save us some time, go to the post you are responding to which has the exact answer to what you are saying and read it? Please? For the 100th time?

Yea, I get it. Im stupid and dishonest and probably on drugs according to you because I have an opinion other people hold, but they're okay and you wont attack them.

Why say Im using the tactics Im not then? To tell people Im making the argument that they need to include everyone and discuss every possible argument, you're saying is not really saying I think they should have included everyone and discuss every possible argument.

You made the argument that they are being unfair and dishonest because they left things out. That's not a valid argument because it's impossible to include everything.

They left some information out does not equal they left everything out. Can you honestly not see the difference?

Thus that argument can be made so long as they don't include everything. It's an empty argument because it prays on the fact that not everything can be included. It's an argument that can be made about any and every documentary that has ever existed.

I agree with that, Im not saying they should include everything. Can you honestly not see that?

You telling me how impossible it is is arguing against something I never said, thats a strawman by definition.

But of course somehow you keep pretending that that is some how accusing you of claiming they should include everything.

Seriously... :eek: I dont know what to say...

You say that my argument is wrong because they cant include everything, then you say in the next sentence that you arent saying my argument is that they should have included everything...

I cant make that fit, Im sorry. I tried.

Bullcrap and you know it. Stop being a whiney little baby, grow up, and try to stick to the actual arguments instead of prancing around like a drama queen because God forbid people actually discuss something other than YOU. God forbid you have to stand behind your claims and address them.
I wonder if you act this way in real life as well.

Ed, one more derailment post going on and on about YOU and I am using ignore. leave the nonsense out and stick to the real issues without surrounding them with these tirades about you.

Oh no! I will loose so much in my life not having to see the weird logic and insulting replies from Jonny again!

Ed

[Edx]

The claim that they are being dishonest because they didn't address that the government has pulled off falseflags in the past is also a dead give away.
Im saying when they did a montage of government lies and dishonesty, they could have included more relevant clips.

Also using the example of Jewenko who was mislead by truthers is another one. I am sure he would likely prefer that they leave out the parts where he says he needs more data and says WTC 1&2 were not demolitions.

Actually I said it would be good if they did show that because thats the part they always leave out. Do you really want me to look up the post and page number of where I said that, to show how you didnt read it?

[Edx]

Yes, I agree you have a problem needing to be right and you have proven it with posts and discussion you call pointless.

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts.

When Alex Jones speaks, it is a hit piece if you are a rational person.
Im sure even Kent Hovind is right some of the time, just never about anything relevant. But if someone misrepresnted him and he showed how, I'd have to agree with him too even though I really dont want to have to.

I seel all you points as you said; pointless; relax you were right! I also think the OP video, was a great example of the mindless ways of Dylan, and your response is indicative of Alex Jones thinking.

You can still say that even after this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3420375&postcount=419)post?

[Walter Ego]

Olbermann (two 'n's) is much better known than Alex Jones. Just ask Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann is on basic cable on a division of NBC. Jones is on a handful of mostly Christian radio stations and the internet. Jones is king with the kooks; Olbermann is MSM (mainstream media).


My info about Jones being on mainly Christian radio stations came from an article in Radar magazine (http://radarmagazine.com/from-the-magazine/2008/01/we_are_change_911_conspiracy_theories_alex_jones_l uke_rudkow.php)but I can't find any indication that Jones is on any broadcast stations at all. He is syndicated by Genesis Communications Network (http://www.gcnlive.com/) but that seems to only go out over shortwave (http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/jones.html). Jones doesn’t mention any real over the air radio stations at all on his website. (http://www.infowars.com/listen.html) Odd.

P.S. The Radar article was of course a 'hit piece (http://www.jonesreport.com/article/01_08/030108_radar_911.htm)' according to Jones.

[beachnut]

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts. Oops; looks like you are wrong on this too. (you share a common trait of 9/11 truth, you say something and debunk it as you post it. does this make sense?)lol
Im sure even Kent Hovind is right some of the time, just never about anything relevant. But if someone misrepresnted him and he showed how, I'd have to agree with him too even though I really dont want to have to. Alex Jones is not right ever. I could be wrong, but even when you think he is right, he is still wrong. The hit piece on Alex Jones is as I said; when he speaks, all rational people can see he completely self critiquing.
You can still say that even after this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3420375&postcount=419)post?
You talk and talk and still sound like a dyed in the wool truther. How can you be more obtuse?

not responding well to baiting tauntsplease do not forget your own rule again; you responded very well

[Edx]

Yes, I have a flaw. Its not responding well to baiting taunts. Oops; looks like you are wrong on this too. (you share a common trait of 9/11 truth, you say something and debunk it as you post it. does this make sense?)lol

How can I be wrong about that?? I said I dont respond well to baiting taunts and that this is why you get the impression I always want the last word.

