Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Walter Ego]

This takes off from the thread I started earlier today entitled ‘Truthers And Tropes’ which you might want to read for background here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105564). I decided to whip up a short video of Dylan Avery getting perplexed when a BBC reporter tried to explain Shanksville corner Wally Miller’s description of the seeming lack of bodies at the United 93 crash site.

I taped the original video which I used to edited my little opus from the internet off my computer screen using my camcorder so the audio and picture quality are not ideal (you might want to turn up the volume a bit, especially to hear when the reporter says ‘phlegmatic‘) but it’s not too bad for the time I spent making it.


BhKiAUkw7SY

[cisco]

Dylan Avery has got to have one of the most annoying voices ever bestowed upon a human being.

Other than that, I love the video. If I could make one little suggestion: remove "annoying people on the internet since 1997" - it's not really funny or clever and it makes it sound like you made the whole video just to dick with Dylan, when in fact it makes a very good point: Avery (and all troothers) use things like similies to lie without technically telling a lie.

[StoneRook]

Nice work....

[Walter Ego]

Dylan Avery has got to have one of the most annoying voices ever bestowed upon a human being.

Agreed. He comes off as arrogant and obnoxious too. You should see the video I didn’t use.

Other than that, I love the video. If I could make one little suggestion: remove "annoying people on the internet since 1997" - it's not really funny or clever and it makes it sound like you made the whole video just to dick with Dylan, when in fact it makes a very good point: Avery (and all troothers) use things like similies to lie without technically telling a lie.

Truth in advertising. I have been annoying people online for over a decade. I was actually polite to the little twerp in my always humble opinon.

(Did I mention Avery’s obnoxious in the footage I didn’t use? Uncle Fetzer was in the BBC documentary too. Be thankful I didn’t include him. )

[Edx]

If you look at his face its looks to me like he's thinking "crap, he's right", but cant admit it or he'll look bad. :)

If you look at the Conspiracy Files documentary though, it is very badly done. I actually agree with Alex Jones about how bad it is.

[Walter Ego]

If you look at his face its looks to me like he's thinking "crap, he's right", but cant admit it or he'll look bad. :)


He was totally thrown by the word ‘simile.’ He had no idea what it meant even after it was explained to him. (He probably did look it up after the interview so he wouldn’t look stupid if it came up in conversation again.)

If you look at the Conspiracy Files documentary though, it is very badly done. I actually agree with Alex Jones about how bad it is.


I thought the BBC documentary was excellent, one of the best I've seen on the 'truth' movement, fair and balanced even. Exactly what problem did you have with it?

[beachnut]

This takes off from the thread I started earlier today entitled ‘Truthers And Tropes’ which you might want to read for background here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105564). I decided to whip up a short video of Dylan Avery getting perplexed when a BBC reporter tried to explain Shanksville corner Wally Miller’s description of the seeming lack of bodies at the United 93 crash site.

I taped the original video which I used to edited my little opus from the internet off my computer screen using my camcorder so the audio and picture quality are not ideal (you might want to turn up the volume a bit, especially to hear when the reporter says ‘phlegmatic‘) but it’s not too bad for the time I spent making it.


BhKiAUkw7SY
Very good video. Outstanding. Wonder if any hard line truthers will understand.







If you look at the Conspiracy Files documentary though, it is very badly done. I actually agree with Alex Jones about how bad it is. Alex Jones, the idiot Alex Jones? If Alex says it is bad, it is GREAT! It must of been fact filled with true stuff, Alex Jones only deals in LIES.

[Edx]

He was totally thrown by the word ‘simile.’ He had no idea what it meant even after it was explained to him. (He probably did look it up after the interview so he wouldn’t look stupid if it came up in conversation again.)

I dont know if he was necessarily thrown by the word because the interviewer explains what he meant, that the coroner said it was "like" there were no body parts etc. From his reaction I just got the impression that he probably hadnt thought of that but had to keep going anyway or else admit he made such a silly mistake or never thought about it.


I thought the BBC documentary was excellent, one of the best I've seen on the 'truth' movement, fair and balanced even. Exactly what problem did you have with it?

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.

[beachnut]

Agreeing with Alex Jones is a sign of woo. Dylan is dumb enough to be a drop out. Dumber than a drop out.

Did I tell you your video is great; and shows Dylan as the expert in ignorance.

[Walter Ego]

YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhKiAUkw7SY

grozlz (27 minutes ago)

whats with JREF obsession with this guy, you guys are getting creepier and creepier with your fanatic obsession with Dylan Avery. Avery is not 9/11 truth, and 9/11 truth is not Avery. he's just one small aspect of the world wide movement for a new independent investigation of those events.
b) wallie lied, now he's denying it. he can't even look at the camera. never see anyone's body language be that clear

go back to your forums monkey, maybe gravy's mole can give you a few pointers


The video's only been up an hour or two and it's already getting comments on YouTube. Me thinks some truthers be lurking here. LoL

[Edx]

Agreeing with Alex Jones is a sign of woo. Dylan is dumb enough to be a drop out. Dumber than a drop out.

You are a strange one. You pride yourself as one of the reasonable ones, yet you think its okay to dishonestly misrepresent Dylan, just because you think he's "dumb enough to be a drop out" does not give you that right. I guess you're one of those "pseudo skeptics"

[Walter Ego]

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.


Your complaints are quibbling. Was there anything factual that was wrong about the documentary?

[Edx]

Your complaints are quibbling. Was there anything factual that was wrong about the documentary?
They didnt touch on a lot of arguments they could have, but you honestly dont see a problem with such blatent misrepresentation? You think a ratio of 9 debunkers to 3 is fair and unbalenced?

[beachnut]

You are a strange one. You pride yourself as one of the reasonable ones, yet you think its okay to dishonestly misrepresent Dylan, just because you think he's "dumb enough to be a drop out". I guess you're one of those "pseudo skeptics"
Dylan is dumb on 9/11. I have not found a single thing he says to be true. Have you?
Is he a dropout from film school, or was he kicked out? What facts do you have on Dylan's dropout qualities? He acts as dumb as a high school dropout could be. But his ideas on 9/11 are dumb. Please point me to some ideas that have merit backed with evidence. I have tried and failed to find any Dylan junk to be credible; have you?

Dylan's ideas on 9/11, total crap. His films, the wasteland of lies and hearsay.

[CHF]

I think Dylan crapped his pants in that video.

[Edx]

Dylan is dumb on 9/11. I have not found a single thing he says to be true. Have you?
Whether dylan is wrong or not, doesnt justify the program to misrepresent him as a drop out.

Is he a dropout from film school, or was he kicked out?

Dylan said in responce to the film "How could I drop out of a course I never attended?", the producer said that in the UK a drop out is someone that never went to Univercity. Thats not what drop out means, and he knows it. Ive never heard the term used that way. Its implications are clear. If they wanted to show how wrong Dylan was they didnt need to misrepresent him, but they did anyway.

Please point me to some ideas that have merit backed with evidence. I have tried and failed to find any Dylan junk to be credible; have you?

Distraction. Irrelevant.

[firecoins]

Is there a link to the whole BBC documentary?

[johnny karate]

They didnt touch on a lot of arguments they could have, but you honestly dont see a problem with such blatent misrepresentation? You think a ratio of 9 debunkers to 3 is fair and unbalenced?

Truth is not based on popularity. It could have been a 100 to 1 in either direction, and it wouldn't matter. The facts speak for themselves.

[Edx]

Truth is not based on popularity. It could have been a 100 to 1 in either direction, and it wouldn't matter. The facts speak for themselves.
He said it was fair and balenced. It evidently wasnt, for many reasons.

[cisco]

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.
These would all be relevant points if we were dealing with an opinion piece; i.e. gun control, abortion, fiscal policy, etc. September 11th is a factual topic and the trooth is bankrupt in that field.

Frankly I wouldn't care if they superimposed horns on Dylan Avery and replaced the background with flames, because he's earned it. Same goes for Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, David Griffin, Thierry Meyssan, and all the other usual suspects. Give us a new idea that has some factual or logical merit; otherwise, everything you've said so far has been debunked and should be ridiculed as brutally and as often as possible.

[beachnut]

Whether dylan is wrong or not, doesnt justify the program to misrepresent him as a drop out.

Dylan said in responce to the film "How could I drop out of a course I never attended?", the producer said that in the UK a drop out is someone that never went to Univercity. Thats not what drop out means, and he knows it. Ive never heard the term used that way. Its implications are clear. If they wanted to show how wrong Dylan was they didnt need to misrepresent him, but they did anyway.

Distraction. Irrelevant.
His films make him look stupid. Like a dropout can. Some dropouts have talent and do not make up lies and false information.

Oh, he never was allowed to attend. That is different; too dumb to get in. Sometimes you just do not have the brains to get in to school.

Oh, please point out one thing Dylan gets right in his films of false 9/11 information. It is very relevant. The fact is Dylan has got nothing right. So I do not care if he is dumb, or a dropout, do you? Dylan is still dumb on 9/11; your point is wasted on an idiot who lies to others; miss leads people stupid on 9/11. So?

This video is good; I think it shows how a liar gets caught in his own lies and ignorance. What do you really think? You think Alex Jones has some insight. Alex Jones is always wrong. I now know the show Alex said was not good, is excellent.

[Walter Ego]

Is there a link to the whole BBC documentary?


Yup, here it is.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6680224505086911340

[Edx]

These would all be relevant points if we were dealing with an opinion piece; i.e. gun control, abortion, fiscal policy, etc. September 11th is a factual topic and the trooth is bankrupt in that field.

Frankly I wouldn't care if they superimposed horns on Dylan Avery and replaced the background with flames, because he's earned it. Same goes for Alex Jones, Stephen Jones, David Griffin, Thierry Meyssan, and all the other usual suspects. Give us a new idea that has some factual or logical merit; otherwise, everything you've said so far has been debunked and should be ridiculed as brutally and as often as possible.

You guys are really showing how unreasonable you are. It makes no difference whether Creationists are wrong, to make a documentary on them to misrepresent them on purpose is dishonest as well. It doesnt matter if they're right or not. Dylan wasnt a drop out and the producer tried to claim drop out meant something it didnt, to try and defend his dishonest misrepresentation of him. You're as bad as those CTs you argue against if you think stuff like the Conspiracy Files is justified in spin and dishonest journalism.

Ed

[Edx]

His films make him look stupid. Like a dropout can. Some dropouts have talent and do not make up lies and false information.

The implication is clear. Being called a drop out is not a compliment.

Oh, he never was allowed to attend. That is different; too dumb to get in. Sometimes you just do not have the brains to get in to school.
Distraction. Irrelevant.

Oh, please point out one thing Dylan gets right in his films of false 9/11 information. It is very relevant. The fact is Dylan has got nothing right. So I do not care if he is dumb, or a dropout, do you? Dylan is still dumb on 9/11; your point is wasted on an idiot who lies to others; miss leads people stupid on 9/11. So?

What the hell is wrong with you? Dylan being right or not is irrelevant.

This video is good; I think it shows how a liar gets caught in his own lies and ignorance. What do you really think? You think Alex Jones has some insight. Alex Jones is always wrong. I now know the show Alex said was not good, is excellent.

Is english your second language? Seriously...

[Reality Believer]

Is there a link to the whole BBC documentary?
Here is one link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6680224505086911340

The simple brilliance of that documentary is they actually talk to the people who were the focus on the issues. Wally Miller, the C130 pilot, first responders, Jim Fetzer, Dylan Avery.

What woo video has ever flung an accusation and then interviewed the subject person to get the real story?

[beachnut]

The implication is clear. Being called a drop out is not a compliment.
Distraction. Irrelevant.
What the hell is wrong with you? Dylan being right or not is irrelevant.
Is english your second language? Seriously...
So, Dylan is stupid on 9/11, or he lies on purpose to fool idiots to buy his DVD; I do not care if they call the guy a nut case bozo who is daft on 9/11.

Oh, please point out a single thing Dylan gets right. Then I will take back he has the mind of a grade school dropout.

Dylan being right is not a problem, he never has been.

Yes, English been berrry berry good to me

The video was excellent what do you thing about the video! or is it a bideo

[cisco]

What the hell is wrong with you? Dylan being right or not is irrelevant.
No. Dylan being a dropout or not is irrelevant.

By the way . . .

Dropping out means to withdraw from established society, especially because of disillusion with conventional values.

So nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-boo-boo. Dylan is a dropout by at least one definition.

Deal with the thousands of misrepresentations the trooth has made and then maybe we'll get around to wasting time on this [debatable] ONE.

Comprende?

[Walter Ego]

They didnt touch on a lot of arguments they could have, but you honestly dont see a problem with such blatent misrepresentation?


The show was 59 minutes long. They couldn't cover everything.

You think a ratio of 9 debunkers to 3 is fair and unbalenced?


There were 9 debunkers? Nine? Oh, wait, you're counting Wally Miller, the Shanksville corner, the military pliot circling DC who saw the plane flying towards the Pentagon, the lady whose flight was diverted to Cleveland (which Dylan claimed was Flight 93), as debunkers? They were witnesses, not debunkers. Try again.

[Edx]

So, Dylan is stupid on 9/11, or he lies on purpose to fool idiots to buy his DVD; I do not care if they call the guy a nut case bozo who is daft on 9/11.

You can call him whatever you like, but if you make a documenatry about him and call him a drop out, thats a lie, and its even more obvious its a lie when you try and defend yourself by claiming the term means something different in the UK when it doesnt.
Oh, please point out a single thing Dylan gets right. Then I will take back he has the mind of a grade school dropout.
Saying he has the mind of drop out is different to saying he is a drop out.

Yes, English been berrry berry good to me

The video was excellent what do you thing about the video! or is it a bideo

I dont know what bideo, is but I think its worthless fluff. When they get a producer of the X-Files to talk at length about his opinion on the psycological mind of a conspiracy theorist you know its hit the bottom. I thought it was unfair even when I knew nothing about 911 conspiracies and was watching it for the first time. There are better debunking films out there.

[beachnut]

You can call him whatever you like, but if you make a documenatry about him and call him a drop out, thats a lie, and its even more obvious its a lie when you try and defend yourself by claiming the term means something different in the UK when it doesnt.

Saying he has the mind of drop out is different to saying he is a drop out.

I dont know what bideo, is but I think its worthless fluff. When they get a producer of the X-Files to talk at length about his opinion on the psycological mind of a conspiracy theorist you know its hit the bottom. I thought it was unfair even when I knew nothing about 911 conspiracies and was watching it for the first time. There are better debunking films out there.I agree, Dylan has the mind of someone who lies or is too dumb to know the truth on 9/11.

Dylan's films are self debunking.

Nice video.

[Walter Ego]

The implication is clear. Being called a drop out is not a compliment.


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

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

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, so Dylan finished high School? Gosh, now we're really impressed. Let's now forget about how dishonest Dylan is by intentionally misleading people to believe that the quotes he uses were in literal context and focus on a debatable term about a kid who only got through HS.

[OldTigerCub]

Nice video, Walter! The "deer in the headlights" look was priceless, especially when it was followed up with Wally Miller's comments. :D

[OldTigerCub]

They didnt didn't touch on a lot of arguments they could have, but you honestly dont see a problem with such blatent blatant misrepresentation? You think a ratio of 9 debunkers to 3 is fair and unbalenced unbalanced?

9 to 3? I'd say they generously weighted in favor of twoofers with that ratio. Just a realistic representation of the fact that there are far more sane people than insane people in the world.
(spelling corrections mine)

[Edx]

The show was 59 minutes long. They couldn't cover everything.

They touched on a lot of the more extreme theories yet not other ones such as NORAD responce or the toxic air in the cleanup. And it also still found time to smear CTs as antisemtic even when most arent and interview Frank Spotnitz for 10 minutes to give his uneducated filmmaking opinion on the psychology of conspiracy theoriests. Yes, he helped produce x-files, so what?

There were 9 debunkers? Nine? Oh, wait, you're counting Wally Miller, the Shanksville corner, the military pliot circling DC who saw the plane flying towards the Pentagon, the lady whose flight was diverted to Cleveland (which Dylan claimed was Flight 93), as debunkers? They were witnesses, not debunkers. Try again.

First I said "off the top of my head". Secondly, they only gave brief time to the conspiracy arguments with quick edited shots, while giving the debunkers a lot of time to talk including proceeding documentation to back them up. They didnt do that with the conspiracy guys, because even if wrong or misinterpreted, it wasnt a balenced documentary if they dont even attempt to do that. They call Dylan a "self-confessed dropout" when he wasnt a drop out. It appeals to emotion that a CT for 911 hurts the victems completely ignoring the Jersey Girls or Bill Doyle of the Coalition of 9/11 Families. They try to make out its anti-semetic to say that Jewish workers were warned on 911, but this was a report from a Jewish news source, which they dont mention. They try to make out that its a main CT idea that the Jews did it, and they get some Jewish lady on there to say how horrible it is for someone to think that.

Put all of the things wrong with this film together and I cant ever see how a reasonable person can think this film is even remotely a "fair" and "balenced" and an honest investigation and presentation of the issue which they claimed it was. Its a misrepresentative.

Ed

[Edx]

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

Again, Dylans actions are irrelevant. The fact that the producer so blatantly misrepresnted one side of the argument shows that this wasnt fair and unbalanced.

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

I'll have to watch it again, but I know of one. They used the Nova pancake graphic which is inacurate.

[Gravy]

Dylan wasnt a drop out and the producer tried to claim drop out meant something it didnt, to try and defend his dishonest misrepresentation of him. You're right: you have to be accepted to college in order to drop out.

Aside from that, Edx, did the "hit piece" get anything wrong about what's important: the truther claims?

[Edx]

Wow, so Dylan finished high School? Gosh, now we're really impressed. Let's now forget about how dishonest Dylan is by intentionally misleading people to believe that the quotes he uses were in literal context and focus on a debatable term about a kid who only got through HS.

The producer was dishonest on purpose, he knew what a "drop out" was and has the cheek to try and pretend it meant something else to Alex and Dylan just because they're American. Sorry I dont agree with Creationists but if someone made a pro-evolution film like Conspiracy files I'd be hitting out against that in the same way.

[Edx]

You're right: you have to be accepted to college in order to drop out.

Aside from that, Edx, did the "hit piece" get anything wrong about what's important: the truther claims?

Well from what I remember its almost deception by ommission. They touched on subjects they liked. They interviewed witness' but didnt interview witness' or first responders that happen to think there was explosions or originally reported exposions. Not even to debunk them, not even to show that this is what people think. You'd think a fair and balanced documentary would do that. I dont think the towers came down with explosions but why not address the arguments and interview the people who think it did like Steven Jones? Obviously they wouldnt want to do that, Steven isnt an "evangalist" like Alex is or a "drop out" like Avery, I guess they'd hate to lend any crediblity to the CT that a real physicist thinks the towers were blown up. They also twisted and misrepresented the views of which they were attacking, like the Jewish connecton.

Like I said if someone made a documentary that was pro-evolution in the same way as this was I would attack it just as much, and Im certainly no Creationist sympathiser. This films about as fair and balanced as Loose Change is.

[Walter Ego]

The producer was dishonest on purpose, he knew what a "drop out" was and has the cheek to try and pretend it meant something else to Alex and Dylan just because they're American. Sorry I dont agree with Creationists but if someone made a pro-evolution film like Conspiracy files I'd be hitting out against that in the same way.


I watched the relevant section of the film again (about 7:00 in) and it says that Dylan is a ‘self-confessed’ dropout which would indicate he told the BBC producers he was a drop out (probably in the social rather than the academic sense of the word). So Dylan called himself a dropout, not the BBC.

Okay, cleared we that one up. So was there anything else factually wrong about the film? Not mean stuff said about Dylan because he's a Yank but the FACTS about 9-11 and the truth movement in the film. Like Gravy, I’m still awaiting your answer on that question.

[Gravy]

This films about as fair and balanced as Loose Change is.Except for the small matter that this film gets every significant claim right (with the exception of the re-used NOVA pancaking footage, although that's got nothing to do with the controlled demolition claim), while Loose Change gets every significant claim wrong.

Isn't that what's important, Edx? Try to gain some perspective here.

Keep in mind that the show's purpose was to examine the truth behind some common conspiracy claims.

Here's the list of people interviewed. There's a "1" for each appearance, and a "1x" for each long appearance.

Conspiracists
Alex Jones 11 1x 1 1
Fetzer 111 1x 1x 1x 111
Avery 1 1x 1111111

Debunkers
Davin Coburn, Popular Mechanics 1x 11

Experts
Allyn Kilsheimer, Structural engineer, blast expert 1x
Chris Hoffman, Purdue University computer modeling 1 1
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, C-130 pilot 1
Wally Miller, Somerset County Coroner 11
Bill Gore, FBI Special Agent, San Diego 11
Dale Watson, FBI head of counterterorism 1
Mike Scheuer, CIA chief of Osama Bin Laden unit 1
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman, Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 11

Witnesses, others
Cheryl Shames, victim relative 1 1x
Indian Lake, PA residents, including Barry Lichty, Mayor 1
Mary McFadden, passenger on Delta flight 1989 1
Frank Spotnitz, writer/producer, The X Files, The Lone Gunman (subject of a 9/11 conspiracy theory himself) 1x 11

[Jonnyclueless]

The producer was dishonest on purpose, he knew what a "drop out" was and has the cheek to try and pretend it meant something else to Alex and Dylan just because they're American. Sorry I dont agree with Creationists but if someone made a pro-evolution film like Conspiracy files I'd be hitting out against that in the same way.

The producer went with what Dylan TOLD him. And again, is this not a bit hypocritical considering who hear is being REALLY dishonest? When a truther is caught in a lie, you don't seem to have much problem with that. But that's kind of the truther mantra, just like creationism. And you certainly aren't hitting against people like Alex and Dylan for intentionally trying to mislead people or yourself for intentionally trying to mislead people about the intent of the producer so as to distract from the real issue at hand.

[Edx]

I watched the relevant section of the film again (about 7:00 in) and it says that Dylan is a ‘self-confessed’ dropout which would indicate he told the BBC producers he was a drop out (probably in the social rather than the academic sense of the word). So Dylan called himself a dropout, not the BBC.


No, you evidently havent listened to the Alex Jones show where the producer was asked why he said Dylan was a drop out, and he said it was because "drop out" in the Uk meant someone that didnt go to Univercity not that someone took a course and "dropped out". That isnt true, it means the same thing in the UK as it does in the US.

So was there anything else factually wrong about the film? Not mean stuff said about Dylan because he's a Yank but the FACTS about 9-11 and the truth movement in the film. Like Gravy, I’m still awaiting your answer on that question.

Even if they were 100% right about the stuff they did include as responce to the arguments they touched on, that makes no difference as to the balanced and fair presentation that both you and they claimed the film was.

[Dave Rogers]

No, you evidently havent listened to the Alex Jones show where the producer was asked why he said Dylan was a drop out, and he said it was because "drop out" in the Uk meant someone that didnt go to Univercity not that someone took a course and "dropped out". That isnt true, it means the same thing in the UK as it does in the US.

The whole Dylan/drop out is at worst arguable. He applied to film school and was rejected, and chose not to go on to further education. "Drop out" is in some ways a compliment, because it implies that Avery was accepted for a university course then chose to leave it some time before it finished. In fact, he didn't even get that far.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Even if they were 100% right about the stuff they did include as responce to the arguments they touched on, that makes no difference as to the balanced and fair presentation that both you and they claimed the film was.

As Gravy pointed out, the presentation was actually heavily biased in favour of the conspiracy theorists. Listing everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theory as a debunker is a dishonest tactic adopted by conspiracy theorists. In fact, there were three leading conspiracy theorists featured heavily on the program, and only one person who has publicly challenged those theories. The rest of the people interviewed weren't theorists, they were sources. Their testimony was being misquoted and misrepresented by the conspiracy theorists, and they were simply allowed to present the original story themselves.

There is one reason why the program appears to be unfair and biased, and that is that it concluded that the theories being put forward and the people putting them forward are either stupid or insane. One possible explanation of that, however, is that the theories being put forward and the people putting them forward are in fact either stupid or insane.

Dave

[Edx]

The producer went with what Dylan TOLD him.
You guys love speculating when it suits you. What the producer was told about was that Dylan never attended Univercity. He then twisted that into claiming that Dylan was a "self confessed drop out" in order to make him look bad and undermine him.

Someone said it earlier, facts speak for themselves. Exactly. If Dylan is wrong and a bad person you shouldnt need to resport to dirty journalistic tricks in order to make your point. I dont need to make things up about Kent Hovind and Michael Behe in order to argue against Creationism, the "facts speak for themselves" as do their own actions.

And again, is this not a bit hypocritical considering who hear is being REALLY dishonest? When a truther is caught in a lie, you don't seem to have much problem with that.

And what do you base that on?

But that's kind of the truther mantra, just like creationism. And you certainly aren't hitting against people like Alex and Dylan for intentionally trying to mislead people or yourself for intentionally trying to mislead people about the intent of the producer so as to distract from the real issue at hand.

If Im not with you Im against you, is that right? Its amazing how you can see things as so black and white. That Im supposed to support Conspriacy Files' dishonesty because Alex and Dylan are just so bad? Is it the he did it first Miss! attitude? Does the end justify the means? If you dont see why this is wrong, you're no better than the people you argue against. I expect better and so should you.

Ed

[Drudgewire]

Even if they were 100% right about the stuff they did include as responce to the arguments they touched on, that makes no difference as to the balanced and fair presentation that both you and they claimed the film was.
That's like saying a story on flat earthers isn't fair and balanced because they didn't give equal weight to the argument the earth might be flat. :rolleyes:

[Edx]

The whole Dylan/drop out is at worst arguable. He applied to film school and was rejected, and chose not to go on to further education. "Drop out" is in some ways a compliment, because it implies that Avery was accepted for a university course then chose to leave it some time before it finished. In fact, he didn't even get that far.

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

As Gravy pointed out, the presentation was actually heavily biased in favour of the conspiracy theorists.

While misrepresenting them, their arguments, smearing them as anti-semitic and not including any of the evidence or interviewing any of the people they would say support them? They give the debunkers a long time to speak along with supporting documentation, yet only give the CTs small brief cut short. They mostly attack strawmen at every turn and then turn about and beat them with the body. They dont need to do that, but they did anyway.

Listing everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theory as a debunker is a dishonest tactic adopted by conspiracy theorists.
If they are debunking a conspiracy theory, they are debunkers. And are you seriously telling me no one heres called anyone a CT for just saying the kind of things Im saying?

In fact, there were three leading conspiracy theorists featured heavily on the program, and only one person who has publicly challenged those theories.

He was with Popular Mechanics, but we also have people like Frank Spotnitz given roughly 10 minutes to talk about his opinion.

The rest of the people interviewed weren't theorists, they were sources.

Frank Spotnitz was a "source"? Them trying to make out the claim that Jewish workers were warned was a anti-semitic myth made up to try and say it was a Jewish attack and then getting a Jewish lady on to tell everyone how upset it makes her, is a "source"?

Their testimony was being misquoted and misrepresented by the conspiracy theorists, and they were simply allowed to present the original story themselves.

Thats all fine, Im not saying they arent allowed to do that. But they misrepresented the CTs, they claimed things about them that wasnt true. Why didnt they talk abot the Jersey Girls? Why didnt they get anyone like Steven Jones on? No, they didnt want to lend any credibility at all to them, so no way would they put the Jersey Girls on address that because it that wouldnt sit with their opinion that all the victems and first responders are sick of CTs. And they couldnt put anyone with any qualification in a relevant field on supporting the CTs because that wouldnt sit with their presentation that CTs are just a bunch of evalgelistic uneducated drop outs.

There is one reason why the program appears to be unfair and biased, and that is that it concluded that the theories being put forward and the people putting them forward are either stupid or insane. One possible explanation of that, however, is that the theories being put forward and the people putting them forward are in fact either stupid or insane.

You know Im disapointed in all of you that are so blinkered you cant see how poor the film really is, and have to justify defending its dishonesty.

[Edx]

That's like saying a story on flat earthers isn't fair and balanced because they didn't give equal weight to the argument the earth might be flat. :rolleyes:

Good point, if you make a so called "fair and balanced" flat earth documentary where you claim to investigate the arguments for and against fairly but apply the same tactics as Conspiracy Files did, I'd say it would be a poor film as well. You guys of all people should be agreeing with me, if someone watches this for the first time and then later goes and looks into it and finds out the CTs were misrepresented they are more likely to think theres something to these CTs if the BBC has to resort to doing that.

[Dave Rogers]

Good point, if you make a so called "fair and balanced" flat earth documentary where you claim to investigate the arguments for and against fairly but apply the same tactics as Conspiracy Files did, I'd say it would be a poor film as well.

I watched the Conspiracy Files program when it was first shown, and my impression was that it bent over backwards to be fair to the conspiracy theorists. The reason it didn't seem to investigate the arguments in favour of the conspiracy theory as thoroughly as it did the arguments against them is that there is no credible evidence in favour of the conspiracy theories to investigate. What do you want them to do, make up some fictitious structural engineers to say that the Twin Towers might have been blown up? Would that somehow be more honest than trying and failing to find anybody with relevant expertise?

Your complaint doesn't seem to be with any specific information presented by the program, rather with the fact that the conclusions presented by the program were unequivocal. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation; you're saying that the program did not present the conspiracy theories as having equal merit to the known accounts of what actually happened. The reason for this is that they do not actually possess equal merit. There's no getting round that; reality, in this case, is what's biased, not the BBC's presentation of it.

Dave

[DGM]

Edx:
The BBC has the right to produce what ever they want. Obviously they don't find the conspiracies arguments compelling. Why do you think this is and what do you think the "movement" is doing to change this opinion of them? You have to admit that quote mining and taking things out of context is not a way to instill feelings of credibility yet they keep on doing it. These are just the obvious and easily proved instances of deception.

[Edx]

Except for the small matter that this film gets every significant claim right (with the exception of the re-used NOVA pancaking footage, although that's got nothing to do with the controlled demolition claim), while Loose Change gets every significant claim wrong.

Isn't that what's important, Edx? Try to gain some perspective here.

Keep in mind that the show's purpose was to examine the truth behind some common conspiracy claims.

Here's the list of people interviewed. There's a "1" for each appearance, and a "1x" for each long appearance.

Conspiracists
Alex Jones 11 1x 1 1
Fetzer 111 1x 1x 1x 111
Avery 1 1x 1111111

Debunkers
Davin Coburn, Popular Mechanics 1x 11

Experts
Allyn Kilsheimer, Structural engineer, blast expert 1x
Chris Hoffman, Purdue University computer modeling 1 1
Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, C-130 pilot 1
Wally Miller, Somerset County Coroner 11
Bill Gore, FBI Special Agent, San Diego 11
Dale Watson, FBI head of counterterorism 1
Mike Scheuer, CIA chief of Osama Bin Laden unit 1
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman, Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 11

Witnesses, others
Cheryl Shames, victim relative 1 1x
Indian Lake, PA residents, including Barry Lichty, Mayor 1
Mary McFadden, passenger on Delta flight 1989 1
Frank Spotnitz, writer/producer, The X Files, The Lone Gunman (subject of a 9/11 conspiracy theory himself) 1x 11

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

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

[Edx]

Edx:
The BBC has the right to produce what ever they want. Obviously they don't find the conspiracies arguments compelling. Why do you think this is and what do you think the "movement" is doing to change this opinion of them? You have to admit that quote mining and taking things out of context is not a way to instill feelings of credibility yet they keep on doing it. These are just the obvious and easily proved instances of deception.

You guys keep missing the point. It doesnt matter if they dont find the CT compelling, its that they had to go and misrepresent and distort the presentation of those CTs and the people involved in order to argue against it. The amazing defence thats come up again and again on this topic has been, well they do it so we can too! No matter now dishonest Creationists are, that will never be an excuse to use the same tactics.

[Horace Wheeljack]

Oh come on Edx, if you were making a documentary on the flat earth society would you not try and provide insight into the psychology of these people? Thats all he was doing by using the x-files producer. You surely cant expect documentary makers to simply provide a 50/50 split of views, they wouldnt get commissioned to make any more documentaries if they did because it would be extremely dull. We're not even talking about an issue like abortion where the population is split, around 4% of the population believe in an inside job. The BBC made a documantary last year about a man who believed he was Merlin, do you expect the producers to spend 50% of the programme presenting the views of this man and 50% from people rebutting his claims to be the medieval sorcerer? It would make for extremely tedious television if you did.

[DGM]

You guys keep missing the point. It doesnt matter if they dont find the CT compelling, its that they had to go and misrepresent and distort the presentation of those CTs and the people involved in order to argue against it. The amazing defence thats come up again and again on this topic has been, well they do it so we can too! No matter now dishonest Creationists are, that will never be an excuse to use the same tactics.
It's called television. They produce it to appeal to their audience they have no obligation to be non-bias. The credibility of the arguments are very important. Why do you think the "movement" is not trying to improve their credibility by not using obvious deception. If you want to move into mainstream and get fair and balanced representation you need to address this. They (MSM) are not your sales tool. You need to show a compelling argument before you will be taken seriously.

[Dave Rogers]

Frank Spotnitz wasnt an other, he was basically a debunker they devoted around 10 minutes to talking about how CTs were insane.

OK, make that two debunkers to three CT's. Still a pro-CT bias.

You say they used experts but they didnt use anyone that could have supported the CT, not even to debunk them.

Read that back and see if it makes any sense. They did use people who could have supported the CT, and the fact that they didn't support it based on their informed opinion is how the CT was debunked.

But the stuff they left out is pivitol to the point. So I think its fair to characterise most of those "expert"s as debunkers, in the same way as Danny Jowenko is also an expert, but he wasnt on there. Steven Jones is a physics expert, he wasnt in there. No one one was.

It's a classic CT argument to complain that "the stuff they left out is pivitol to the point". The same CT'ers then usually start re-hashing the stuff that was debunked as soon as the debunker's back is turned. The BBC picked three leading representatives of the truth movement and examined what they had to say. If they didn't happen to pick on your own favourite flavour of 9-11 CT, don't feel left out, because the chances are it's already been discussed here and shown to be without merit.

Danny Jowenko, as Miragememories rather embarrassingly pointed out, is adamant that the Twin Towers could not have been blown up. He's about the only relevant expert the truth movement could refer to, and he denies the central tenet of their faith. He's also based his entire analysis on videos, and seems very reluctant to talk about it. Maybe he was invited to take part and declined; maybe they'd never heard of him. He's never demolished a building remotely close to WTC7 in size. Steven Jones is an expert on the physics of muon catalysed fusion, which has no relevance to the events of 9-11. To be considered an expert, your expertise has to be in a relevant field. In this case, structural engineering and demolition engineering are pretty much a minimum requirement. There are no structural engineers in the truth movement, so Danny Jowenko is the only expert who could have presented a counter-case. Even so, presenting his opinion would itself be open to accusations of bias; it would suggest that there was a significant body of thought amongst experienced demolition engineers that there was something suspicious about WTC7, rather than one single opinion.

You're trying desperately hard to cry foul here, but all you're asking is that the program should have presented evidence that doesn't exist. Sorry, but 9-11 conspiracy theories are for the most part utterly ludicrous, and any balanced and reasonable assessment of them will come to that conclusion. Reality is not on their side.

Dave

[Edx]

I watched the Conspiracy Files program when it was first shown, and my impression was that it bent over backwards to be fair to the conspiracy theorists. The reason it didn't seem to investigate the arguments in favour of the conspiracy theory as thoroughly as it did the arguments against them is that there is no credible evidence in favour of the conspiracy theories to investigate.

Then why not present the evidence and the argument the way CTs present it? If you are are making a documentary about Intelligent Design I have to present the arguments they use as they use them, before I start debunking it or else I havent done a good job and put myself at risk from attacking a strawman. In this film they not only attack a strawman, they smear and misrepresent their opponants at the same time. And yet it still claimed its fair and balanced? A fair and balanced documentary can still disagree with and provide evidence for why they disagree with one particular side.

What do you want them to do, make up some fictitious structural engineers to say that the Twin Towers might have been blown up? Would that somehow be more honest than trying and failing to find anybody with relevant expertise?

Come on theres lots of people they could have interviewed or at least touched upon and didnt. Danny Jowenko, Steven Jones the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth website, the Patriots for 911 Truth website, guys like William Rodriguez, even guys like Bob Kerrey who was on the 911 Commission who doesnt agree with the CTs but still thinks Bush didnt do a thing to act on the intelligence he had.

Your complaint doesn't seem to be with any specific information presented by the program, rather with the fact that the conclusions presented by the program were unequivocal.

Well yes when you misrepresent and dishonestly smear your opponant its easier to argue against him, especially to an audience that probably doesnt know much about the topic, I know, and so should you. If there was no truth to CTs and they really are insane, then you shouldnt need dirty journalistic tricks to present that.

Creationism is certainly a load of nonsence, but it doesnt matter if the conclusion of a documentary arguing against it is "unequivocal" if they attack strawmen and misrepresent the Creationists. They dont need to do that, and its something I'd be angry about if it was made, because not only does it not need to be done but it gives those that know Creationism is a load of nonsence a bad name and frankly anyone that is curious and looks it up credability to the Creationists for being so poorly treated.

This is known as the fallacy of equivocation; you're saying that the program did not present the conspiracy theories as having equal merit to the known accounts of what actually happened.

Then you havent been listening. Im saying if you want to argue against Irreducible Complexity, you still need to present the argument fairly. That means presenting the argument that shows why IC is thought to be a big deal in ID. You need to try and interview Behe, even if he does have a degree in Biochemistry. But if you present the argument while leaving out important details just to make it easier to show knock it down or so you can more easily show an ignorent audience how much nonsence Intelligent Design is, you've done yourself and everyone else a disservice even if your conclusion is right.

[Dave Rogers]

Then why not present the evidence and the argument the way CTs present it? If you are are making a documentary about Intelligent Design I have to present the arguments they use as they use them, before I start debunking it or else I havent done a good job and put myself at risk from attacking a strawman. In this film they not only attack a strawman, they smear and misrepresent their opponants at the same time. And yet it still claimed its fair and balanced? A fair and balanced documentary can still disagree with and provide evidence for why they disagree with one particular side.

They did not set up strawmen. They interviewed James Fetzer, Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, three leading voices of the truth movement, then examined the claims those three had made in those interviews. And again, you're complaining that they didn't provide evidence in favour of the CT; that's because there isn't any worth presenting.


Come on theres lots of people they could have interviewed or at least touched upon and didnt. Danny Jowenko,

Already discussed. Possible.

Steven Jones

No more relevant in terms of expertise than Avery, Fetzer or Jones. He's not a disinterested expert, he's a conspiracy theorist.

the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth website,

See under Steven Jones.

the Patriots for 911 Truth website,

See under Steven Jones.

guys like William Rodriguez,

Possibly, but I don't think he'd have done the movement much of a service after they'd pointed out how many times he's changed his story on 9-11.

even guys like Bob Kerrey who was on the 911 Commission who doesnt agree with the CTs but still thinks Bush didnt do a thing to act on the intelligence he had.

Which is not far off the conclusion of the program; that there was a CYA conspiracy after the fact.

Im saying if you want to argue against Irreducible Complexity, you still need to present the argument fairly. That means presenting the argument that shows why IC is thought to be a big deal in ID. You need to try and interview Behe, even if he does have a degree in Biochemistry.

That degree, however, is what makes his opinion worth presenting. A degree in physics is not relevant to 9-11, any more than one in theology. Even an architecture qualification is not particularly relevant, because architects aren't generally involved in making buildings fall down. You can't interview experts who don't exist.

Fetzer, Avery and Jones were allowed to present their arguments, and defend them in conversation with the program makers. That's not misrepresentation. The fact that their arguments were generally speaking insane is not lack of balance. It's just reality. It's unfortunate, perhaps, from the point of view of debunkers that the position of CT's is so absurd that an honest presentation of it appears biased. But the only genuine error in the program that you've found is that Avery was described as a drop-out, and as I pointed out that's actually a mistake in his favour.

Dave

[Edx]

OK, make that two debunkers to three CT's. Still a pro-CT bias.

No, I said its fair to characterise most of the other experts as debunkers when they dont include anyone who could have spoken for the CTs. And dont tell me they couldnt have used anyone. They also include some victems family members talking about hard it is with this CT stuff and how victems and first responders hate it. But they dont interview the Jersey Girls, they dont even mention the fact that many of the people in 911 Truth are victems family members. So again, it is not presenting in any way an accurate picture of the other side.

Read that back and see if it makes any sense. They did use people who could have supported the CT, and the fact that they didn't support it based on their informed opinion is how the CT was debunked.

They used 3 people, Alex, Dylan and Fetzer. Thats it. Right?

If they didn't happen to pick on your own favourite flavour of 9-11 CT, don't feel left out, because the chances are it's already been discussed here and shown to be without merit.

Oh I see, you're saying that the arguments they did address had merit?

Danny Jowenko, as Miragememories rather embarrassingly pointed out, is adamant that the Twin Towers could not have been blown up.

:confused: I know, I said that when I brought him up in the post you replied to that I assume you read. He could have still spoke for WTC 7, as an expert. Doesnt matter if he is wrong or not. Frankly I would think it would be good to get him on saying he didnt think WTC 1 and 2 were demolished, that part of his interview is hardly known about or shown in CT websites. But they didnt even talk about him or anyone else they could have mentioned. Steven Jones, I believe is wrong, very wrong. But not having him on just so they can pretend that only "dropouts" and CT "evangelists" believe this is wrong as well. They wouldn't want to give any credence to it by showing the truth,which is that some people with physics degrees or experts in demolition might agree with a CT, coverup or believe parts of the CT claims are true.

Steven Jones is an expert on the physics of muon catalysed fusion, which has no relevance to the events of 9-11. To be considered an expert, your expertise has to be in a relevant field.

They could have got him on, and then said that. But they didnt becuase they'd have to put something like "physics professor" under his name. Lawd knows they wouldnt do that!

In this case, structural engineering and demolition engineering are pretty much a minimum requirement. There are no structural engineers in the truth movement,

Its not just about structural engineering experts theres lots of people they could have shown but didnt. They didnt want to because that would have given too much credence to them, but its not fair to attack a misrepresentation.

so Danny Jowenko is the only expert who could have presented a counter-case. Even so, presenting his opinion would itself be open to accusations of bias;

So showing how Danny Jowenko that thinks WTC 7 was demolished is biased in favour of CT, even though its the truth, he really does think that? Dont you care about the truth?

[GreNME]

Wow, incredible. Edx isn't even trying to defend any conspiracy and he's getting dogpiled. Guys, this is a little bit on the extreme side, doncha think?