Alex Jones is not right ever. I could be wrong, but even when you think he is right, he is still wrong. The hit piece on Alex Jones is as I said; when he speaks, all rational people can see he completely self critiquing. I know you'd like to think that but even Im more reasonable to think guys like Hovind and Jones are not always wrong about everything. Having said that Ive never seen Hovind right about anything, and if I ever did it was so brief and fleeting it has escaped my memory.


You can still say that even after this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3420375&postcount=419)post? You talk and talk and still sound like a dyed in the wool truther. How can you be more obtuse?

So are you saying Im lying in that post, then?

please do not forget your own rule again; you responded very well

... I think I did as well, I think Ive been very polite and patient considering. But Im not sure you meant this as a compliment...

[dudalb]

I can't read comment #440. Guess why.




There’s a certain type of dunderhead who will cease on any minor inconsistency (they called Dylan a dropout, he is not a dropout!) and worry it to death like a dog with a favorite bone. Edx is a university student in the UK (he says). Can you imagine how much fun he is in classroom discussions? There must be clumps of hair on those classroom floors… pulled out by professors from their own heads in frustration.

And Edx must be on the verge of being beaten to death by his fellow students, who are probably being driven as crazy by him as his professors are.....

[dudalb]

I watch MSNBC and see Keith Olberman do a much better job of holding the administration accountable for their actions, including the Patriot Act, than does Jones.

Olberman is just not the wild eyed nutbar that Jones is so he is less well known

You are wrong about one thing: Olberman is MUCH better known then Alex Jones. Jones is not much talked about outside the INternet,whereas I think most people know who Olbermann is.

[Unsecured Coins]

Olberman needs to call up Dan Patrick and get both of their happy asses back on ESPN.

[Drudgewire]

Olberman needs to call up Dan Patrick and get both of their happy asses back on ESPN.
Oh hell yes! As much as I can't stand Keith's politics he and Patrick were a billion times less annoying than Mike Tirico.

Especially when they add Michele Tafoya which the UN should investigate as a possible torture technique. :mad:

[dudalb]

I would like to see Olbermann back on ESPN,but he has kind of ruled that out with his very strident political advocacy.

[nicepants]

Bottom line is a truly objectve fair and unbalanced show would not have conducted itself the way this show did, and it would have included information critcal to understanding the topics and the arguments.

Please provide a list of claims that they got wrong, not a list of things you think they should have done differently.

[Edx]

Please provide a list of claims that they got wrong, not a list of things you think they should have done differently.

Even though Ive mentioned several things, it was never my intention to say its main conclusions were wrong.

[jaydeehess]

Even though Ive mentioned several things, it was never my intention to say its main conclusions were wrong.

Which brings us back to the Op in which it is quite apparent that Dylan either knew that the statement was a similie and deliberatly chose to use it in the literal sense, or he had only read a partial statement and assumed it to be intended literally , or he is completely unaware of the use of similie and metaphor in English conversation.

Are there any other choices?

[jaydeehess]

Please provide a list of claims that they got wrong, not a list of things you think they should have done differently.

I noticed one thing incorrect in the BBC show. they state that the fires in WTC 7 were fed by the deisel fuel. That is a theory that both FEMA and NIST say has a low probability of having occured.

We have LC, in which there are numerous glaring errors, ommissions and exaggerations and, AFAIK, "Conspiracy Files" in which there is but one. (unless one buys EDx's claim of exaggeration concerning Avery's background and beliefs)

[Edx]

Which brings us back to the Op in which it is quite apparent that Dylan either knew that the statement was a similie and deliberatly chose to use it in the literal sense, or he had only read a partial statement and assumed it to be intended literally , or he is completely unaware of the use of similie and metaphor in English conversation.

Are there any other choices?

Back at the start of the thread I suggested that maybe he did know what a similie was, but that basically because he wasnt thinking too rationally about the "evidence" he had found, he was quick to use Wallys quotes without thinking. When questioned by Guy Smith his expression might show that he realised what he was telling him was possible, but he didnt want to admit it. Like I said a little while ago, that might well be giving him too much credit.

[vinniem]

I wouldnt call it fair and balenced at all! A few points here: The producer says Dylan was a "drop out", but on Jones' show claims in the UK a "drop out" means someone who never went to Univercity. I live in the UK, Im nearly 24, this isnt true and he knows it. He films all the debukers, which outnumbered them off the top of my head about 9 to 3, in nice locations with good camera shots while he went the opposite for the conspiracy people. He even gets Frank Spotnitz a producer of the X-Files on for a long time talking about his opinion on conspiracy theorists, and Im thinking is this really relevant, isnt there something else you could be talking about, and how is this balenced and fair? Sorry, but I actually agree with Alex. It was a hit piece. The history channels show was much better, but unfortunately that used Popukar Mechanics. I have a problem with them as well, but not in quite the same way and they werent nearly as bad as Conspiracy Files.


Having recently watched this BBC conspiracy files documentary, I must say that I completely agree with you about it, Edx.