I've seen the video before, and I don't think it's all that great nor do I think it's horrible by any measure. Like most pseudo-documentary media, it tends to show its undergarments in that it indirectly makes allusions about the character of those it's portraying in the lesser light. Yes, I think Alex Jones is quite mad and I find Dylan Avery to be a condescending, spoiled, overprivileged brat. And in most of the show they do let those qualities show themselves through by letting the people be themselves. However, there's no need to add to it by making minor assumptive statements that, while not damning overall to many of the factual points they're making, are obviously leading language that is part and parcel what makes conspiracy theories themselves so culturally viral and aren't really necessary.

[slyjoe]

Actually, I would include Spotnitz as an expert - in how to make up conspiracy fables. ;)

[DGM]

Edx:
Oh I see, you're saying that the arguments they did address had merit?

Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

[GreNME]

Edx:


Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

So friggin what? "They do it too" is not an adequate argument or defense.

[GStan]

I watched the Conspiracy Files program when it was first shown, and my impression was that it bent over backwards to be fair to the conspiracy theorists. The reason it didn't seem to investigate the arguments in favour of the conspiracy theory as thoroughly as it did the arguments against them is that there is no credible evidence in favour of the conspiracy theories to investigate. What do you want them to do, make up some fictitious structural engineers to say that the Twin Towers might have been blown up? Would that somehow be more honest than trying and failing to find anybody with relevant expertise?

Your complaint doesn't seem to be with any specific information presented by the program, rather with the fact that the conclusions presented by the program were unequivocal. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation; you're saying that the program did not present the conspiracy theories as having equal merit to the known accounts of what actually happened. The reason for this is that they do not actually possess equal merit. There's no getting round that; reality, in this case, is what's biased, not the BBC's presentation of it.

Dave

Dave has hit the nail on the head here. And to add, Dylan Avery has not presented a case that deserves fair and balanced treatment. He, in his videos, has not put forth a single credible claim that is supported by any evidence other than uninformed speculation. His video, and quite frankly most conspiracy theories, are works of complete fiction being sold as having merit. As Dave pointed out, the BBC bent over backwards to make it fair and balanced just by the very fact that they give Dylan and others a seat at the table. Devoting a show to completely illegimate CTs, fair or unfair, further legitamizes their movement almost as much as it debunks it.

[Edx]

They did not set up strawmen. They interviewed James Fetzer, Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, three leading voices of the truth movement, then examined the claims those three had made in those interviews. And again, you're complaining that they didn't provide evidence in favour of the CT; that's because there isn't any worth presenting.

Yes they did set up strawmen. They presented them as antisemitic when the original report that several Jewish employees were warned on 911 was from a Israeli news source, Ha'aretz, which also was then reported in The Washington Post. Did they mention that? No they just got some Jewish victems family member on to say how distressing the claim was. They also misrepresented by ommission. Theres so much more I could talk about, but you guys cant even accept these obvious points so I dont know why I should bother.

No more relevant in terms of expertise than Avery, Fetzer or Jones. He's not a disinterested expert, he's a conspiracy theorist.

But he isnt a "philosophy of science", or a CT "evangalist", or a "drop out". He has a physics degree. I guess that was a bit too close to expert for them.

See under Steven Jones.

See under Steven Jones.

All of them are conspiracy theorists, really? Every single one of them? According to you I suppose Bob Kerrey is also a CT because of what hes come out as saying, how about Robin Cook in regards to WMD, is he a CT as well? But you know even if they were all CTs, these guys are important. To pretend they dont exist is to show that your position doesnt have enought weight to stand on its own. Well, I dont believe that. I dont believe they needed to be so dishonest.

Possibly, but I don't think he'd have done the movement much of a service after they'd pointed out how many times he's changed his story on 9-11.

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Which is not far off the conclusion of the program; that there was a CYA conspiracy after the fact.

But they didnt get him on, and they didnt talk about him, did they? Isnt what he said what CTs have said?

That degree, however, is what makes his opinion worth presenting. A degree in physics is not relevant to 9-11, any more than one in theology.
He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show.

Fetzer, Avery and Jones were allowed to present their arguments, and defend them in conversation with the program makers. That's not misrepresentation.

They used short snippets while not showing anything that they claim is evidence or supportive, while they let the debunkers go on for long time and provide documentray follow up evidence. Someone here said, they only had a short amount of time. Well, fair enough had they not spent a lot of that time unfairly smearing them as anti-semites and spend 10 minutes with an X-Files producer.

The fact that their arguments were generally speaking insane is not lack of balance. It's just reality.

But they didnt present them, they twisted them. They didnt need to do that. It wasnt reality, it was their reality. If I find out about the Jersey girls or Bill Doyle Im going to think the film lied to me, and rightly so, they knew full about them.

It's unfortunate, perhaps, from the point of view of debunkers that the position of CT's is so absurd that an honest presentation of it appears biased.
I am truly disappointed if you are so blinded that you cant see this film as a deadfully biased mistake. Its the reason I cant fully support you, Im in the middle on this issue because of attitudes like yours. That anyone is justified as long as they attack the CT, it doesnt matter how.

But the only genuine error in the program that you've found is that Avery was described as a drop-out, and as I pointed out that's actually a mistake in his favour.
It is interesting to me the mental gymnastics some of you guys have gone through to justify the film.

[cisco]

Your obsession with the terms "dropout" and "fair and balanced" is downright bizarre.

Oh wait, no it isn't. You're a troother and you're grasping at straws because you can't argue the relevant content of the film. Silly me.

Really, get over yourself. "Dropout" was much more likely a minor mistake than an attempt to smear Dylan. As someone said, it is almost a compliment to him, as it implies he got into college in the first place, which he didn't. Secondly, he's probably the one who told them he was a dropout. You don't think it's below Dylan to lie or change his story, do you? If so, I've got this bridge I've been meaning to get rid of . . .

And "fair and balanced", are you kidding me? What is this, Fox News? Have you ever seen a troother movie? Good god, man. Get a grip on reality.

[DGM]

Edx:
Nobody is trying to justify this film. If your movement doesn't like it prove to the BBC that they are wrong and get them to issue a retraction. Kind of simple really.

[Edx]

Edx:

Do you think it's productive for the "movement" to still use the arguments? Most of the arguments they still use fall into this category (no merit).

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.

[Edx]

Your obsession with the terms "dropout" and "fair and balanced" is downright bizarre.

So its okay that the producer lied about what drop out meant? At the most charitable idea being that he was disingenuous.

Oh wait, no it isn't. You're a troother and you're grasping at straws because you can't argue the relevant content of the film. Silly me.

You call me a truther because I think the film is misrepresentative and dishonest. And I just got told that:

"Listing everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theory as a debunker is a dishonest tactic adopted by conspiracy theorists."

So what does that make you?

Really, get over yourself. "Dropout" was much more likely a minor mistake than an attempt to smear Dylan.

Except he didnt say that, the producer literally said that drop out in the UK is someone that never went to University. It doesnt, he knew that.

Secondly, he's probably the one who told them he was a dropout.
Dylan told him he never went to University, he then spun that into "dylans a self confessed dropout"

You don't think it's below Dylan to lie or change his story, do you? If so, I've got this bridge I've been meaning to get rid of . . .

I dont need to believe Dylan, I heard it right from the producers mouth.

Have you ever seen a troother movie?

"But Miss he hit me first!" :rolleyes:

Edx:
Nobody is trying to justify this film. If your movement doesn't like it prove to the BBC that they are wrong and get them to issue a retraction. Kind of simple really.

"My" movement? You sure do assume a lot. Cant I disagree with the film without agreeing with Jones or Averys claims?

[DGM]

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.
The point is that mainstream media sees the "movement" in a negative way because of their actions. Why is this not a wake-up call to change this image?

I watched a documentary last night about a pipe foundry co. The whole thing was a hit piece that eventually lead to them cleaning up their act.

Why doesn't the movement do the same? Do you disagree with me when I say that the movement does have credibility issues?

[Cuddles]

Irrelevant. Creationists are usually very dishonest, but I wouldnt support a film on them using the same tactics against them. I think we should expect more and take the higher ground. We should expect better. The end doesnt justify the means.

And yet you still haven't demonstrated a single part of the film that was in any way dishonest. As far as I can tell you haven't even tried. The closest you've got is describing Dylan as a dropout, which is not only saying he is better than in reality, but is almost certainly what he himself said ("self-described").

Other than that, try looking back over what you have actually said. "The witneses don't support the conspiracies". And? That's not bias, that's just reality. "There are more debunkers than conspiracy nuts". Except that it's been shown there were more conspiracy nuts than debunkers. "They didn't portray the conspiracy theories as having equal merit". They don't. "They didn't address every single claim that has ever been made". Of course not, they had limited time so they addressed what the conspiracy nuts actually said. And those were the more sane ones as well. Do you really think people ranting about nuclear weapons, space lasers and elves would have made the conspiracies look more sane?

If you have any sensible complaints, feel free to make them. So far you have done nothing but whine about how it wasn't fair without ever actually pointing out any unfairness. No-one is claiming this documentary was perfect. That doesn't mean everyone will just ignore baseless criticism.

[dbalsdon]

the producer literally said that drop out in the UK is someone that never went to University.
Dylan told him he never went to University,Producer: A dropout is someone who never went to university.
Dylan: I never went to university

Based on what the producer thinks dropout means, and what Dylan said, he is right, Dylan is a dropout.

How is that unfair?

[Edx]

Producer: A dropout is someone who never went to university.
Dylan: I never went to university

Based on what the producer thinks dropout means, and what Dylan said, he is right, Dylan is a dropout.

So he's still right even though he's wrong, and even though Ive never seen the term used that way and the implication of what drop out meant is clear. If I tell documentary film maker making a Pro-Intelligent Design film that I never went to University and they go and tell everyone Im a drop out, Im going to be upset with them. Claiming that because he thought thats what it meant, even though Ive never heard anyone ever use the term that way is a poor way to justify it. I realise that you cant accept they did anything wrong, because you must defend the people arguing against the dishonest CTs at all costs even down to saying its okay if they use dishonest tactics, the CTs do as well!

[cisco]

Edx, didn't you say you are 24? Is it possible the producer is a few decades older than you and dropout meant something else in his time? I don't know about your side of the pond, but language is constantly changing over here.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes they did set up strawmen. They presented them as antisemitic when the original report that several Jewish employees were warned on 911 was from a Israeli news source, Ha'aretz, which also was then reported in The Washington Post. Did they mention that? No they just got some Jewish victems family member on to say how distressing the claim was. They also misrepresented by ommission. Theres so much more I could talk about, but you guys cant even accept these obvious points so I dont know why I should bother.

Are you truly oblivious to the widespread anti-semitism in the 9-11 truth movement, and to the fact that the 4,000 Jews and the Odigo warning are repeated frequently by overtly anti-semitic CT's? Try reading just about anything by MaGZ. The problem with the conspiracy theory is not the original report, it's the deliberate misinterpretation of it by neo-Nazis in order to support their anti-semitic agenda. As for misrepresentation by omission, there is simply neither the time nor the tolerance in the audience to cover every single CT claim, so they allowed a group of prominent figures in the truth movement to choose the claims for them. Calling that a strawman fallacy is absurd.

But he isnt a "philosophy of science", or a CT "evangalist", or a "drop out". He has a physics degree. I guess that was a bit too close to expert for them.

Guessing is all you're doing. They picked three leading figures in the CT movement, and Jones didn't happen to be one of them. Anything else is speculation. Prove to me that the BBC specifically refused to talk to Jones because they thought his opinions too credible and I might pay more attention.

All of them are conspiracy theorists, really? Every single one of them?

Look at the websites you referenced. They are both set up specifically to disseminate the theory that 9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government, for all their smokescreens about just wanting a new investigation.

According to you I suppose Bob Kerrey is also a CT because of what hes come out as saying, how about Robin Cook in regards to WMD, is he a CT as well? But you know even if they were all CTs, these guys are important. To pretend they dont exist is to show that your position doesnt have enought weight to stand on its own. Well, I dont believe that. I dont believe they needed to be so dishonest.

And now you're engaging in exactly the kind of misrepresentation you're claiming the BBC was guilty of. The above passage is practically a textbook example of a strawman fallacy; you have made up an opinion I don't hold, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to be so dishonest?

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Again, speculation on your part. And again, this is a strawman argument; you're attributing motives to the BBC based on your own speculation then attacking them for possessing those motives. Can you see that, by doing so, you're becoming exactly what you're complaining about?

He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show.

See above. It wasn't an unlimited program slot, so they had to choose which conspiracy theorists to talk to. Avery, Fetzer and Alex Jones are a perfectly reasonable cross-section of the movement; Griffin, Steven Jones and Judy Wood would be equally good choices; there are plenty of other groups of three you could choose, and every one would be open to charges of distortion by omission.

I am truly disappointed if you are so blinded that you cant see this film as a deadfully biased mistake. Its the reason I cant fully support you, Im in the middle on this issue because of attitudes like yours.

Seriously? Are you honestly saying that, because an English physicist that you've never met refuses to agree with your opinion on a BBC program broadcast in 2007, therefore you can't rule out the possibility that the US Government killed 3,000 of its own citizens in 2001? I'm not going any further with this unless you confirm that's what you meant, but it's hard to interpret the above paragraph any other way.

Dave

[Edx]

And yet you still haven't demonstrated a single part of the film that was in any way dishonest. As far as I can tell you haven't even tried.

Yes I have and you obviously have been reading. Ive stated many things in several different ways and Im not going to go to the trouble of listing it all out for you for you to just ignore again. If I seem a little confrontational its because Im frustrated by how totally closed so many of you are to any idea that a anti-CT film could possibily be wrong or bad. They do it too Miss! is not a justifiable defence. The idea that any attacking of CTs are good no matter what, is shamefull. This is the James Randi forum, you guys should know better. I am disapointed in all of you.

The closest you've got is describing Dylan as a dropout, which is not only saying he is better than in reality, but is almost certainly what he himself said ("self-described").

Looks like you werent paying attention.

Other than that, try looking back over what you have actually said. "The witneses don't support the conspiracies". And? That's not bias, that's just reality. "
Fine, but dont pretend there arent any witness' that dont seem to support the ideas of the CT claim. Dont pretend Robert Rodregex doesnt exist, dont pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist. Dont pretend only "drop outs" and CT evangalists have any criticisms of the official story..

There are more debunkers than conspiracy nuts". Except that it's been shown there were more conspiracy nuts than debunkers.

Wrong again, as Ive already talked about. 3 CTs against 9 "experts" including the guy from Popular Mechanics for the debunkers and then several victims family members that were saying how horrible CTs are, and a "witness'" including a irrelevant Jewish lady to lend an emotional helping hand to their implication that they were anti-Semitic and an X-Files producer saying that CTs were insane. Sorry, thats not showing more support for the CTs.

"They didn't portray the conspiracy theories as having equal merit".
This is the stuff that really annoys me. Why put that in quotes as if thats what I wrote? I specifcally said thats not what Ive been saying

They don't. "They didn't address every single claim that has ever been made".

And look you do it again. No wonder you agree with the film, it seems you like engaging in attacking a few strawmen of yourself, dont you?

[Edx]

Edx, didn't you say you are 24? Is it possible the producer is a few decades older than you and dropout meant something else in his time? I don't know about your side of the pond, but language is constantly changing over here.

How many places can you find that uses the term that way?

[dbalsdon]

3.drop out - leave school or an educational program prematurely;


Primary School and Secondary(High) School would, in my opinion, be classed as an educational program. College and/or university would be an optional extension of that program. If you don't go to either, it could be classed as leaving the program.

[Edx]

Are you truly oblivious to the widespread anti-semitism in the 9-11 truth movement, and to the fact that the 4,000 Jews and the Odigo warning are repeated frequently by overtly anti-semitic CT's? Try reading just about anything by MaGZ. The problem with the conspiracy theory is not the original report, it's the deliberate misinterpretation of it by neo-Nazis in order to support their anti-semitic agenda. As for misrepresentation by omission, there is simply neither the time nor the tolerance in the audience to cover every single CT claim, so they allowed a group of prominent figures in the truth movement to choose the claims for them. Calling that a strawman fallacy is absurd.

Of course there are anti-semitic ideas around, but you see its the claim they used to justify saying that they are anti-semties thats a strawman, the claim that jewish workers were warned wasnt a myth made up by CTers it was reported in the the Israli newspaper Ha'aretz and The Washington Post. They didnt bother to mention that. You dont need to be anti-semitic to read what they said and repeat it, yet according to the implication if I said that Im repeating anti-semitic myths. They then used a Jewish victems family member for more emotional power to make people feel sorry for her and therefore become angry at the CTs. Sorry, but they used very dirty journalistic tactics.

Guessing is all you're doing. They picked three leading figures in the CT movement, and Jones didn't happen to be one of them. Anything else is speculation. Prove to me that the BBC specifically refused to talk to Jones because they thought his opinions too credible and I might pay more attention.

Of course Im guessing, but I cant see any other explanation for totally ignoring anyone that might support the CTs arguments while having not only 8 experts arguing for the offical account and 1 Popular Mechanics debunker, but victems family members (ignoring those like Jersey Girls) and a TV producer also arguing against the CTs and then at the same time defaming the character of the CTs they did have on.

Look at the websites you referenced. They are both set up specifically to disseminate the theory that 9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government, for all their smokescreens about just wanting a new investigation.

Look at this reasonably. The fact is Creationists do have these lists of real scientists that have real degrees in relevant fields. They dont do any science on Creationism of course, but the fact is they do exist. So to ignore them completely so you can argue or even imply that there are no Creationists with legitimate degrees in a relevant field, is dishonest.

And now you're engaging in exactly the kind of misrepresentation you're claiming the BBC was guilty of. The above passage is practically a textbook example of a strawman fallacy; you have made up an opinion I don't hold, attributed it to me, and then attacked it. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to be so dishonest?

Rubbish, you keep arguing that theres no legitimate people they could have used to support the CTs case. People like Bob Kerrey did say what CTs have said about Bush not doing anything and ignoring intelligence, so why wasnt he worth bringing on or talking about? Is it because they dont want someone as credible as he is to appear to support one of their arguments? Robin Cook said Blair was intentionally dishonest in order to take us to war, thats a CT claim as well, but that doesnt make him a CTer. But my point, if you'd have cared enough to think about what I was saying rather than gleefully jumping to the conclusion that I was misrepresenting you, was that there are many people that agree with small, several or many parts of the CTs case that are worth talking about. If you just pretend they dont exist is not a fair presentation of the situation.

Exactly! They could have shown that! How is it so hard to understand this? They didnt show him, presumabley becasue they didnt want to have to say that a 911 hero is a CT, even if they can debunk his story. They cant interview him or the Jersey Girls becuase then they cant say how the victems familys are all totally sick of any CT idea.

Again, speculation on your part. And again, this is a strawman argument; you're attributing motives to the BBC based on your own speculation then attacking them for possessing those motives.Can you see that, by doing so, you're becoming exactly what you're complaining about?

Once again, give me one good reason why they misrepresented the jewish claim and the claim that victims family members all hate 911 CTs? You are so willing to see problems and dishonesty with CT films yet wont judge your own by the same standard.

He has experience with thermite doesnt he? And he says the molten metal proves thermite. He's wrong, but they didnt get him on. Speaking of which did they mention molten metal? And like I said, they didnt want to have anyone on with even a remotely relevant degree, so out goes Steven Jones! "Evangalist" and "drop out" doesnt mix with physics professors, CIA analysts or military personal, engineers or 911 survivors and family members that all support some or many of the arguments CTs present. They didnt show any of them because it would paint a more accurate picture, one which they didnt want to show. See above. It wasn't an unlimited program slot, so they had to choose which conspiracy theorists to talk to. Avery, Fetzer and Alex Jones are a perfectly reasonable cross-section of the movement; Griffin, Steven Jones and Judy Wood would be equally good choices; there are plenty of other groups of three you could choose, and every one would be open to charges of distortion by omission.

Strawman, again, apparently. See bolded part above.

Seriously? Are you honestly saying that, because an English physicist that you've never met refuses to agree with your opinion on a BBC program broadcast in 2007, therefore you can't rule out the possibility that the US Government killed 3,000 of its own citizens in 2001?

I'm not going any further with this unless you confirm that's what you meant, but it's hard to interpret the above paragraph any other way.

Its not just you, look at the responces Ive gotten. What I mean is I cant fully support the idea that CTs must be attacked no matter what. I cant join with this forum in the collective bashing of CTs, just because their CTs, because of the unreasonable attitudes Ive seen in this very forum. I may not agree with most of the 911 CT arguments, but at least Im open to being wrong and at least I think Im reasonable enough to really want to know what happened. I dont see the people that Ive been arguing with about this documentary film have showed me they are that reasonable. So thats what Im in the middle for, because truth is rarely black and white, and some of you guys can be as stubborn and as irrationally unreasonable as each other. Im sure it doesnt apply to all of you, but certianly what I have seen here doesnt fill me with confidence.

[alexg]

Re: dropout - if leaving the educational system in England before attending college is not considered to be formally or informally 'droping out' then the BBC documentary is simply incorrect. It might be worth noting that Dylan seems to have had the aptitude and the desire to go to college but apparently gave up on this aspiration when he was rejected from 'film school'. If the docu is simply in error on this point the next question is how did they make this error. It may have been an innocent error or it could have been a 'hit'. What I don't see in the film is any pattern of similar FACTUAL errors or misrepresentations which would tend to support the notion that they were intentionally trying to mislead us on factual matters. I also don't think the 'dropout' tag is all that damaging.

However, if they are wrong about this point it is important for the BBC and for us, as debunkers, to simply acknowldege this.

Is the whole thing a 'hit piece' or a documentary? It's somewhere in between IMHO. I think most TV documenraies fall into this category. It always seems that the starting assumptions of the film makers show through. I think this is in part due to the limitations of the medium.

I think edx has a point; the BBC docu was less than perfectly fair and balanced. On the whole I do not think it was terribly deceptive or too far from the mark. I'm sure Alex Jones would have you believe it was all bunk yet all he seems to come up with by way of fatual error is the dropout issue. Unless I am missing something.

There is a lot to know about the 911 CT. The BBC and even popular mechanics don't seem to know as much as the best debunkers here, such as Mark. Some of the errors they make may simply be from having done insufficent reasearch.

[Edx]

3.drop out - leave school or an educational program prematurely Primary School and Secondary(High) School would, in my opinion, be classed as an educational program. College and/or university would be an optional extension of that program. If you don't go to either, it could be classed as leaving the program.

What a stretch. You yourself said University is optional. He didnt go to University, you cant leave school or an educational program prematurely if you never went there. In fact it still wouldnt be too accurate to say you dropped out of school even if you left secondary school and were homeschooled and obtained your qualifications that way. Sorry, but in the UK dropout does not mean someone that never went to University.

Ed

[dbalsdon]

but at least Im open to being wrongAs is everyone else that is here. It's just that everything we've seen so far has backed up the 'official story'. When/IF the TM finds something which actually proves someone other then OBL and al qaeda were behind the attacks, we'll be willing to change our opinions.

Just curious, what does theory mean, to you?

[Jonnyclueless]

Edx is just as bad as Dylan. He is taking a legitimate statement about someone and trying to twist it into something it isn't all to distract from the real issue here which is the intent to mislead people such as Dylan and Alex do. Dylan is a drop out. He clearly dropped out of his education and trying to twist definitions to suite your needs is shameless.

The bottom line here is that Ed is pissed about a truther getting caught in a lie. He couldn't care less about the exposure of the real lie by people touting truth and patriotism, etc etc. And the BBC isn't claiming debunking anything, they are reporting.

[Horace Wheeljack]

I dont think they should have described him as a 'drop out' but i dont think they did this to smear him, if this was the case they would have said 'failed entry to film school'. People sometimes get described as a 'drop out' in a positive way, like Bill Gates or Richard Branson, it doesnt necessarilty connote a negative label, more a maverick. It was a mistake to describe him as a 'drop out' as he never made entry, but if you read Dylans biography about not getting into college and becoming a waiter its easy to understand the producer describing him as such.

[alexg]

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

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

[Jonnyclueless]

What a stretch. You yourself said University is optional. He didnt go to University, you cant leave school or an educational program prematurely if you never went there. In fact it still wouldnt be too accurate to say you dropped out of school even if you left secondary school and were homeschooled and obtained your qualifications that way. Sorry, but in the UK dropout does not mean someone that never went to University.

Ed

It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change. The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school. Had it not been for LC he would most likely have continued with school and not have dropped out.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here. The meaning of what the guy said would be the same anywhere.

[Edx]

Re: dropout - if leaving the educational system in England before attending college is not considered to be formally or informally 'droping out' then the BBC documentary is simply incorrect. It might be worth noting that Dylan seems to have had the aptitude and the desire to go to college but apparently gave up on this aspiration when he was rejected from 'film school'. If the docu is simply in error on this point the next question is how did they make this error. It may have been an innocent error or it could have been a 'hit'. What I don't see in the film is any pattern of similar FACTUAL errors or misrepresentations which would tend to support the notion that they were intentionally trying to mislead us on factual matters. I also don't think the 'dropout' tag is all that damaging.

I see a pattern of misrepresenting the arguments and misrepresenting the people that make the arguments. See my previous posts.

However, if they are wrong about this point it is important for the BBC and for us, as debunkers, to simply acknowldege this.

Well, yes that would be a good step. It would have been very easy for the producer to say "yea sorry Dylan I made a mistake", but they didnt, he tried to pretend "dropped out" meant something different in the Uk to what it does in the US but the fact is it means the same thing and implies the same thing. Coupled with the rest of their misrepresenting presentation Im not surprised they did that.

Is the whole thing a 'hit piece' or a documentary? It's somewhere in between IMHO. I think most TV documenraies fall into this category. It always seems that the starting assumptions of the film makers show through. I think this is in part due to the limitations of the medium.

I think the history channels documentary could be said to be inbetween, but not this. This was as bad a hit piece that I think there is a an example of. Like I said before the producer of the Channel 4 film on the Bilderberg Group and Alex Jones' trip to Bohemium Grove is fair and balanced.

I think edx has a point; the BBC docu was less than perfectly fair and balanced.
To put it mildly, but thanks.

I'm sure Alex Jones would have you believe it was all bunk yet all he seems to come up with by way of fatual error is the dropout issue. Unless I am missing something.

And the strong implication that all the victems familys hate 911 CTs and theres they implication that 911 CTs are antisemites. Stuff like that.

Thankyou for being a more reasonable than the responce Ive gotten so far which essentially amounts to apologetics.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not going to bother with most of this because it's getting repetetive, but there's one thing:

Rubbish, you keep arguing that theres no legitimate people they could have used to support the CTs case. People like Bob Kerrey did say what CTs have said about Bush not doing anything and ignoring intelligence, so why wasnt he worth bringing on or talking about? Is it because they dont want someone as credible as he is to appear to support one of their arguments? Robin Cook said Blair was intentionally dishonest in order to take us to war, thats a CT claim as well, but that doesnt make him a CTer. But my point, if you'd have cared enough to think about what I was saying rather than gleefully jumping to the conclusion that I was misrepresenting you, was that there are many people that agree with small, several or many parts of the CTs case that are worth talking about. If you just pretend they dont exist is not a fair presentation of the situation.

(a) None of these people agree with the central feature of the CT, which is that the US Government knowingly executed the attacks or allowed them to be carried out. The claim that the US and UK governments were dishonest in order to provoke war with Iraq is one that's hotly debated, more on the Politics forum than here, because it's an argument that has merits on both sides. The claim that Bush was incompetent in allowing the attacks to happen is in the same category. You are therefore criticising the BBC, in effect, for not appending reasonable arguments to those of the conspiracists in order to make them appear more reasonable by association. If I'm wrong here, please point me to a single statement by Bob Kerrey or Robin Cook in which they suggest that LIHOP or MIHOP theories are in any way credible. Just one. By either of them.

(b) As I said, the conclusion of the program is that there may well have been a conspiracy after the fact to cover up incompetence. How could that be if there was no incompetence to cover up? The program not only represented the body of opinion you're complaining about it omitting, it agreed with it.

(c) However passionately you choose to believe that I'm pretending Bob Kerrey and Robin Cook don't exist, your expression of that belief is still a strawman.

Dave

[Walter Ego]

No, you evidently havent listened to the Alex Jones show where the producer was asked why he said Dylan was a drop out, and he said it was because "drop out" in the Uk meant someone that didnt go to Univercity not that someone took a course and "dropped out". That isnt true, it means the same thing in the UK as it does in the US.


Whether or not Dylan was mischaracterized as a dropout is irrelevant. It’s a red herring you’re using to avoid discussing the substance of the documentary. Dylan made himself look like a fool in the film. He didn’t need any help from the BBC.


Even if they were 100% right about the stuff they did include as responce to the arguments they touched on, that makes no difference as to the balanced and fair presentation that both you and they claimed the film was.


In other words even if the film completely destroyed the claims of the of Dylan, Fetzer, Jones, et al, it doesn’t matter because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout and you don’t have to argue if there was anything factually mistaken about 9-11 in the film because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.

We’re going in circles here, fella. One more time before I write you off as someone I need no longer pay attention to.

Was there anything factually wrong in the film regarding what happened on 9-11?

(And don't tell me they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.)

[alexg]

It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change. The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school. Had it not been for LC he would most likely have continued with school and not have dropped out.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here. The meaning of what the guy said would be the same anywhere.

Technically, if I try to get in to college but get rejected then I didn't dropout. I tried to get into some really nice schools but I was rejected so I ended up going to a OK school. I wonder how much effort Dylan made to get into some other school? Still, the term 'dropout' clealry implies you were in a certain level of education and choose to quit. In the US you do not use the term in this way. Maybe things are different elsewhere.

[Edx]

Edx is just as bad as Dylan. He is taking a legitimate statement about someone and trying to twist it into something it isn't all to distract from the real issue here which is the intent to mislead people such as Dylan and Alex do. Dylan is a drop out. He clearly dropped out of his education and trying to twist definitions to suite your needs is shameless.

The bottom line here is that Ed is pissed about a truther getting caught in a lie. He couldn't care less about the exposure of the real lie by people touting truth and patriotism, etc etc. And the BBC isn't claiming debunking anything, they are reporting.

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own. :rolleyes:


It's not a stretch at all. He tried to go, he got rejected. He dropped out of school in deciding not to continue his education in favor of persuing Loose Change.

"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.

The point of the comment was to show that he chose this path over school.
The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to be so deceptive here.

Wow, irony.

[Edx]

Whether or not Dylan was mischaracterized as a dropout is irrelevant. It’s a red herring you’re using to avoid discussing the substance of the documentary. Dylan made himself look like a fool in the film. He didn’t need any help from the BBC.

Already discussed at length, if you're going to ignore it all Im not going to waste my time repeating myself for you to ignore it again. Ive already wasted enough of my time talking about this topic.

In other words even if the film completely destroyed the claims of the of Dylan, Fetzer, Jones, et al, it doesn’t matter because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout and you don’t have to argue if there was anything factually mistaken about 9-11 in the film because they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.

They did far more than just call Dylan a drop out, but you intentionally wont talk about anything else I said several times and in several different ways, so you'd rather focus on this. Fine, but now I know what you're like and I know theres little need to bother talking to you if this is how you're going to act.

We’re going in circles here, fella. One more time before I write you off as someone I need no longer pay attention to.

Was there anything factually wrong in the film regarding what happened on 9-11?

(And don't tell me they were mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout.)

Already addressed. You've ignored it.

[Rika]

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own. :rolleyes:

Because you're being dishonest. See note a)


"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.

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


The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.

It isn't, but see note a)

Note a)

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

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

[Sabrina]

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

EDX, I think this is why people are so confused by your vehement opposition to this documentary; you (and bear in mind this is strictly my opinion based on reading your posts) seem to be promoting the idea that because the documentary was not unbiased means it was wrong, but it can be biased and still be right. Is that the right way to go about things? Absolutely not, but, as others have said, these documentarians were ultimately trying to sell a perspective by dressing it up in the nicest clothes possible while offering it's opposition in rags, to use a metaphor, solely so they could make a few dollars on it. That was their goal. They probably could care less which position is correct; they simply went with the more popular one as easier to sell and did what they could to make it more appealing than the other perspective. But the dressing-up of the story has little consequence ultimately to critical thinkers, because they are able to verify the FACTS offered in the documentary for themselves, and have done so on numerous occasions. Bearing that in mind, can you understand now why people don't seem to care that the documentary seemingly slanted the perspective to make the non-CT one more inviting?

[Jonnyclueless]

Witness all, the way I am being treated just because I dont agree with a film that uses deception and dishonesty even if its conclusions are the same as my own. :rolleyes:




"How can I drop out of a course I never attended?", Dylan said. The producer said that to drop out in the UK doesnt mean you have to actually drop out, you just have to not go to University.


The point was to smear him as a drop out, when he wasnt. Being called a dropout is rarely a compliment and coupled with the rest of the films misrepresentations we can see a pattern.



Wow, irony.


Witness all the way Ed is treating everyone who doesn't agree with him when he uses dishonest tactics from Alex Jones to misrepresent a dishonest film maker.

The point was not to smear, it was to confront. You clearly have no problem with such tactics and think everyone here is stupid enough to fall for your ********. It's not going to work buddy. Go to the LC change forum and peddle that nonsense.

And here's a blue for you, because a comment isn't a compliment, does not make it dishonest. This is a clear cut case of you not liking that it puts a dent in the truther cause and are trying to look for anything to put down the findings. It's not going to happen because those two have already been proven frauds. And if I had a dime for every one of you minions that went around pretending to be be looking for honesty and integrity while doing just the opposite, I would be rich. Run along now.

[alexg]

Edx, if I scour the world and find one CD expert out of thousands who thinks building 7 was a CD am I required to put this guy in my documentary? In a short documentary the best you can do is find representative samples. You cannot be exhaustive. I repeat that I do not think the docu was far from the mark here.

[Edx]

=Dave Rogers;3407911]
(a) None of these people agree with the central feature of the CT, which is that the US Government knowingly executed the attacks or allowed them to be carried out.

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

The claim that the US and UK governments were dishonest in order to provoke war with Iraq is one that's hotly debated, more on the Politics forum than here, because it's an argument that has merits on both sides. The claim that Bush was incompetent in allowing the attacks to happen is in the same category. You are therefore criticising the BBC, in effect, for not appending reasonable arguments to those of the conspiracists in order to make them appear more reasonable by association. If I'm wrong here, please point me to a single statement by Bob Kerrey or Robin Cook in which they suggest that LIHOP or MIHOP theories are in any way credible. Just one. By either of them.

Irrelevant, like I already said. See above.

(b) As I said, the conclusion of the program is that there may well have been a conspiracy after the fact to cover up incompetence. How could that be if there was no incompetence to cover up? The program not only represented the body of opinion you're complaining about it omitting, it agreed with it.
It does, about the only thing it does right. But if we look at 911: Press for Truth, whats their position? Thats an incompetence claim, but its still called a CT film that according to this forum has nothing to back up any of its claims. Again, you'll support a film like Conspiracy Files when it suits you when though their main point is theres a coverup after 911 is the same as Press for Truth!

(c) However passionately you choose to believe that I'm pretending Bob Kerrey and Robin Cook don't exist, your expression of that belief is still a strawman.

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

[beachnut]

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

You want to know what IS a fair and balanced documentary? Is the documentary made by the Channel 4 director who went with Alex Jones to Bohemian Grove.
They are insane, on the ideas they have. So? The show let the idiots on 9/11 talk; too bad Thermite Jones was not on to show to all even PhDs have idiot ideas and make up junk.

Putting Thermite Jones on would be cruel. He is insane to come up with junk like he does.
Thermite Jones, made up his idea 4 years after 9/11 (if you need to see his very first paper/letter, I can post it)! It would be funny () to see pure nut case ideas up on the tele. To put a physicist on who said thermite did it, and expose to the world he is nuts. Nice, but other physicists would not even touch it, would they. It is embarrassing to all physicist that such an idiot exists. You want to expose an idiot and discredit him to the whole world but your are worried about "dropout" Dylan.

Walter's video is great from the OP, shows Dylan as the dumb guy he is. BBC video was too fair to the idiots in the truth movement but summed it up saying they were full of crap. Someone is trying to make a stupid point about stupid people. As he continues to do what he says other are doing. ((by reading it))

The OP video is great; BBC is good because it says the CTers are with zero evidence. Cool

[Edx]

The point was not to smear, it was to confront.

Not according to the producer. He said it was a fair and balanced investigation that went back to primary sources and witness'.

And here's a blue for you, because a comment isn't a compliment, does not make it dishonest.

This one was.

This is a clear cut case of you not liking that it puts a dent in the truther cause and are trying to look for anything to put down the findings.
Want me to list all the websites, videos and films Ive seen that show me most 911 Truth claims are wrong? No matter, you'd rather put me in a box and dismiss me as a "truther" in order to ignore me.

[Pardalis]

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.

[alexg]

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

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

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

Dave

[Edx]

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

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

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

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

but it can be biased and still be right.

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

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

I agree again!

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

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

Ed

[Horace Wheeljack]

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


Irrelevant, like I already said. See above.


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



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

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

[Edx]

double post

[Edx]

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

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

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

No need to be obtuse.

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

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

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

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

[Edx]

Because you're being dishonest. See note a)

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

It isn't, but see note a)

Note a)

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

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

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

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

[beachnut]

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Edx]

If I remember right Undesired Walrus made also a funny video with that BBC segment, and he added music from "Curb Your Enthusiasm" over Avery's dumbfounded stare.

That was pretty funny.

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

[Edx]

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

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

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

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


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

[nicepants]

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

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

[Edx]

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

At least it would have been accurate!

Honestly though, I like your responce :).

[beachnut]

Beachnut you obviously havent read a thing Ive said, or you did and chose not to understand it. Im not endorsing Zeitgeist and you of all people I know is a brick wall to debate with, half the things you say dont even seem to make any sence.
I did read. You are projecting, I never said you liked or are pushing the stupid movie. But you were. You should read your own stuff, you are funny.

Once again, look at the film Zeitgeist.. Its not logically incompatible, look at Zeitgeist. Yep, you say it has errors, but want to use it because you think it makes a point. Are you endorsing a failed point in Zeitgeist? Reads like it. But as you say your Zeitgeist is irrelevant.

[nicepants]

How about if they had just said that he was a "film school reject", would that have worked for you?At least it would have been accurate!

Honestly though, I like your responce :).

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

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

[Edx]

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

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

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

[dudalb]

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

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


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

[dbalsdon]

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

[Sabrina]

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

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

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

[Walter Ego]

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

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


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

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

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

[Edx]

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

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

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

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

[8den]

I'm confused, Dylan Avery describes himself as a "drop out" to the filmakers, the film makers apply that description in their presentation of Dylan.

Dylan and Alex leap on this singular point, as it's unfair, because, technically Dylan never managed to get in, to drop out. A producer botches his response to this spurious non issue.

Have I got this right?

Are they really this desperate as to get this tenuous?

[nicepants]

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

Which of these implies something "worse" in your mind?

self-professed dropout
film-school reject

Personally I don't think it makes much difference either way. I believe in the film they talk about the success of Loose Change and say "not bad for a self-professed dropout". So it's not even used in a manner that might be construed as an attack on his credibility.

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

I saw them, you haven't pointed out any other FACTS which you believe the BBC got wrong, mostly seems to be complaints about the amount of face time & which claims were addressed. I want to know what they reported that was wrong.

[Edx]

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

No Im not endorsing it. Read my posts properly to see why I brought it up. :rolleyes:

[Edx]

Which of these implies something "worse"?

self-professed dropout
film-school reject

I just said, didnt I? People get rejected from their chosen colleges and Universities all the time, but dropouts arent generally seen in a positive light because it suggests the person is a quitter who cant stick with something.

I saw them, you haven't pointed out any other FACTS which you believe the BBC got wrong, mostly seems to be complaints about the amount of face time & which claims were addressed. I want to know what they reported that was wrong.

Then you must have read me talking about the claim that jewish workers were warned on 911. Tell me, how did the show present this claim?

[beachnut]

No Im not endorsing it. Read my posts properly to see why I brought it up. :rolleyes:
I read your post, you think there is something of value there? Explain please why you brought it up again?
Beachnut you obviously havent read a thing Ive said, or you did and chose not to understand it. Im not endorsing Zeitgeist and you of all people I know is a brick wall to debate with, half the things you say dont even seem to make any sence.You are the one who does not make sence sense. Why do we say this to people instead of explaining what we said again for the impaired people like me.

I thought it was pretty funny in Zeitgeist when they added 3 stooges music over a monatge of clips of the bush administration talking about terrorism in their speeches.
It would work for Alex Jones and Dylan even better (check the polls). Alex is so roid stupid, he is a perfect match for Dylan anemic stupid. Their ideas are not based on facts. Alex Jones said it was a hit pieces on Dylan. Dylan is a hit piece on Dylan. Is Dylan smart enough to be a dropout? I would not mention Alex Jones, just present your own review with points. Alex Jones is not a good source. If you use him and think he has facts, it is self critiquing. (facts, not biased junk)
I decided to whip up a short video of Dylan Avery getting perplexed when a BBC reporter tried to explain Shanksville corner Wally Miller’s description of the seeming lack of bodies at the United 93 crash site.
BhKiAUkw7SYExcellent clip

[dbalsdon]

while "self confessed drop out" implies he is a quitterSo if someone told you they were a drop out, would you instantly assume they were a quitter?

[Walter Ego]

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


I've given up on Edx. The last time I looked he was still going on about how the BBC was mean to Dylan by calling him a dropout. It's like watching a dog endlessly chasing its own tail in a circle. Round and round he goes getting nowhere and accomplishing exactly nothing.

[HawksFan]

So, Dylan applied to one film school, got rejected, gave up on his apparent dream of becoming a (legitimate) film maker, and now makes lame internet CT follies.

Sounds like a quitter to me.

[Edx]

So, Dylan applied to one film school, got rejected, gave up on his apparent dream of becoming a (legitimate) film maker, and now makes lame internet CT follies.

Sounds like a quitter to me.

Thats true, but that doesnt make him a "self confessed drop out". Thats spin, and not even very smart spin.

[Jonnyclueless]

Not according to the producer. He said it was a fair and balanced investigation that went back to primary sources and witness'.



This one was.


Want me to list all the websites, videos and films Ive seen that show me most 911 Truth claims are wrong? No matter, you'd rather put me in a box and dismiss me as a "truther" in order to ignore me.