[DavidJames]

I have to congratulate you vinniem, in just 7 days, you are one of the top posters in this forum. Most of the posts, not to my surprise, are of the JAQing off variety.

You have no relevant knowledge, no relevant education, and no relevant experience, yet most everything you read from people with relevant knowledge, education, and experience, you ignore or hand wave away. You are just another ignorant plant in the JREF garden of 9/11 CTists.

[Edx]

Having recently watched this BBC conspiracy files documentary, I must say that I completely agree with you about it, Edx.

Well, I still don't think it was balanced and I still don't think they did a good job of going into enough detail or debunking enough claims. I still sort of don't really like it, but its still 100% better than anything truthers have come out with. I hate to even compare it at all.

No, it wasn't fair to try and make truthers look more crazy or less credible by using bad lighting and locations because they do a damn good job of making themselves look bad all on their own.

Yes, the producer was wrong about the drop out comment.

Yes, it obviously wasnt a unbiased look at 911 conspiracy theories.It was obviously trying to debunk it.

So apart from being really a debunking conspiracy show rather than how they tried to present it and apart from pointlessly trying to make truthers look stupider than they already are rather than just letting their loonacy show naturally, most of my comments are really just nit picks and the rest are just based on ignorance. I say ignorance because I remember talking about Jones' critique of how they presented pancake theory and I thought he was right and that it had been disproved and how the show got it wrong, but at the time I didnt realise Jones was just an ignorant moron and didn't understand what he was talking about.

I still dont really like the show's format since they had very little time and by the end they kind of assumed everyone agreed by that point and then talked about the psycology of the conspiracy theorists. I seem to remember the WTC7 show was a lot better, maybe because they were able to deal more with one subject. But at any rate I could have done a much better job getting to the heart of some of their claims IMO.

Now I may be critical of this show but its like Oscar material compared with any truther film. I mean Jesse Venturas new show might even be worse than Alex Jones and thats really saying something.

EDIT: Oh and another thing, I see I mentioned Popular Mechanics. I was still under the false impression Popular Mechanics was as truthers claimed they were. Now I would say still not to use them, purely so truthers cant dismiss them straight away just because they are from Popular Mechanics.

At this point I remember I was still listening to Alex Jones every day believe it or not.

[vinniem]

See my responce to Jonny - strawman - clueless. But what I said in my long post, if you'll rememeber was:

"They dont quote the fact that the story was originally reported in the Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post that some were warned via instant messenger.."

Odigo employees really did receive warnings that was reported to the FBI, there was truth there, they made out it was all a myth.

Do you still believe Odigo employees received a warning?

[Rolfe]

He's right about The Conspiracy Files though. It's always a hit piece. Whether the "conspiracy" is a load of mince from start to finish, or whether there might actually be some valid points in there and some valid questions to ask, or even if the balance of probabilities actually favours the conspiracy proponents, it will be filmed in such a way that the last segment can show how the establishment view is obviously right all along.

Rolfe.

[vinniem]

He's right about The Conspiracy Files though. It's always a hit piece. Whether the "conspiracy" is a load of mince from start to finish, or whether there might actually be some valid points in there and some valid questions to ask, or even if the balance of probabilities actually favours the conspiracy proponents, it will be filmed in such a way that the last segment can show how the establishment view is obviously right all along.

Rolfe.

What really just astounded my was the way they presented Davin Coburn as an expert. This is a guy who looks straight out of college and his only expertise is that his magazine once wrote a hit piece.

Listen to Davin Coburn on Charles Goyette's radio show. Goyette isn't even a truther but he destroys Davin. One of the funniest things you will ever hear.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're bumping a lot of really old threads for someone who is new here, Vinnie.

[vinniem]

You're bumping a lot of really old threads for someone who is new here, Vinnie.

Eh? I was directed to this thread by Edx himself (indirectly) because he was telling me about how he used to be a truther. The other thread I bumped I found by searching for Asteneh-Asl. I have bumped 2 threads.

Would you instead prefer me to just start new threads on subjects that interest me rather than bumping current ones????

[Edx]

Do you still believe Odigo employees received a warning?

Nope. That's wrong in every single way possible. Off the top of my head... It wasnt specific, it was only sent to a few employees, those employees were in another country and lastly Odigo didnt even have any offices at the WTC

I need to go back to see what I was trying to argue!

[Walter Ego]

Eh? I was directed to this thread by Edx himself (indirectly) because he was telling me about how he used to be a truther. The other thread I bumped I found by searching for Asteneh-Asl. I have bumped 2 threads.

Would you instead prefer me to just start new threads on subjects that interest me rather than bumping current ones????

Edx earned himself a place on my ignore list (where he still resides) for this thread, and, while I appreciate you bumping a two-year old video I made, yes, it would be better if you didn't haul stuff like this back to the top.

[Edx]

Edx earned himself a place on my ignore list (where he still resides) .

Sheesh Walter, give me a break it was 2 years ago!

:D