There you go, it's completely unfair and unbalanced because YOU disagree with the wording used by the guy, and a wording that is at best arguably negative. That's a oretty pathetic argument. The irony being calling it a hit piece and making that argument being on a valid term that you dislike. Very funny.

I don't want to ignore you, I want to point out how utterly absurd your argument is. Your own argument is invalid and dismisses you. I don't need to pretend you are a truther. Your stereo typical behavior makes it obvious. And you like the 1000s before you of course actually think your behavior is unlike everyone else and that YOU unlike others are somehow fair and balanced. Maybe you might want to start reading through the forums to see the 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?

[Edx]

So if someone told you they were a drop out, would you instantly assume they were a quitter?

I watched the show without knowing anything about Avery, I thought nothing of the comment at the time. I assumed he had dropped out of University course, he didnt.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thats true, but that doesnt make him a "self confessed drop out". Thats spin, and not even very smart spin.

Spin would be trying to take a valid adjective and trying to spin it into a hit piece. As explained, the comment underlines that Dylan chose this direction over school, thus it essentially caused him to drop out of school as he would most likely have continued with school otherwise. Again, stop trying to spin this and use double-standards doing so.

[Edx]

There you go, it's completely unfair and unbalanced because YOU disagree with the wording used by the guy, and a wording that is at best arguably negative. That's a oretty pathetic argument. The irony being calling it a hit piece and making that argument being on a valid term that you dislike. Very funny.

I disagree with the wording because he wasnt a drop out and in defence the producer tried to pretend the word implied something else in the UK than it does in the US. Its the defence that makes it even worse, because it shows how low the producer is.

EDIT to ADD:

Spin would be trying to take a valid adjective and trying to spin it into a hit piece. As explained, the comment underlines that Dylan chose this direction over school, thus it essentially caused him to drop out of school as he would most likely have continued with school otherwise. Again, stop trying to spin this and use double-standards doing so.

Thats a stretch. University isnt school, and in the UK drop out means someone that attended school, college or university and then dropped out of them. I can be said to have dropped out of a college subject I was taking, I cannot be said to have dropped out of University because I never attended University. I have asked repeatedly for you to show me places where they actually use the term in the way the producer claimed, now can you do that or not?

[nicepants]

I just said, didnt I? People get rejected from their chosen colleges and Universities all the time, but dropouts arent generally seen in a positive light because it suggests the person is a quitter who cant stick with something.

The way that they presented didn't sound derogatory. Calling him a film-school reject sounds more derogatory to me. Their point essentially seemed to be that his film was successful, despite his level of education, it wasn't an attack.

Then you must have read me talking about the claim that jewish workers were warned on 911. Tell me, how did the show present this claim?

I would have to refer to the video....do you have an approximate timestamp?

[Jonnyclueless]

No he didn't imply it means something else in the UK than it does in the US. Just that its what it implies in the UK where he is from and familiar with. The implication being that maybe because of Jone's reaction that maybe it doesn't mean the same thing in the US, thought it clearly does. But Jones, being a con artist was simply looking for anything he could to dismiss the documentary and of course the ony thing he could find was a sad discrepancy in the guys wording.

But once again, you are stretching reality to absurdity. And as already pointed out, this can be further proven by you trying to pretend that the term of a drop out is somehow bad as opposed to him really being more of a reject. If anything, this can only be seen as the producer trying to up-play his direction, not down-play.

Either way, the reason Dylan comes out looking bad is because of his OWN claims, not the producers. And you know this.

[Edx]

No he didn't imply it means something else in the UK than it does in the US. Just that its what it implies in the UK where he is from and familiar with.

The implication being that maybe because of Jone's reaction that maybe it doesn't mean the same thing in the US, thought it clearly does. But Jones, being a con artist was simply looking for anything he could to dismiss the documentary and of course the ony thing he could find was a sad discrepancy in the guys wording.

But once again, you are stretching reality to absurdity. And as already pointed out, this can be further proven by you trying to pretend that the term of a drop out is somehow bad as opposed to him really being more of a reject. If anything, this can only be seen as the producer trying to up-play his direction, not down-play.

Either way, the reason Dylan comes out looking bad is because of his OWN claims, not the producers. And you know this.

Copy/paste

I have asked repeatedly for you to show me places where they actually use the term in the way the producer claimed, now can you do that or not?

[8den]

I just said, didnt I? People get rejected from their chosen colleges and Universities all the time,


Oh this is [rule10]ing ridiculous. Do you know how effing hard it is to get kicked out of film school? Provided you turn up, fling an attempt at an essay at your tutors close enough to the dealine, and maybe come.


but dropouts arent generally seen in a positive light because it suggests the person is a quitter who cant stick with something.


Gosh, do you think Dylan should have thought about this when he described himself as a drop out

[Edx]

Oh this is [rule10]ing ridiculous. Do you know how effing hard it is to get kicked out of film school? Provided you turn up, fling an attempt at an essay at your tutors close enough to the dealine, and maybe come.
As someone said earlier on the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, theres no need for misrepresenting your opponant if you're right.

Gosh, do you think Dylan should have thought about this when he described himself as a drop out
He didnt, thats the point. :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

I disagree with the wording because he wasnt a drop out and in defence the producer tried to pretend the word implied something else in the UK than it does in the US. Its the defence that makes it even worse, because it shows how low the producer is.
You are right no one will know the truth, Dylan is too dirt dumb not to be considered a dropout; you need to help him. The producer was protecting our school system from shame? Thank you producer. It must be hard, how many times after Dylan opens his mouth does someone say, "the BBC said he was a dropout and it shows". I was saying it for the entire Loose Change video; "how can a someone be so dirt dumb, has to be a dropout."

By getting all hung up on a dirt dumb false ideas pusher like Dylan, no wonder you use Alex Jones as your source for what ever.

No wonder they left out Thermite Jones.

[Jonnyclueless]

Copy/paste

I have asked repeatedly for you to show me places where they actually use the term in the way the producer claimed, now can you do that or not?

WTF?!?! Are you joking? Did you NOT see the dictionary meaning? Now you are trying to argue on it being valued based on it being well used in documentation?

How about this, I will do that for you when you prove beyond any doubt that the intent was to slander or mislead people. Please prove to us that his intent was unarguably to belittle Dylan by up playing his situation instead of revealing that he was rejected.

[Edx]

The way that they presented didn't sound derogatory. Calling him a film-school reject sounds more derogatory to me. Their point essentially seemed to be that his film was successful, despite his level of education, it wasn't an attack.

Its just one part of the whole misrepresentative whole, nicepants. On its own it wouldnt be such a big deal, but coupled with everything else, it is more so.

I would have to refer to the video....do you have an approximate timestamp?

I'll get back to you with the time.

[cisco]

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



Ok, so the BBC was wrong. They were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. They were wrong. Way wrong. They were wrongety wrongety wrong. They were wronger than Wrongey McWrongerson, the honorable Mayor of Wrongville. They were conducting the Wrongtrain from Wrongerstown to Wrong Station and wearing a giant Wrong Sombrero all the while.

Dylan is absolutely not a drop out who makes CT movies in his room. He is a film school reject who makes CT movies in his room.

Is that what you wanted to hear? Can we move on to a topic with substance now?

[Edx]

WTF?!?! Are you joking? Did you NOT see the dictionary meaning? Now you are trying to argue on it being valued based on it being well used in documentation?

I have already talked about the dictionary definiton, I cannot be said to have dropped out of a course or group I never attended or was never apart of. I challenge you again to show me where people have used the term drop out to mean what the producer claimed it meant in the UK, that dropout means someone who didnt go on to University. All your faffing about with dictionaries shows me you're like the Creationist who hold adamently to the idea that atheism is a religion. Although at least they have one vague definition that makes everything a religion, your definition of drop out doesnt even support you anyway.

How about this, I will do that for you when you prove beyond any doubt that the intent was to slander or mislead people. Please prove to us that his intent was unarguably to belittle Dylan by up playing his situation instead of revealing that he was rejected.

Ive already talked about that and youve ignored it, you really think Im going to waste my time again when you cant even accept that calling Dylan a drop out was incorrect?

Ok, so the BBC was wrong. They were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. They were wrong. Way wrong. They were wrongety wrongety wrong. They were wronger than Wrongey McWrongerson, the honorable Mayor of Wrongville. They were conducting the Wrongtrain from Wrongerstown to Wrong Station and wearing a giant Wrong Sombrero all the while.

Dylan is absolutely not a drop out who makes CT movies in his room. He is a film school reject who makes CT movies in his room.

Is that what you wanted to hear? Can we move on to a topic with substance now?

:D Yes, they were wrong. Thankyou. That was only one of many points I brought up against it, though for some reason people seem to fixate on this one.


Ed

[beachnut]

Dylan is absolutely not a drop out who makes CT movies in his room. He is a film school reject who makes CT movies in his room.
Reject, not a dropout. That does sound much better. "self proclaimed reject", get that correction to the BBC (now roid man Alex Jones will be happy)

[Jonnyclueless]

I have already talked about the dictionary definiton, I cannot be said to have dropped out of a course or group I never attended or was never apart of. I challenge you again to show me where people have used the term drop out to mean what the producer claimed it meant in the UK, that dropout means someone who didnt go on to University. All your faffing about with dictionaries shows me you're like the Creationist who hold adamently to the idea that atheism is a religion. Although at least they have one vague definition that makes everything a religion, your definition of drop out doesnt even support you anyway.



Ive already talked about that and youve ignored it, you really think Im going to waste my time again when you cant even accept that calling Dylan a drop out was incorrect?


Ed

So if you talked about the dictionary issue you should then clearly see where it points to you being completely wrong. And just because it isn't commonly used does not change that. And it has already been explained to you how it applies in this case and was clearly the interviewer trying to be polite. You are trying to take the term in meanings to literal enrollment, which is clearly not what is meant in this case. And again, this has already been explained to you. For you to continue with this nonsense just shows you are clearly being dishonest here.

In the UK it most certainly CAN mean someone who didn't go to a university. Just like it can mean that anywhere. Again, this has already been explained to you over and over. Why are you going in circles here? And you are comparing US to creationists? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Oh the irony o irony. You seriously don't see the irony in that claim???? LOL!!!

I haven't ignored anything kid, you just want to live in denial here and are trying to make something out of nothing. You have been proven wrong over and over and can't let it go. I don't know why we're wasting time on you. And again, I am sure that you think you are being original here.

I still can't stop laughing over the creationist comment. Much like a creationist tries to use absurd distortion on dictionary terms out of context to try to claim evolution is not valid. You're no different.

[Arus808]

talk about semantics. REALLY WHO the @#$% cares?!!!!

Dylan said he was a "drop out"
BBC used it in a "positive" sense, seeing tha LC WAS SUCCESSFUL! (by saying he was a "self-professed dropout". REALLy, Edx you're the one playing hte SEMANTIC game.

IF dylan didn't want to be cast as a "dropout" then HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT HE WAS A DROPOut!

END
OF
STORY!



jeez louise!


Now when are you going to show us what BBC got factually WRONG with theories presented by the COnspiracy nuts, INCLUDING dylan?

[Drudgewire]

Now when are you going to show us what BBC got factually WRONG with theories presented by the COnspiracy nuts, INCLUDING dylan?
Everything obviously. He knew if he could prove we and the BBC ever used suspect wording at any point, that would be conclusive evidence 9/11 was an inside job.

So way to freakin' go, guys who caved. Clean out your NWO desks immediately. And you can shove your severance packages. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[Edx]

talk about semantics. REALLY WHO the @#$% cares?!!!!

The producer tried to deceive, sorry.

IF dylan didn't want to be cast as a "dropout" then HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT HE WAS A DROPOut!

He didnt, thats the point.

Now when are you going to show us what BBC got factually WRONG with theories presented by the COnspiracy nuts, INCLUDING dylan?

Ive already talked at length about the other problems. Tell you what later on I'll come back and make a list, but theres lots of other points Ive already talked about right here in this thread,

I'd like to respond to another comment in this thread that says im overreacting. What Im reacting to is the unbelievable hypocrisy of many of the people in this thread. They literally said its fine and dandy to be dishonest as long as they are attacking CTs. If you object I will be back with quotes proving that if you'd like to deny what people have written in this thread.

[Arus808]

The producer tried to deceive, sorry.

NO he didn't
He, repeated what DYLAN stated. How many times must this repeated to you?



He didnt, thats the point. If DYlan didn't state that he was a drop out, then why would the BBC state "self professed dropout".

Do you understand what self professed means?



Ive already talked at length about the other problems.NO you haven't. Yu point out "problems" that you thought were "problems" ,which IN the real world aren't any problems

WE have asked you repeatedly what was FACTUALLY Wrong with the show that BBC presented; and to DATE you have provided NOTHING.

Do you know what FACTUALLY wrong means?


I dont see what is wrong, Edx, we asked you what was factually wrong. YOU didn't provide that.
BBC interviewed the Conspiracy NUTS and they STATED their theories. BBC then took those claims from these nuts, and went to the EXPERTS, the EYEWITNESSES, and the PEOPLE who were there that day, to get their SIDE of the story, aND THEIR statements.

NOW tell us, how was BBC factually wrong?

[cisco]

The producer tried to deceive, sorry.



He didnt, thats the point.

You said we could move on. Stick to your word.

[Walter Ego]

Oh this is [rule10]ing ridiculous. Do you know how effing hard it is to get kicked out of film school? Provided you turn up, fling an attempt at an essay at your tutors close enough to the dealine, and maybe come.

Gosh, do you think Dylan should have thought about this when he described himself as a drop out


Edx is simply not going to give this up. About half the posts on this thread are about this stupid dropout question. This has gone past the point of insanity.

Do the Google for ‘Dylan Avery dropout’ and you’ll see the truthers ceased on this one dubious and irrelevant point in the BBC program and used it to discredit the entire show and Edx is doing the same. He got the talking points from Alex Jones (the Rush Limbaugh of the truther movement) and is just reading them off the print out. To no purpose. For distraction. Deliberately.

This is typical truther BS. The BBC called Dylan a dropout so we can discount the BBC. Popular Mechanics is a magazine about tractors so we can discount Popular Mechanics. A dweeb in upstate New York with a Radio Shack laptop and an internet connection is smarter than that all those experts anyway. The BBC didn’t interview my favorite CT loon so they are biased, ect., ect., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

It a dog chasing it own tail and thinking its getting somewhere when it’s really just going around in circles. Forever. Endlessly. Deliberately. For no purpose other that to distract.

[Arus808]

Edx is simply not going to give this up. About half the posts on this thread are about this stupid dropout question. This has gone past the point of insanity.

Do the Google for ‘Dylan Avery dropout’ and you’ll see the truthers ceased on this one dubious and irrelevant point in the BBC program and used it to discredit the entire show and Edx is doing the same. He got the talking points from Alex Jones (the Rush Limbaugh of the truther movement) and is just reading them off the print out. To no purpose. For distraction. Deliberately.

This is typical truther BS. The BBC called Dylan a dropout so we can discount the BBC. Popular Mechanics is a magazine about tractors so we can discount Popular Mechanics. A dweeb in upstate New York with a Radio Shack laptop and an internet connection is smarter than that all those experts anyway. The BBC didn’t interview my favorite CT loon so they are biased, ect., ect., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

It a dog chasing it own tail and thinking its getting somewhere when it’s really just going around in circles. Forever. Endlessly. Deliberately. For no purpose other that to distract.


Which is why we should drop the drop-out issue and push Edx on this:

What did the BBC get FACTUALLY wrong?

[Walter Ego]

I'm confused, Dylan Avery describes himself as a "drop out" to the filmakers, the film makers apply that description in their presentation of Dylan.

Dylan and Alex leap on this singular point, as it's unfair, because, technically Dylan never managed to get in, to drop out. A producer botches his response to this spurious non issue.

Have I got this right?

Are they really this desperate as to get this tenuous?


You are right. It is spurious. It is a not issue. It is a distraction. It is dis-info. It was the only thing Dylan could find wrong in the film and he pounced on it like a vulture on carrion and Edx is doing the same thing.

Most likely Dylan did tell the BBC he was a dropout meaning he was a dropout from society but given his tenuous relationship to veracity of any sort there’s no telling what he meant. But that is of no importance. The truthers have their cudgel to beat the BBC over the head and they are going to use it forever and endlessly for the sole purpose of distraction.

[Walter Ego]

Which is why we should drop the drop-out issue and push Edx on this:

What did the BBC get FACTUALLY wrong?


He'll just avoid the question and keep going back to the dropout issue. We have seen how his mind works… circles, circles and more circles.

[Arus808]

He'll just avoid the question and keep going back to the dropout issue. We have seen how his mind works… circles, circles and more circles.


yes, then we shouldn't fall in to that "circle" jerk and just simply return to asking him to provide what BBC got factually wrong with the show.

we all agree, the drop-out claim is irrelevant,


So, please Edx what was factually wrong with the BBC docu?

[beachnut]

You are right. It is spurious. It is a not issue. It is a distraction. It is dis-info. It was the only thing Dylan could find wrong in the film and he pounced on it like a vulture on carrion and Edx is doing the same thing.

Most likely Dylan did tell the BBC he was a dropout meaning he was a dropout from society but given his tenuous relationship to veracity of any sort there’s no telling what he meant. But that is of no importance. The truthers have their cudgel to beat the BBC over the head and they are going to use it forever and endlessly for the sole purpose of distraction.
Is he going to protest the wunderkind statement next? "It was a hit piece, they called me a wunderkind"

[nicepants]

Its just one part of the whole misrepresentative whole, nicepants. On its own it wouldnt be such a big deal, but coupled with everything else, it is more so.

Now that I think about it, calling him a dropout is giving him too much credit. Dropouts at least get in, and Dylan didn't even make it that far.

I look forward to seeing your list of the factual errors in the film.

[HawksFan]

Man, I'm glad my teachers didn't grade tests the way he's grading this documentary when I was in school.

Teacher: You got this question wrong, therefore your entire test is wrong! You fail!!!

:rolleyes:

[cisco]

Let the dropout thing go. He said in post 143 he'd let it go, so let's give him a chance to do so.

[Brainster]

They didnt touch on a lot of arguments they could have, but you honestly dont see a problem with such blatent misrepresentation? You think a ratio of 9 debunkers to 3 is fair and unbalenced?

Unbalanced yes. Suppose you were doing a documentary on Holocaust Denial. Would you be "fair" with your audience if you presented a program that concluded that there's good evidence on both sides?

This is, quite honestly, the problem that rational documentary producers encounter with the "Truthers". Oh, sure, the first time they deal with one, they'll be dazzled by the array of "facts" presented. My goodness, seven of the hijackers are still alive? Maybe these fellows actually have something. But then they'll dig into the claim and discover it's a load of hogwash. And after about 10 instances of that, they'll start to realize that this is, as they suspected in the first place, just a lunatic conspiracy theory.

I have been contacted by several documentary producers and radio show producers. And without fail after the necessary introductions have been made, they will ask me, "Are these people really serious?"

[StoneRook]

I just finished that BBC program (thanks for the link), I have to say Jones, Fetzer, and Avery came off as scary stupid to me...

Wonder if the BBC will do a 2nd edition, or final cut of this show...

you know.... to cover the updates to the "truth"

[Gravy]

Bottom line: Avery came across as the incredibly nasty, ignorant, scab-picking child that he is. The portrayal was entirely accurate.

"Wally Miller can say whatever he wants. People can say they saw this, say they saw that."

Those people were there, Avery, and you refuse to even talk to them. Instead, you're going to tell them what they did and saw, and take their quotes out of context in order to support your lies. You goddamned piece of excrement.

[MetalliSociety]

Says the video is no longer avaliable :'(

[Gravy]

I just finished that BBC program (thanks for the link), I have to say Jones, Fetzer, and Avery came off as scary stupid to me...

Wonder if the BBC will do a 2nd edition, or final cut of this show...

you know.... to cover the updates to the "truth"They're doing a show on WTC 7 next.

[pomeroo]

Yes I have and you obviously have been reading. Ive stated many things in several different ways and Im not going to go to the trouble of listing it all out for you for you to just ignore again. If I seem a little confrontational its because Im frustrated by how totally closed so many of you are to any idea that a anti-CT film could possibily be wrong or bad. They do it too Miss! is not a justifiable defence. The idea that any attacking of CTs are good no matter what, is shamefull. This is the James Randi forum, you guys should know better. I am disapointed in all of you.



Looks like you werent paying attention.


Fine, but dont pretend there arent any witness' that dont seem to support the ideas of the CT claim. Dont pretend Robert Rodregex doesnt exist, dont pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist. Dont pretend only "drop outs" and CT evangalists have any criticisms of the official story..



Wrong again, as Ive already talked about. 3 CTs against 9 "experts" including the guy from Popular Mechanics for the debunkers and then several victims family members that were saying how horrible CTs are, and a "witness'" including a irrelevant Jewish lady to lend an emotional helping hand to their implication that they were anti-Semitic and an X-Files producer saying that CTs were insane. Sorry, thats not showing more support for the CTs.


This is the stuff that really annoys me. Why put that in quotes as if thats what I wrote? I specifcally said thats not what Ive been saying



And look you do it again. No wonder you agree with the film, it seems you like engaging in attacking a few strawmen of yourself, dont you?


Willie Rodriguez will not tell his ever-changing story to anyone who doesn't pay him. Is that simple enough for you?

[Reality Believer]

Says the video is no longer avaliable :'(
This one still works.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6680224505086911340

[Reality Believer]

double post

[Dave Rogers]

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

I have no interest in what Zeitgeist has to say. If you can't see that theory (a), which states that the US Government organised and executed the 9-11 attacks, is logically incompatible with theory (b), which states that the US Government had prior warning that al-Qaeda was planning the 9-11 attacks but was incompetent in planning and executing its response to those attacks, then you're not competent to express any opinions on anything.

Dave

[liverleef]

Hilarious, thank you Gravy, Walter Ego, boloboffin and others (you know who you are) who put this stuff together.

[Sizzler]

I have no interest in what Zeitgeist has to say. If you can't see that theory (a), which states that the US Government organised and executed the 9-11 attacks, is logically incompatible with theory (b), which states that the US Government had prior warning that al-Qaeda was planning the 9-11 attacks but was incompetent in planning and executing its response to those attacks, then you're not competent to express any opinions on anything.

Dave

Look outside the box for a second.

If the USG as a whole, planned and executed 9-11 then yes, your point stands.

But lets look at it from a different angle, and perhaps more likely (if 9-11 were an inside job).

A few individuals at the top knew about it. The actual set up (CD setup, hijacker recruitment, flight training, etc, etc) was outsourced and over looked on by the few top individuals in the government keeping the secret (CIA/FBI individuals, Executive branch individual, corporate heads, whatever).

So it is a real terror plan, and other governments catch onto it. The CIA doesn't because at least one top individual keeps it suppressed.

The other governments warn about it, like they did, but the information, like most intel, is fuzzy. So the plan goes ahead.

[Reality Believer]

Look outside the box for a second.

If the USG as a whole, planned and executed 9-11 then yes, your point stands.

But lets look at it from a different angle, and perhaps more likely (if 9-11 were an inside job).

A few individuals at the top knew about it. The actual set up (CD setup, hijacker recruitment, flight training, etc, etc) was outsourced and over looked on by the few top individuals in the government keeping the secret (CIA/FBI individuals, Executive branch individual, corporate heads, whatever).

So it is a real terror plan, and other governments catch onto it. The CIA doesn't because at least one top individual keeps it suppressed.

The other governments warn about it, like they did, but the information, like most intel, is fuzzy. So the plan goes ahead.
Take that bold sentence and remove the CD part. You now have the only MIHOP scenario that makes any sense. Any skeptic could buy into the possibility that a few CIA operatives recruited and trained 20 Arabs, and the rest is as it seems. Forget CD, forget missiles, space beams or nuclear devices.
Why the "truth" movement can't see that this is the most plausible scenario of them all is beyond us. Not saying it is even remotely true, and there are probably logic holes in that as well, but if you guys want to get off the crazy train and go with semi-plausible reality, then go with that.

Does this make sense?

[Sizzler]

Take that bold sentence and remove the CD part. You now have the only MIHOP scenario that makes any sense. Any skeptic could buy into the possibility that a few CIA operatives recruited and trained 20 Arabs, and the rest is as it seems. Forget CD, forget missiles, space beams or nuclear devices.
Why the "truth" movement can't see that this is the most plausible scenario of them all is beyond us. Not saying it is even remotely true, and there are probably logic holes in that as well, but if you guys want to get off the crazy train and go with semi-plausible reality, then go with that.

Does this make sense?

Totally makes sense.

The problem is that some believe the WTC collapses are what will open this case up. Unfortunetely that means going the path of CD.

Your post has total merit. Claiming CD has shifted the burden of proof; especially for such a huge claim.

[dirtywick]

Totally makes sense.

The problem is that some believe the WTC collapses are what will open this case up. Unfortunetely that means going the path of CD.

Your post has total merit. Claiming CD has shifted the burden of proof; especially for such a huge claim.

Quite an absurd approach to try and open an investigation into the CIA in my opinion.

Wonder why they don't just, you know, start with the CIA instead of jerking around for 6 years.

[Sizzler]

Quite an absurd approach to try and open an investigation into the CIA in my opinion.

Wonder why they don't just, you know, start with the CIA instead of jerking around for 6 years.

I wonder often too.

[cisco]

Take that bold sentence and remove the CD part. You now have the only MIHOP scenario that makes any sense. Any skeptic could buy into the possibility that a few CIA operatives recruited and trained 20 Arabs, and the rest is as it seems. Forget CD, forget missiles, space beams or nuclear devices.
Why the "truth" movement can't see that this is the most plausible scenario of them all is beyond us. Not saying it is even remotely true, and there are probably logic holes in that as well, but if you guys want to get off the crazy train and go with semi-plausible reality, then go with that.

Does this make sense?

I still don't see a motive that outweighs the risk here. Bush already had legal grounds to invade Iraq, and the Afghanistan War was a loss from day 1. Bush knew that before overthrowing the Taliban and did it anyway.

The risk = Execution of perpetrators at minimum. Possible revolution and overthrowing of longest lasting democracy in human history. Probable worldwide unrest for years.

The reward = ???

[LashL]

The problem is that some believe the WTC collapses are what will open this case up. Unfortunetely that means going the path of CD.


The *cough* "problem" is that some conspiracy promoters claim controlled demolition, some claim therm*te, some claim pod planes, some claim remote missiles, some claim space beams, some claim "mini-nukes", some claim no planes, some claim video fakery, some claim "da Joos", some claim voice morphing, some claim flyovers, some claim shootdowns, some claim spooky faces in the smoke, some claim numerology, some claim that the hijacked flights actually landed in Cleveland, some claim that the passengers are still alive, some claim that the hijackers are still alive, some claim bombs, some claim remote control planes, some claim planes decked out as other planes, some claim complicity by thousands of people, some claim faked crash scenes, some claim ...well, you get the idea.

In the circumstances, is it even remotely surprising that the vast majority of the population dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories out of hand?

[Reality Believer]

I still don't see a motive that outweighs the risk here. Bush already had legal grounds to invade Iraq, and the Afghanistan War was a loss from day 1. Bush knew that before overthrowing the Taliban and did it anyway.

The risk = Execution of perpetrators at minimum. Possible revolution and overthrowing of longest lasting democracy in human history. Probable worldwide unrest for years.

The reward = ???
See, now we are debating tangible points with that scenario. Not physical and logistical impossibilities. I should have been a troofer. Could pwn you skeptics with my mad skillz!:boxedin:

[pomeroo]

Totally makes sense.

The problem is that some believe the WTC collapses are what will open this case up. Unfortunetely that means going the path of CD.

Your post has total merit. Claiming CD has shifted the burden of proof; especially for such a huge claim.


When will you apologize for masquerading as an agnostic?

[Sizzler]

When will you apologize for masquerading as an agnostic?

:jaw-dropp

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyone wanna bring up the list of people who would have to be involved in this little caper to be pulled off to appease those who like to insist it was just a handful of people involved who are suppressing everything?

[Arus808]

why are we talking to Sizzler about nothing that has to do with the Video? Wasn't Edx supposed to provide us with what the BBC got factually wrong? Why does sizzler hijack threads that aren't about the topics he wants to lie about?

[Sabrina]

I'm still wondering when Edx will respond to my post saying I felt he was overreacting; he mentioned it specifically, yet no response. *headscratch*

And without pulling up the list, I can estimate that there would have to be over 100,000 people at least PARTIALLY aware of the conspiracy in order for it to be pulled off (i.e. you're a member of the cleanup crew, so you know about the explosives, but you may not know about the pilots actually being CIA agents who parachuted to safety, or that the planes were actually missiles, or whatever). I've estimated that in the past, partially from Gravy's list and partially from my own knowledge of the US Intel Community. It's a statistical impossibility that THAT many people could keep completely silent for over six years no matter how much you threaten, bribe, or otherwise coerce them.

[jhunter1163]

I'm still wondering when Edx will respond to my post saying I felt he was overreacting; he mentioned it specifically, yet no response. *headscratch*

And without pulling up the list, I can estimate that there would have to be over 100,000 people at least PARTIALLY aware of the conspiracy in order for it to be pulled off (i.e. you're a member of the cleanup crew, so you know about the explosives, but you may not know about the pilots actually being CIA agents who parachuted to safety, or that the planes were actually missiles, or whatever). I've estimated that in the past, partially from Gravy's list and partially from my own knowledge of the US Intel Community. It's a statistical impossibility that THAT many people could keep completely silent for over six years no matter how much you threaten, bribe, or otherwise coerce them.

Someone here had a sig that said "Watergate Ratio: For every 12 conspirators, there is one Mark Felt." So in a conspiracy of 100,000, we're talking about 8,333 Mark Felts.

Where are they? Why has no one come forward with absolutely incontrovertible evidence of NWO involvement? If I were a Twoofer, I'd ponder on that and maybe think "could it be that it WASN'T a government operation?"

[johnny karate]

But when you bring up Watergate, a CTer will bring up The Manhattan Project (not realizing what a horribly inept analogy that is).

What amazes me most about CTers is the incredible lengths they will go to keep themselves ignorant.

[Edx]

First, remember what Guy Smith said about the show. This was a fair, objective and unbalanced investigation that went back primary sources and witness' and that they did not have a predetermined plan to debunk CTs. I dont know how any informed person, whatever their opinion on the CTs, can come away from the program and defend those statements. 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.

When they film the CTs they generally film hand held in their homes, when they interview Fetzer, the camera even wobbles around even though its clearly a stationary shot. When they film Popular Mechanics they use nice lighting and nice shots. Guy, you really dont need to make Fetzer look crazier than he is, just point a camera at him and let him talk, okay?. If it wasnt for the rest of the problems with the film, you might be forgiven for thinking it was just a badly setup tripod but all things considered Im sure there was a consious effort to do this. They gave about 3 minutes to Alex Jones despite being around him for a week, and although Davin Coburn wasnt in it that long either he was just one out a long line of witness' and "experts" and even a film maker they brought on to debunk the CTs while literally having no one else on or shown or even implied that could have supported, legitmately, in any way whatsoever what the CTs could have said. Theres no good explanation for any of this or the following points other than an intention to make the CTs look more ridiculous than they were. If they really are ridiculous you dont need to do that. I dont need to spin Creationism and misresent their views, all I have to do is show what they really think. I wouldnt defend a film that did that to them even if I agreed with its anti-Creationism conclusion.

1. Near the beginning Avery says either the government was A : Negligent in responce and awareness, or B: Directly involved. Someone said earlier that incomptence was irrelevant, but Avery just said that this is CT claim. So even the conclusion of the film is a CT claim! Obviously we all know Avery doesnt believe it was just incomptence or negligence, but the fact remains that it is a CT claim and its still relevant as is all the evidence for that.

2. Pancake graphic was backed away from in NIST and the graphic itself is inaccurate.

3. As I touched upon above they use 3 CTs and one Popular Mechanics debuker, but they provide over 9 others speakers denying CTs but they dont interview, show or acknowledge any witness' or people like exCIA analyst Ray McGovern, first responders like Craig Bartmer (who was even there when Guy was at Averys house) William Rodriguez, people like Danny Jowenko, pilots, Sibel Edmonds, military personel, or victems families like the Jersey Girls which I would have thought was an exceptionally interesting story, but they dont bring them on because premumably they would have given a discenting opinion to the offical events and so appear to support the CTs. Guy Smith didnt even have to agree with them, but they werent even mentioned and portrayed them as not even existing. You might say; well thats a lot of people you listed how could they have time to bring them all on? None of them were even mentioned. Not one of them, not once. Remember, this wasnt even meant to be a debunking film, it was meant to be an honest investigation.

4. NORAD. Well, Im having a discusson about NORAD on another threat. Needless to say I am not happy with Guys simplistic reporting of their responce. An interesting point could have been brought up that NORADs official timeline changed in 2004 with the 911 Commission, but of course they didnt even mention that either. Most of the problems with this film are these very relevant ommissions.

5. At 40:35 is the most deceptively spun part. 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. I thought he was going back to primary sources to investigate the claims? "4,000 Jews" is of course an exaggeration, but instead of saying there was some truth to the story, they just claimed it was all nonsence. They also used emotional manipulation by showing a Jewish victems family member who asked why her husband wasnt warned. They even use sad piano music over the top. And thats it, thats all they say about that topic. They dont even interview any of the CTs to see what they said about it, could it be because neither Alex or Avery and probably Fetzer as well never actually made the claim the way they said they did? Instead its just implied this is what the argument is, its wrong and its still spread and it hurts the families and its anti-semitic. Presumably if they interviewed Alex he would have mentioned Haaretz and The Washington Post and then they wouldnt have been able to make as strong a point. How can it be fair and objective when they spin the argument?

6. We have X-Files producer Frank Spotniz. Keep in mind they claimed that they only had a certian amount of time for the show and thats why they couldnt include more actual discussion on the topics, but they had him on for 10 minutes giving his personal opinion.

7. In the united 93 section, they make out that Avery doesnt even mention Delta 1989, they show a passenger of the plane as if to imply that Avery is denying its existence and that the woman never even took that plane. The truth of the argument may still be wrong but they misrepresent their argument to make it look more ridiculous and hurtfull, maybe because I suppose they didnt think it was bad enough already. Apparently Guy Smith was also shown all kinds of official news reports that state the debris field was much wider than what it is claimed in the film, and he didnt mention any of it. Put all this together and its more than sloppy. On a side note how does an bandana from a terrorist end up found unmarked and declared to be probably from a hijacker? Even if theres a sensible answer, why no question about it?

8. They didnt talk in their section on government lies about the history of false flag operations, government sponsored terrorism and secret operations against the public. That would presumeably have given too much weight to the idea that governments are more dirty than we usually like to think they are. Any balanced documenatry would have included Operation Northwoods, but he refused to include it according to Alex, and Guys responce to defend why he refused is because he thinks it didnt prove it was an inside job. Guy, you dont need to think that. You dont need to think it proves it, and it of course doesnt, I dont know anyone that says it proves it, but not including any of this information is relevant and its something a real balanced documentary would have at least mentioned. If they had cut out all the spin and distraction they would have had time to at least touched on a few more issues.

9. The only thing the film does right is the last section, but amazingly its also something almost no one in this thread has noticed or mentioned, especially as Ive heard it denied again and again on the forum. They had prior warnings, they lied about it, they were incompetent and lied about it and covered it up. Someone said to me earlier that it wasnt relevant to an inside job. Well while I dont think it was an inside job I can sure see why it would be relevant to it in a number of different ways and its only painfully poor imagination that stops you seeing how it can be. Just because the WTC wasnt demolished, just because Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon, doesnt mean they couldnt have wanted these attacks and ignored prior knowledge in order make sure they were able to carry it out. Before someone twists that, that doesnt mean thats what I think I just think its relevant to show in reference. They had people interviewed saying "we had no specific threat", but 911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said they didnt need to have that, when Norad General McKinley said that to the 911 Commission they didnt think that was a good excuse either. They could have also mentioned that FBI agents investigating suspicious activity flight schools and were telling their superiors they were concerned about the intelligence they had got. But to be fair while they dont go into enough detail on this section and theres a lot more they could have said Im glad they at least said as much as they did do and it still goes contrary to many of the beliefs Ive read in this forum by the very people defending this documentary.

10. Right at the end they get in another jab, by implying all the victems families are hurt by CTs, while of course ignroing The Jersey Girls and Bill Doyle of the Coalition of 911 Families. When asked about if he'd heard about them he said he didnt agree with them, which is moving the goal posts. The point is Guy, they exist. To imply all the family members are all upset about this is spin. if I found out about them and all this afterwards, I'd assume the Conspiracy Files was deceptive.

11. I'd also like to mention that they didnt talk about the coverup surrounding the cleanup and the air quality. All of these are CTs regarding 911. The program and producer specifically claims not to have set out to debunk an inside job as someone here claimed, but to objectively and honestly investigate the CTs regarding 911. They also dont talk about the role of the Pakistani intelligence even though he says its very interesting and that they might do a whole hour show on it.

What I find incredible is even though the films conclusion was that there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy to cover up incompetence and failure to act on intelligence, you lap it up even though its essentially the same conclusion as Press for Truth. Yet, according to what Ive read here Press for Truth doesnt provide any evidence to back up any of its claims. If on Press for Truth they had said the same thing that Conspiracy files did at the end, it would have been hand waved. The fact is many people here have literally said they welcome any attacking of a CT no matter how its done and no matter what deception needs to be done to do it. The fact is people here have supported this documentary yet not spoken out against apparently something you all disagree with, which is that there was a conspiracy to cover up their incompetence and mistakes which I suppose goes back to the other point. Because the film is attacking a CT, you have to defend it regardless of how misrepresentative and spun it is.

BEFORE YOU REPLY:

Im sure people will now try and twist this and ignore what Im saying and smear me as just another "troofer" when I am not, and probably again try and tell me to prove something I never claimed or implied and tell me my point was something other than what Ive been saying for the past 4 pages, Iin reality I have only really been saying essentially what the conclusion of the Conspiracy Files is actually saying! But just because I agree with 85% of the conclusion of the documentary that does not justify the rest of it. Im just as critical of CT films as well, but apparently everyone just assumes Im someone Im not. Well if all you can do is twist and strawman to avoid my real position, and you know who you are, then you have only proven to me and anyone awake enough to realise it what you're really like. Im aware that not everyone here is like that, and to those I'll say my frustration is not directed at you.

And because Im tired of having to say the same thing, though I know there will be people that will ignore this anyway, heres some points I'd like to respond to.

1. Equal time, equal validity: I am not saying they needed to say CTs have equal validity or more validity. They could debunk them while still being honest about it.

2. It was an inside job! In case me saying it over and over isnt enough, I am not saying it was an inside job. I am speaking about what people here have acted like, I am speaking about honesty, about what the film claimed it was about and what it delivered.

3. But you're defending CTs! You must be a troofer! For some reason some people here cant seem to get their head around the idea that you can disagree with an argument while at the same time agree with its conclusion. You'd think for a forum like this one that prides themselves on reason they'd be able to see the logical sence in that.

4. If you're not with me you're against me! Several people have make accusations like that in this thread, and if you think thats a good argument then I have no comment as you clearly cant be reasoned with. Truth isnt black and white, its somewhere in the middle.



PS: Becuase its already been discussed for the nth time I didnt mention "drop out" here once, until now.

[Edx]

Willie Rodriguez will not tell his ever-changing story to anyone who doesn't pay him. Is that simple enough for you?

So that means they pretend he doesnt exist by not even mentioning him. Good honest investigation there. But of course theres also the issue of trying to justify ignoring ever other person I have listed that they could have got in touch with and in at least one case with Craig Bartmer, directly ignored.

Unbalanced yes. Suppose you were doing a documentary on Holocaust Denial. Would you be "fair" with your audience if you presented a program that concluded that there's good evidence on both sides?

If I claimed to be making a program like Guy Smith did, yes. And yes, I wouldnt misrepresent Holocaust Denial because I dont need to, and to do so is even more dishonest because you already have truth on yourside. I dont get all this trying to justify dishonesty on this thread.

EDIT: And btw I never once claimed that the show should have said that there was good evidence on both sides. I know you might think that from reading all the strawmen of my position.



To everyone else I think my long post responds to all of you. If you still think you need a responce after reading it, then let me know.

[Gravy]

First, remember what Guy Smith said about the show. This was a fair, objective and unbalanced investigation that went back primary sources and witness' and that they did not have a predetermined plan to debunk CTs. I dont know how any informed person, whatever their opinion on the CTs, can come away from the program and defend those statements. 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. Once again, you are completely missing the point of the show. The conspiracists have already made their case in hundreds of websites, dozens of videos, books, speeches, and conferences. This show was to examine the validity of some of those already-made arguments by conferring with people who were involved. And it gave some prominent conspiracists significant time to speak for – and make complete fools of – themselves. Exactly what more do you want out of an hour show?

[dudalb]

Why do I get a sneaking suspicion that Edx Is going turn out to be a false flag operation himself?

[Gravy]

So that means they pretend he doesnt exist by not even mentioning him. Good honest investigation there. I encourage you to read my analysis of William Rodriguez's claims (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home), and then tell me if they are defensible or not. He won't even answer questions here, although he's a member. Do you really think he wants to be exposed on the BBC? And why do you think he agreed to do a Hardfire show with Ron (pomeroo) and me and then back down? I know why, and you will also when you read my paper.

[Edx]

Once again, you are completely missing the point of the show. The conspiracists have already made their case in hundreds of websites, dozens of videos, books, speeches, and conferences. This show was to examine the validity of some of those already-made arguments by conferring with people who were involved. And it gave some prominent conspiracists significant time to speak for – and make complete fools of – themselves. Exactly what more do you want out of an hour show?

They didnt examine them "fairly and unbalanced" like they said they had, they didnt perform an "objective investigation" into CTs surrounding 911. They misrepresented and ommited key information in order to make it look like the CTs were more ridiculous than they were, because apparently they didnt think it was ridiculous enough. Because they did it too Miss! is not an excuse.

I also doubt you read my entire reply before you posted that.

I encourage you to read my analysis of William Rodriguez's claims (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home), and then tell me if they are defensible or not. He won't even answer questions here, although he's a member. Do you really think he wants to be exposed on the BBC? And why do you think he agreed to do a Hardfire show with Ron (pomeroo) and me and then back down? I know why, and you will also when you read my paper.

As I have already pointed out before, Rodriguez could have been mentioned that then explained that strangely his story has kept changing. Thats what an honest investigation would have put in they're reporters not dishonest debukers, right?

And btw it doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible, if that was an reason not to include a CT argument then according to you they shouldnt have included anything. Please try and focus on my actual point for a moment, please?

[Drudgewire]

Exactly what more do you want out of an hour show?
The same thing they want out of a new investigation, a statement that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition/missile/laserbeam/Bush blowing on it really, really hard.

Because anything less means when we call one of these liars a liar we have the high ground... and not giving lies the same weight as the truth is being unbalanced.

For the record I'm declaring the Detriot Lions the Super Bowl Champions this year, and if any of you rotten Giants fans try to show me pictures of Eli holding the trophy I'll just photoshop Kitna's face onto it and claim the news reports are being unfair and unbalanced to fans in the Motor City.

[Gravy]

They didnt examine them "fairly and unbalanced" like they said they had, they didnt perform an "objective investigation" into CTs surrounding 911.They didn't? Then which conspiracist claim did they examine and get wrong?

As I have already pointed out before, Rodriguez could have been mentioned that then said dthat his story kept changing.Why the hell would you mention a minor character whose story keeps changing and is not supported by the people who were there?

Thats what an honest investigation would have put in, but he was It doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims are defensible,It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?

[HawksFan]

Exactly what more do you want out of an hour show?

More babes in bikinis?

Oh, and more cowbell! It needs more cowbell!

[Jonnyclueless]

OK, Edx has now proven beyond any doubt that he is 100% full of crap.

He's using typical wooer tactic by exploiting the fact that it's impossible for any documentary to include every possible issue, especially considering the woo movement manufactures them at a daily rate. 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. As if somehow the Twoofer claims such as the distance between the 93 crash and the lake being 6 miles is somehow true because they left out Mgz's conspiracy about a missile taking down the WTC 7, etc.

Now I can understand peopel who have issues with things, but 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?

[Edx]

They didn't? Then which conspiracist claim did they examine and get wrong?

Holy moly. You ignored my entire reply. :eek:

Why the hell would you mention a minor character whose story keeps changing and is not supported by the people who were there?

Because its a story? Because its relevant? Because a 911 hero is going around saying he heard bombs before the plane hit? If Im documenting an honest journalistic investigation, Im meant to ignore that because his story keps changing? And yet according to you its valid to totally ignore him, not just mention him and say that his story keeps changing, its valid to do that because he's not a credible "minor character" and yet they spend a whole section on a strawman position and deception of the jews being warned and using a jewish family member for emotional support. And its okay to make it seem like Avery is denying Delta 1989 even existed or that the passenger they interviewed was even on the plane. Thats all okay, I suppose.

It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?

Why did you snip the rest of my post?

"And btw it doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible, if that was an reason not to include a CT argument then according to you they shouldnt have included anything. Please try and focus on my actual point for a moment, please? "

Oh and its nice to see the misrepresentations and strawmen happen in only a few minutes after me posting! Good job JREF! :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

Edx's false flag is getting more worn out with every post he makes.

[Edx]

I dont know why Im bothering, but I think the worst offender of misrepresentations is Jonny.


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

Lies. I never said that.

especially considering the woo movement manufactures them at a daily rate.

Im not defending them.

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.

Again, lies. How do you glean this out of my posts?

As if somehow the Twoofer claims such as the distance between the 93 crash and the lake being 6 miles is somehow true because they left out Mgz's conspiracy about a missile taking down the WTC 7, etc.

Lies, again. You're not even make any sence now.

Now I can understand peopel who have issues with things, but Ed is the worst kind of Wooer there is.

Wow, impressive, so Im the worst even though Jonny has to pretend Im saying things I never did nor even implied! :rolleyes:

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?
The fact you have to lie about me just so you can say this is so sad its almost pathetic.

[Gravy]

Holy moly. You ignored my entire reply. :eek:That's because you didn't show a single claim they got wrong. So, which is it?

Because its a story? Because its relevant? Because a 911 hero is going around saying he heard bombs before the plane hit? He began making that claim in 2005, along with exactly no one else. Next.

...and yet they spend a whole section on a strawman position and deception of the jews being warned and using a jewish family member for emotional support.I suggest you check with Muslims overseas to learn how much of a "strawman" position that is.

And its okay to make it seem like Avery is denying Delta 1989 even existed or that the passenger they interviewed was even on the plane. Thats all okay, I suppose. The plane that landed at Cleveland was Delta 1989. Flight 93 didn't land there. Simple.

Why did you snip the rest of my post?Because I addressed that part with my response. Please read it again.

Oh and its nice to see the misrepresentations and strawmen happen in only a few minutes after me posting! Good job JREF! :rolleyes:Please show a misrepresentation of your argument that I've made or a strawman argument that I've made.

So, Edx, of the claims made by the three prominent conspiracists who were interviewed, were any correct?

[Edx]

That's because you didn't show a single claim they got wrong. So, which is it?

They claimed no Jews got warned, as for the rest they didnt really cover a helleva lot else.

But like I keep telling you which apparently you arent listening to, it doesnt matter if I agree with their conclusions. Whats so hard to understand about this? You want me to defend claims I dont even agree with, why? If someone says Michael Behe is a sexist racist bigot and he's also wrong about Intelligent Design, according to the way you've been arguing, Im not allowed to say lying about him is wrong because factually he is still wrong about Intelligent Design being science.

He began making that claim in 2005, along with exactly no one else. Next.
I never denied that, and I agreed with you, you keep ignoring that for some reason.

But again, you arent listening. He exists. This is a documentary documenting a journalists claim to be on an honest investigation going back to primary witness' and sources. Even just to point the bizzare oddity of it all that someone like Rodriguez a 911 hero is going around saying the were bombs in the building, even just to then point out that his story keeps changing, thats what you'd find in an honest investigation but it simply wasnt even mentioned.Its not like he's the only example.

Theres plenty of other people they could have talked to, but again all ignored completely. It wasnt what the producer claimed it was, it wasnt fair and balanced it wasnt an objective investigation into 911 CTs. Thats what I claimed from the start so if you can accept it wasnt then we have nothing left to argue about.

I suggest you check with Muslims overseas to learn how much of a "strawman" position that is.

But they acted like it was a general CT claim and they claimed that there was no truth in at all which there was. So factually, thats wrong and they used emotional manipulation in order to imply that CTs are Jew haters.

And its okay to make it seem like Avery is denying Delta 1989 even existed or that the passenger they interviewed was even on the plane. Thats all okay, I suppose.
The plane that landed at Cleveland was Delta 1989. Flight 93 didn't land there. Simple.
What the heck does that have to do with what you're replying to?

Because I addressed that part with my response. Please read it again.

Me: It doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible,
You: It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?

So you're saying that the stuff they did include was consistent and supported by others. Is that right? I dont even think thats true. Theres so many CTs about the WTC , Pentagon and U93 yet according to you, thats consistent and supported because it was included?

Of course that wouldnt make a blind bit of difference to my point anyway, one which you keep ignoring apparently despite me stating it and restating it again and again.

Please show a misrepresentation of your argument that I've made or a strawman argument that I've made.

Sorry that was a general remark to the thread posters, EG, Jonny, Drudgewire etc. You yourself I cant quite remember having specifcally misrepresented me but you have twisted the argument Im making either consciously or not.

So, Edx, of the claims made by the three prominent conspiracists who were interviewed, were any correct?

You are again seem to be trying to spin the situation. Creationists are 99% of the time never right about anything, yet I again have to remind you that I would never defend a documentary that used the same tactics that this one did. It doesnt matter if they werent right about anything. Second, they were more reasonable than they appeard and the producers went out of their way to portray the CTs as more hurtfull and ridiculous than than they are.

[Jonnyclueless]

1. WRONG. They are talking about the difference of simply doing a bad job and ignoring the warning signs, Vs the conspiracy claims of them intentionally ignoring the warnings knowing very well what is going to happen with the intent of using it to their advantage. Hence criminal.

2. WRONG. The initiation of the collapse being pancaking was backed away and was never an argument by NIST, it was FEMA who made a quick on the spot guess of the cause. The building most indeed pancaked just as the drawing showed. They ALSO showed what caused the collapse to initiate. Everything in it was completely accurate despite your bogus claim here.

3. Most of the people you mention have no relevance on the issue and are simply people you chose because of their names. And many of them have indeed already appeared in other such documentaries. 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. This isn't critical thinking, this is childish nonsense on your part.

4. Once again, it's impossible to have a documentary that brings up everything. No matter what they chose to cover, your argument could always be made. Thus it not being possible to make a fair and balanced documentary based on your absolutely absurd standards. They chose the ones they felt were most popular. Had they covered the issues which you feel they should have, then they would have shown the same things. They would have shown the holes in those conspiracy claims as well. But they only have so much time.

5. There was not a single shred of truth to the story what so ever. The people that run the company even state the warning had nothing to do with the WTC what so ever and they can't even conclude it was a warning at all. It just happened to coincide on the same day. The whole Jewish thing is only about the company being Israeli. This is the most bogus conspiracy claim out there and you call pointing that out "spin". YOU are a con artist for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself.

6. Because he was the basis of a big conspiracy theory about 9/11. HELLO?? He covered the part about why conspiracy theories like this get started. His segment was probably one of the most important parts.

7. WRONG AGAIN. They in no way do that at all. One of the biggest conspiracies is that flight 93 landed. They address that by talking to one of the women on the flight that was mistaken for 93 and it shows how some of these theories get started. Another extremely important segment. Your libel on this segment is completely baseless and absurd.

8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) argument that somehow bringing up older conspiracy theories somehow validates current ones. Another argument that shows you are just a small con in the woo movement.

9. NO. The point of the segment is to show that just because there were mistakes made and things were ignored, that it doesn't mean they were intentional. The fact that you could see this any other was is astounding.

10. Most of the victims of 9/11 are most certainly hurt by these absurd conspiracy theories. bringing up 3 that aren't doesn't change that. Just like pretending the Jersey Girls represent the victims is outright wrong. This segment addresses those misconceptions about the victims thinking there is a conspiracy or to dispell claims such as the "jews" being in on it etc.

11. Because it didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. 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.

Ed. As to your little appendix of disclaimers. I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.

[Jonnyclueless]

I dont know why Im bothering, but I think the worst offender of misrepresentations is Jonny.




Lies. I never said that.



Im not defending them.



Again, lies. How do you glean this out of my posts?



Lies, again. You're not even make any sence now.



Wow, impressive, so Im the worst even though Jonny has to pretend Im saying things I never did nor even implied! :rolleyes:


The fact you have to lie about me just so you can say this is so sad its almost pathetic.

Wow, typical. When pointed out to be a con, you start with the claims of me being a liar. Gosh if I had a dime for every time one of you Wooers did that I would be rich. Your posts are here for everyone to see. And your claims of not saying things when my argument wasn't about you literally saying them, but rather DOING them proves this.

Your attempts to pretend to be something you aren't are what's sad and pathetic. At least most people here can be honest and don't put on a little show like you do. What's sadder is you thinking that we're stupid and buy into this nonsense.

[Jonnyclueless]

Me: It doesnt matter if Rodriguez claims arent defensible,
You: It matters if they're consistent and supported by others. See the difference?

No, they aren't. Get it?

[Gravy]

They claimed no Jews got warned,Stop right there. What is your claim about Jewish people and warnings?

[dbalsdon]

Stop right there. What is your claim about Jewish people and warnings?

Cue the "I never said that any Jews were informed" answer.
To save you time, that's exactly what you implied, Edx.

[Edx]

1. WRONG. They are talking about the difference of simply doing a bad job and ignoring the warning signs, Vs the conspiracy claims of them intentionally ignoring the warnings knowing very well what is going to happen with the intent of using it to their advantage. Hence criminal.

They even call it a conspiracy, sorry. And Let it happen On purpose is not the only CT claim. This was a film looking into conspiracy theories, not just MIHOP and LIHOP, thats why they talked about the incompetence conspiracy at all. This is a conspiracy that is claimed on this forum by many people to be nonsence as well but is pushed by the very film you defend.

2. WRONG. The initiation of the collapse being pancaking was backed away and was never an argument by NIST, it was FEMA who made a quick on the spot guess of the cause. The building most indeed pancaked just as the drawing showed. They ALSO showed what caused the collapse to initiate. Everything in it was completely accurate despite your bogus claim here.

How was I wrong? I said the graphic was inaccurate, and it is. I said NIST backed away from pancaking theory, perhaps "backing away" wasnt the right term to use for what I meant which was that NIST said pancaking theory wasnt correct. Of course its not totally inaccurate, but people were asking for factual errors so I figured I'd pick on that. Wikipedia puts it like this: "... Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate. The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in."

3. Most of the people you mention have no relevance on the issue and are simply people you chose because of their names. And many of them have indeed already appeared in other such documentaries. 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. This isn't critical thinking, this is childish nonsense on your part.

Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to include "everyone", but not only did they not include any of the people I listed, not only did they not even mention them but in the case of the people like the Jersey Girls implied they even even exist.

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

Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to bring up "everything".

No matter what they chose to cover, your argument could always be made.

Then why am I only focused on Conspiracy Files as being so bad? Why did I say the history channels documentary was a lot better? Why did I say that the program that disagrees with Alex Jones' on Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg Group and the NWO was fair and balanced? I would go further and say it was a great documentary. Theres a way to reasonably conduct a documentary into this while not misrepresenting people, but I guess you wouldnt know being such a veteran of strawmen burning yourself.

Thus it not being possible to make a fair and balanced documentary based on your absolutely absurd standards.

Just wanting a little fairness and not a misrepresentations of people is apparently "absolutely absurd" standards.

They chose the ones they felt were most popular. Had they covered the issues which you feel they should have, then they would have shown the same things. They would have shown the holes in those conspiracy claims as well. But they only have so much time.

I already responded to that, so for the nth time, if they cut out all the spin and misrepresentative sections and perhaps not so needlessly focusing on Frank Spotniz' for so long telling us CTs are basically a religion for crazies, before of course telling us that there actually there was a conspiracy theory themselves, they might actually have had time to include just a little more content into the piece.

5. There was not a single shred of truth to the story what so ever. The people that run the company even state the warning had nothing to do with the WTC what so ever and they can't even conclude it was a warning at all. It just happened to coincide on the same day. The whole Jewish thing is only about the company being Israeli. This is the most bogus conspiracy claim out there and you call pointing that out "spin". YOU are a con artist for sure. You should be ashamed of yourself.

According to Haaratz and The Washington post Odigo really did receive warnings via instant messenger before the attacks. According to those news reports they thought it was important enough for their employees to notify their management, who contacted Israeli security services, who then contacted the FBI. Thats the truth around the myth. So my point Jonny, if you'd have cared enough to actually listen to it is that there was this true story in the story Conspiracy Files talked about but they ignored even pointing that out in favour of suggesting all of it was a myth its all anti-semetic nonsence and generally that this is what CT really think and it really hurts the victims families.

6. Because he was the basis of a big conspiracy theory about 9/11. HELLO?? He covered the part about why conspiracy theories like this get started. His segment was probably one of the most important parts.

I know why they brought him on Jonny, and I didnt say he shouldnt have been brought on, its that they focused on him for so long that is why Im suggesting if they had cut some of his section out along with the misrepresentations they indulged in they could have included more content. Yes he was a product of a CT but after a while he's just expressing his opinion.

7. WRONG AGAIN. They in no way do that at all. One of the biggest conspiracies is that flight 93 landed. They address that by talking to one of the women on the flight that was mistaken for 93 and it shows how some of these theories get started. Another extremely important segment. Your libel on this segment is completely baseless and absurd.

How is it my libel? They made out that Dylan is denying Delta 1982 even existed and that the woman didnt even take the flight.

8. Another typical twoofer (oh right you're "not a truther" wink wink) argument that somehow bringing up older conspiracy theories somehow validates current ones. Another argument that shows you are just a small con in the woo movement.

If government lies are not relevant why did they have a montage of examples of government lies? Im saying there are much more relevant examples than what they used.

9. NO. The point of the segment is to show that just because there were mistakes made and things were ignored, that it doesn't mean they were intentional. The fact that you could see this any other was is astounding.

What way round are you claiming that I am seeing it? They said exactly what i said they said. They didnt even just say it was a coverup, they said it was a conspiracy where people involved intentionally mislead.

10. Most of the victims of 9/11 are most certainly hurt by these absurd conspiracy theories. bringing up 3 that aren't doesn't change that. Just like pretending the Jersey Girls represent the victims is outright wrong. This segment addresses those misconceptions about the victims thinking there is a conspiracy or to dispell claims such as the "jews" being in on it etc.

Many are hurt, I never denied that and they had a right to say that and I would have had no problem with it if they had, but to pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist by simply ignoring their existence is not giving a fair and balanced picture. That is what the film claimed to be, a fair and objective investigation to give people a balanced picture of the issues. And that is what this film was claimed to be by the people in this thread which caused me to start arguing.

11. Because it didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. 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.

Strawman again. I didnt say it had anything to do with a larger plot.:rolleyes: I wonder if I should just continue to reply to your nonsence even just to point out how you're arguing against positions Im not taking.

Ed. As to your little appendix of disclaimers. I would like to say: You're full of crap and you know it.

You're just like the worst of the people you attack, you're unreasonable, irrational and unable to accept when you're wrong so have to resport to personal attacks and strawmen.

[Edx]

Stop right there. What is your claim about Jewish people and warnings?

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.

[Edx]

Wow, typical. When pointed out to be a con, you start with the claims of me being a liar. Gosh if I had a dime for every time one of you Wooers did that I would be rich. Your posts are here for everyone to see. And your claims of not saying things when my argument wasn't about you literally saying them, but rather DOING them proves this.

Your attempts to pretend to be something you aren't are what's sad and pathetic. At least most people here can be honest and don't put on a little show like you do. What's sadder is you thinking that we're stupid and buy into this nonsense.

Well go on then I challenge you, no, I dare you to show where I said what you claim I said. Its that simple. You cant because theres no way you can honestly interpret what Ive said as meaning what you want it to mean.

[Arus808]

They even call it a conspiracy, sorry.
Which proves that you dont understand the term.

And Let it happen On purpose is not the only CT claim. This was a film looking into conspiracy theories, not just MIHOP and LIHOP, thats why they talked about the incompetence conspiracy at all.
Which proves you dont understand what Conspiracy theory means.

There is a BIG difference between a CONSPIRACY and a CONSPIRACY THEORY

This is a conspiracy that is claimed on this forum by many people to be nonsence as well but is pushed by the very film you defend.

which shows that YOU didn't understand what the BBC documentary was about.

How was I wrong? I said the graphic was inaccurate, and it is. I said NIST backed away from pancaking theory. Of course its not totally inaccurate, but people were asking for factual errors so I figured I'd pick on that. Wikipedia puts it like this: "... Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate. The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in."

Which proves that you didn't understand NIST position and their conclusions.

Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to include "everyone", but not only did they not include any of the people I listed, not only did they not even mention them but in the case of the people like the Jersey Girls implied they even even exist.

And how would any of those "people" that you mentioned, invalidate any of the claims that BBC went ahead to debunk?

Serious Edx, you're throwing out the EXPERTS claims they Went to , to get claricaiton on what the very CONSPIRAYC nuts on their program was STATING.

it was an hour long show (less actually)

TO cover every crazy theory espoused by the 911 liar movement, they would need to spend 100 hours on a documentary. 1 hour is more than enough to expose the MORE often, repeated theories the liar movement have been stating since 2005.




Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to bring up "everything".

you need ot learn the definition of "strawman".




Then why am I only focused on Conspiracy Files as being so bad?

because YOU didn't like what they presented, and didn't like they didn't presnt WHAT you thought was important. remember THIS IS THE BBC's show. NOT yours. They will feature WHAT they want, and expose the liars for what they are, and they did just that.


Why did I say the history channels documentary was a lot better?
who cares. this is about the BBC program. A channel that has no assocaition with the "US", and they were able to expose the US conspiracy nuts for what they are.





any more replies on my part to you will go ingnored anyway


I've yet to see you list all the FACTUALLY incorrect statements in the program. When are you going to do so?

[Arus808]

See my responce to Jonny - strawman - clueless. But what I said in my long post, if you'll rememeber was:

"Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post that some were warned via instant messenger."

Odigo employees really did receive warnings, there was truth there, they made out it was all a myth.

then you were listening with a half and ear, because they made no such assessment. Only 2 people received a message, but what that message didn't state any thing specific.

Stop blowing things out of proportion.

[Slayhamlet]

They touched on a lot of the more extreme theories yet not other ones such as NORAD responce or the toxic air in the cleanup. And it also still found time to smear CTs as antisemtic even when most arent and interview Frank Spotnitz for 10 minutes to give his uneducated filmmaking opinion on the psychology of conspiracy theoriests. Yes, he helped produce x-files, so what?

1. Which particular theories about the NORAD response did they leave out?

2. How is toxic air in the cleanup related to 9/11 conspiracy theories at all?

First I said "off the top of my head". Secondly, they only gave brief time to the conspiracy arguments with quick edited shots, while giving the debunkers a lot of time to talk including proceeding documentation to back them up. They didnt do that with the conspiracy guys, because even if wrong or misinterpreted, it wasnt a balenced documentary if they dont even attempt to do that. They call Dylan a "self-confessed dropout" when he wasnt a drop out. It appeals to emotion that a CT for 911 hurts the victems completely ignoring the Jersey Girls or Bill Doyle of the Coalition of 9/11 Families. They try to make out its anti-semetic to say that Jewish workers were warned on 911, but this was a report from a Jewish news source, which they dont mention. They try to make out that its a main CT idea that the Jews did it, and they get some Jewish lady on there to say how horrible it is for someone to think that.

Which "Jewish" news source claimed Jews were warned about 9/11? By "Jewish" do you mean Israeli?

I apologize if you've already addressed these points, but most of this thread seems to be quibbling about the definition of "dropout". I couldn't find anything about these points but I didn't read it all.

[Edx]

then you were listening with a half and ear, because they made no such assessment. Only 2 people received a message, but what that message didn't state any thing specific.

Stop blowing things out of proportion.

Whats wrong you guys? The story was reported in Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post. The employees reported it to their management, who contacted Israeli security services, who then contacted the FBI.

Just what do you claim I am saying about this story? be carefull a lot of other people are assuming Im saying something Im not, so go on just from what Ive actually written, what do you think I am saying about this story?

[cisco]

They claimed no Jews got warned

Ahh, there it is. The Joo train, right on time. I've been waiting for it.

[Edx]

1. Which particular theories about the NORAD response did they leave out?

Its not about the theories its the details. But I dont want to move a discussion Im having on another thread to this, already a train wreak, of a thread.

2. How is toxic air in the cleanup related to 9/11 conspiracy theories at all?
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'.

Which "Jewish" news source claimed Jews were warned about 9/11? By "Jewish" do you mean Israeli?

I apologize if you've already addressed these points, but most of this thread seems to be quibbling about the definition of "dropout". I couldn't find anything about these points but I didn't read it all.

Its been a long day yes I meant Israeli. You should read this post on previous page. It was meant to be my last but I wasnt aware people would ignore it and twist it quite as much as they had.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

[Edx]

Ahh, there it is. The Joo train, right on time. I've been waiting for it.

Ah now Im being called an anti-Semite as well!You guys are getting more and more laughable. :rolleyes:

[DGM]

Edx:
It sounds to me that you should be more mad at the "truth" leaders for pushing the crap then the BBC for not trying to discover all of the issues. You seem to disagree with a lot of these leaders views but truth of the matter is these are the people that made this "movement". Get them to stop pushing the BS and maybe somebody might take up the issues that are a little less bizarre.

[Gravy]

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.This is important, Edx. Let's work through this, okay?

1) What Odigo employees?
2) Where were they?
3) What warnings did they receive?

It's important.

[Arus808]

Whats wrong you guys? The story was reported in Haaretz and then reported further in The Washington Post. The employees reported it to their management, who contacted Israeli security services, who then contacted the FBI.

Care to give us the RESULTS of that FBI investigation? just because its "reported" doesn't mean it has been found to have merit

Again, you haven't bothered to RESEARCH. Only 2 Employees were sent a message, and there is no instant or report stating that any one OTHER than those 2 employees got a message.

YOU are misrepresenting the facts.

We have discussed this in a thread earlier:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3407779&postcount=18
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3407831&postcount=26



Just what do you claim I am saying about this story?
Im not claiming anything. All Im saying is BE CAREFUL of misrepresenting the facts, which is what you are doing.

[Drudgewire]

Wow, typical. When pointed out to be a con, you start with the claims of me being a liar.
Or a strawman. Don't forget you're also a scarecrow.

Oh and I go to dinner and come back to the shocking discovery those sneaky chosen people got a text message saying "hey your gentile friends are about to die, don't tell anyone I told you." I say "shocking" because it actually took six pages for his anti-semitism to start oozing out. :rolleyes:

[Edx]

Which proves that you dont understand the term.

Hows that? They use the term conspiracy, they say there was a coverup. What am I not understanding?

And Let it happen On purpose is not the only CT claim. This was a film looking into conspiracy theories, not just MIHOP and LIHOP, thats why they talked about the incompetence conspiracy at all.
Which proves you dont understand what Conspiracy theory means.

There is a BIG difference between a CONSPIRACY and a CONSPIRACY THEORY

Some people were saying incompetence theory had no evidence for it, in fact its even worse because in Conspriacy Files they were saying that people had not acted on intelligence and then tried to cover up up by misleading the public, after all Press for Truth was essentially concluding the same thing which was called a CT with no evidence for any of its claims. Theres lots of things people could and have been called conspiracy theorists about but it turned out to be true. Even a error riddled film like Zeitgeist says the same thing as Conspiracy Files, in one part, that the government did have prior warnings, yet that too has no evidence for any of its claims, apparently.

This is a conspiracy that is claimed on this forum by many people to be nonsence as well but is pushed by the very film you defend.

which shows that YOU didn't understand what the BBC documentary was about.

Do you? I heard from the producer, Guy Smith what the film was about. What do you think it was about and we'll match it up with what he actually said, how about that?

Which proves that you didn't understand NIST position and their conclusions.

Well you know I am excited to find out just how much further you will you stretch my claim about this. So the graphic they used is completely accurate an NIST didnt actually disagree with the "pancake theories" that had been put out?

And how would any of those "people" that you mentioned, invalidate any of the claims that BBC went ahead to debunk?

If they included the Jersey Girls they couldnt have made out that all the family members hate and are hurt by the CTs like they implied. To show first responders that have agreed with some or several CT claims about bombs would have weakened their case and their implication that no one remotely credible supports the idea. They show the interview with the fireman about building 7 but dont show the clip about the guy saying the buildings about to "blow up". they dont mention Craig Bartmer who was there for the taping of Averys interview who was an NYPD officer that day and says building 7 saw demolished. I really dont believe they are right, I really dont believe WTC was demolished. But these are relevant important things that any objective film would have at least acknowledged, not accepted as evidence but acknowledged, existed. But I guess that would have lent some credibility to the idea and so they didnt even want to touch it. This film is claimed to be an honest impartial investigation to show an uninformed public a balanced view. They cant claim that is the purpose of the show and then completely fail to do it, and not only that, misrepresent the people whose arguments they are discussing.

Serious Edx, you're throwing out the EXPERTS claims they Went to , to get claricaiton on what the very CONSPIRAYC nuts on their program was STATING.

was an hour long show (less actually)

TO cover every crazy theory espoused by the 911 liar movement, they would need to spend 100 hours on a documentary. 1 hour is more than enough to expose the MORE often, repeated theories the liar movement have been stating since 2005.

*sigh* So it seems you're another Jonny who wants to imagine Im saying they needed to include everything 911 Truthers have put out. :rolleyes:

you need ot learn the definition of "strawman".

Whys that? Jonny was arguing that Im wrong becuase they didnt have time to interview everyone and touch upon every subject. Thats not my point, that was never my point. Theres no way you could ever honestly glean that from my posts. Therefore he is arguing against a position I never held, so a strawman by definition.

because YOU didn't like what they presented, and didn't like they didn't presnt WHAT you thought was important. remember THIS IS THE BBC's show. NOT yours. They will feature WHAT they want, and expose the liars for what they are, and they did just that.

who cares. this is about the BBC program. A channel that has no assocaition with the "US", and they were able to expose the US conspiracy nuts for what they are.

So what did they say that the History Channel didnt? If I only hate UK shows why did I really enjoy the program that argued againt Alex Jones' NWO Bohemium Grove claims? That I though that was a balanced and fair film? BUt I guess you have to pretend I dont say the things Im saying in order to accuse me of things you'd like to imagine Im saying.

any more replies on my part to you will go ingnored anyway

How do you get off on sayingthat? Ive done my best to reply to every single person, even in my long post I tried to cover it all and asked if someone really wants a responce and thinks I havent covered something to contact me. I suppose my reply to every single point of yours here, even though you actually just snipped points you just cannot argue like their treatment of Avery and Delta flight 1982, but apparently Im still "ignoring" you.

I've yet to see you list all the FACTUALLY incorrect statements in the program. When are you going to do so?

Oh come on, Ive answered this question a billion times now. What was wrong with my last responce to this?

[Edx]

Care to give us the RESULTS of that FBI investigation? just because its "reported" doesn't mean it has been found to have merit

Again, you haven't bothered to RESEARCH. Only 2 Employees were sent a message, and there is no instant or report stating that any one OTHER than those 2 employees got a message.

Where did I say otherwise? Where did I imply otherwise? And do you not remember what the point was? Other than them implying all CTs that mention this point are anti-semites, which is, you know, exactly what is happening now, the film didnt actually explain that there was some truth to the myth of Jews being warned. I would have thought it would be interesting to mention, and really wouldnt have changed a whole lot but it would have meant that at least they would have to acknowledge that it wasnt a 100% myth. Apparently they didnt want to do that.



YOU are misrepresenting the facts.
I dare you to show me where I have something that isnt written in the news reports I have cited. And dont forget to remember why I brought up these "primary" sources for this claim.

Im not claiming anything. All Im saying is BE CAREFUL of misrepresenting the facts, which is what you are doing.

Yes you are you are claiming that Im making an argument about this that I am not. If you had been paying attention theres nothing to argue about, but you cant accept my argument so have to invent another one just so you disagree with me on this. Its really ridiculous. Even Creationists, i have to say, have never acted as badly to me or anyone else as all you are doing now. And thats really saying something

[Unsecured Coins]

the Twoof Movement - Why be right when you can be loud?

[Edx]

This is important, Edx. Let's work through this, okay?

I'd love to not have to be so confrontational, so if you want to clean the air a bit and calm down thats great Gravy. But right now, I think you'll have to forgive my tone seeing how everyone is attacking me, and now look, Im an anti-semite as well! :) Whatever next.

1) What Odigo employees?
2) Where were they?
3) What warnings did they receive?

It's important.

I read the news reports, they didnt mention them in the film that the 4,000 Jewish workers being warned myth actually did have a grain of truth to it. So theres that, along with the fact that they implied all CTs that mention something to do with Israli's being warned hate Jews. Thats whats important and thats my point. You dont need to agree with the CTs claims just dont misrepresent them. Id say the same thing about a film on Creationists, but while I will defend dishonesty and strawmen against Creationist (doesnt happen often) it doesnt mean I agree with Creationism.

[Edx]

Edx:
It sounds to me that you should be more mad at the "truth" leaders for pushing the crap then the BBC for not trying to discover all of the issues. You seem to disagree with a lot of these leaders views but truth of the matter is these are the people that made this "movement". Get them to stop pushing the BS and maybe somebody might take up the issues that are a little less bizarre.

I am mad at them, you guys have just assumed Im not. In a different debate I would be arguing with you, but we're not talking about that right now we're talking about the Conspiracy Files show.

[Arus808]

I read the news reports, they didnt mention them in the film that the 4,000 Jewish workers being warned myth actually did have a grain of truth to it.
It didn't have any TRUTH to it, NOT EVEN so much as a microscopic granule to it.

There you go MISREPRESENTING the facts.

2 EMPLOYEES ONLY in ISRAel RECEIVED a message.

How can 2 employees TRANSLATE to 4000 ?

[Arus808]

Where did I say otherwise?
Where did I say that you stated otherwise? Can you read and comprehend?

Where did I imply otherwise?
Where did I say that you implied otherwise? Can you read and comprehend?


And do you not remember what the point was?
Can you comprehend? I've provided FACTS that state only 2 employees received a message. AND when INVESTIGATED, it had NO MERIT to what happened on 911.

YOU are taking the position that 2 employees were warned; when all they received was a vERY vague message, and now are attributing it to that 4000 "jews" were warned. CAre to explain your logical thinking behind this?



Other than them implying all CTs that mention this point are anti-semites, which is, you know, exactly what is happening now, the film didnt actually explain that there was some truth to the myth of Jews being warned.
Which means YOU DIDN"T UNDERSTAND THE SEGMENT

[Arus808]

I am mad at them, you guys have just assumed Im not. In a different debate I would be arguing with you, but we're not talking about that right now we're talking about the Conspiracy Files show.


We are still waiting for your list of what was FACTUALLY wrong with teh show. So far, you have been arguing your OPINIONS. NOT FACTS.

[Walter Ego]

I dare you to show me where I have something that isnt written in the news reports I have cited. And dont forget to remember why I brought up these "primary" sources for this claim.


You have not ‘cited’ anything that I have seen. As a university student you must surely know what a citation is. In the context of this forum, it would be a link to a verifiable source like those news items you keep mentioning.


Yes you are you are claiming that Im making an argument about this that I am not. If you had been paying attention theres nothing to argue about, but you cant accept my argument so have to invent another one just so you disagree with me on this. Its really ridiculous. Even Creationists, i have to say, have never acted as badly to me or anyone else as all you are doing now. And thats really saying something


Stop whining. Nobody here is being mean to you. This isn’t a truther forum where speculation and bald assertion parade as facts. The standards here are different. When you make a claim you have to back it up.

[Jonnyclueless]

They even call it a conspiracy, sorry. And Let it happen On purpose is not the only CT claim. This was a film looking into conspiracy theories, not just MIHOP and LIHOP, thats why they talked about the incompetence conspiracy at all. This is a conspiracy that is claimed on this forum by many people to be nonsence as well but is pushed by the very film you defend.

Which shows you don't understand the meaning. And you clearly don't even understand what the film was about. I cannot be held responsible for your misunderstanding, nor can the film.



How was I wrong? I said the graphic was inaccurate, and it is. I said NIST backed away from pancaking theory, perhaps "backing away" wasnt the right term to use for what I meant which was that NIST said pancaking theory wasnt correct. Of course its not totally inaccurate, but people were asking for factual errors so I figured I'd pick on that. Wikipedia puts it like this: "... Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate. The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in."

The graphic was not inaccurate at all. It depicts the collapse post-initiation. The graphics of how the initiation started are completely supported by NIST and show how the steal weakened which then caused trusses to fail. Exactly as NIST has found. NIST never claimed the collapse was INITIATED by pancake, but everyone who isn't an idiot including NIST agree that the collapse itself was a pancake effect. Each floor hit the floor below nocking it down one by one. This again, is an issue of YOU misunderstanding what NIST said and going by the explanation given on twuther sites, not NIST.

Go READ the NIST report before you make false claims and libel.



Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to include "everyone", but not only did they not include any of the people I listed, not only did they not even mention them but in the case of the people like the Jersey Girls implied they even even exist.

No kid, your whole argument is a strawman. Should they have consulted YOU? If they had picked the ones you are now claiming they should have, then you would be arguing about all the ones they left out still. It's a bogus argument and you know it. This is the strongest case of you being a con artist.



Strawman Jonny. I didnt ask them to bring up "everything".

Once again pointing out your strawman argument in that anything short of "everything" would allow your argument. All you have to do is point out the arguments they don't bring up no matter which ones they are. If they included the Jersey Girl idiots, then you would be complaining about whatever other argument they left out in order to include them. They were likely left out because they are such a weak argument that it would simply make the conspiracy theorists look worse. And the fact is that most of the arguments made by the Jersey girls are not conspiracy theory related, simply intelligence failures. The documentary was on conspiracy theories. This again points out that you are a fraud since you argue about them not including non-conspiracy arguments.



Then why am I only focused on Conspiracy Files as being so bad? Why did I say the history channels documentary was a lot better? Why did I say that the program that disagrees with Alex Jones' on Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg Group and the NWO was fair and balanced? I would go further and say it was a great documentary. Theres a way to reasonably conduct a documentary into this while not misrepresenting people, but I guess you wouldnt know being such a veteran of strawmen burning yourself.

Everyone picks their area of focus. yours is painting an unfair and incorrect picture of a conspiracy documentary by bringing up conspiracy theory claims and arguments to do so. And you like the 1000 lemmings before you choose an angle that YOU think gives you an out because God forbid people know what you really think. You think you're the first one here to raise the same argument as you using the same tactic?



Just wanting a little fairness and not a misrepresentations of people is apparently "absolutely absurd" standards.

That's the LAST thing you want and you have proven that beyond any doubt. You want just the opposite of that. Just like most truthers claim they just want answers or the truth yet want nothing but the opposite of that.



I already responded to that, so for the nth time, if they cut out all the spin and misrepresentative sections and perhaps not so needlessly focusing on Frank Spotniz' for so long telling us CTs are basically a religion for crazies, before of course telling us that there actually there was a conspiracy theory themselves, they might actually have had time to include just a little more content into the piece.

You already responded to it, yet you bring it up again. It's not spin. There are important issues to this matter that aren't in the physical elements themselves, but rather the psychological reasoning as to why conspiracy theorists need to make all of this stuff up. It's obvious that they are very wrong in their theories, but what's more important is understanding the cause of the behavior. Not only was it not needless, it was probably the single most important segment of the show. The fact that you completely miss this point says quite a lot.



According to Haaratz and The Washington post Odigo really did receive warnings via instant messenger before the attacks. According to those news reports they thought it was important enough for their employees to notify their management, who contacted Israeli security services, who then contacted the FBI. Thats the truth around the myth. So my point Jonny, if you'd have cared enough to actually listen to it is that there was this true story in the story Conspiracy Files talked about but they ignored even pointing that out in favour of suggesting all of it was a myth its all anti-semetic nonsence and generally that this is what CT really think and it really hurts the victims families.

Oh really? Please quote us what that warning message was. Which news reports? let's see the exact reports. A lot of things were worth reporting. Almost anything out o the ordinary was reported. That doesn't mean it had anything to do with the attacks. There were 1000s of incidents reported that day as everyone was suspicious of everything. YOU are the one making pure conjecture as to it being part of 9/11 and that the Jews were somehow in on it. That's not the truth around the myth, it's your BS around the myth.

Again, please show us the articles, and please quote this "warning" message. Here's a quote for you:

"Without going into details, the message was most noteworthy due to the timing, not due to the substance of the 'warning.' It could easily be coincidence," - Alex Diamandis

And who were they warning? The company is nowhere near the WTC let alone in it. And no one involved was in the WTC.



I know why they brought him on Jonny, and I didnt say he shouldnt have been brought on, its that they focused on him for so long that is why Im suggesting if they had cut some of his section out along with the misrepresentations they indulged in they could have included more content. Yes he was a product of a CT but after a while he's just expressing his opinion.

Obviously you don't. And the fact that you keep calling them misrepresentations shows that you didn't even understand the show. Again, it wasn't about him expressing his opinion, it was going into the most important part of the show, which is the mentality about why people make this stuff up. Why people like YOU find this stuff as "misrepresentations" because you aren't able to understand it.

How is it my libel? They made out that Dylan is denying Delta 1982 even existed and that the woman didnt even take the flight.

Showing once again that you don't understand what they were doing. Now YOU are completely misrepresenting the documentary.


If government lies are not relevant why did they have a montage of examples of government lies? Im saying there are much more relevant examples than what they used.

It's a major strawman argument. It's like me saying "Because you stole something as a kid, you are therefore guilty of any crime I choose regardless of there being any evidence o such crimes". Your opinion is noted. But to simply disagree is one thing, claiming its unfair and a misrepresentation is simply wrong.



What way round are you claiming that I am seeing it? They said exactly what i said they said. They didnt even just say it was a coverup, they said it was a conspiracy where people involved intentionally mislead.

Once again, your misunderstanding of a conspiracy.



Many are hurt, I never denied that and they had a right to say that and I would have had no problem with it if they had, but to pretend the Jersey Girls dont exist by simply ignoring their existence is not giving a fair and balanced picture. That is what the film claimed to be, a fair and objective investigation to give people a balanced picture of the issues. And that is what this film was claimed to be by the people in this thread which caused me to start arguing.

Now they pretend the Jersey girls don't exist because they didn't include a non-conspiracy segment? Are you insane??You are the one pretending here. You being irrational is what has caused you to start arguing.


Strawman again. I didnt say it had anything to do with a larger plot.:rolleyes: I wonder if I should just continue to reply to your nonsence even just to point out how you're arguing against positions Im not taking.

It's funny to see YOU yelling strawman when that's all you present. Of course you didn't say that, you don't say anything. And gosh you're so clever and we have no idea what you are doing. you're just too smart for us. Keep pretending kid, keep pretending. Wink wink.



You're just like the worst of the people you attack, you're unreasonable, irrational and unable to accept when you're wrong so have to resport to personal attacks and strawmen.

I attack? Who came here making an attack on the documentary. YOU did. You are the one spouting rubbish arguments about how unfair, unbalanced, and what a misrepresentation it is. I am attacking your bogus arguments that have little merit. And you call me irrational because I point out that your opinion is not a valid argument? You're the one who disagrees with their choice of segments and tries to claim that makes it unfair? You need serious help.

[Drudgewire]

But right now, I think you'll have to forgive my tone seeing how everyone is attacking me, and now look, Im an anti-semite as well! :) Whatever next.
It's really nothing personal. It's that our patience long ago wore thin with this song and dance.

Forget this is the conspiracy theory section for a moment and stop to consider you're on an educational/skepticism forum. Go to forums designed for this rot and you can make any blanket accusation you want, but here you have evidence or you have nothing. Since the smart guys here have seen it all before, to just start bleating the same mantras without anything new or legitimate to really show us up with means nothing more than another round of brick walls.

And moreover, to use this place as a soapbox against bias in the media because poor Dylan Avery and Alex Jones weren't given the respect you dolts somehow think they have an ounce of coming to them ANYWHERE outside of your little play world? You weren't asking for it, you were DYING for it.

So pardon my tone, but you can shove that victim card right back where you were pulled it out from.

[Jonnyclueless]

Well go on then I challenge you, no, I dare you to show where I said what you claim I said. Its that simple. You cant because theres no way you can honestly interpret what Ive said as meaning what you want it to mean.

:dl:

You want me to show you the posts where you claimed the film was unfair, unbalanced, and a misrepresentation? That's not much of a challenge buddy.

Now how about my challenge. Show us the text warning message that was sent over IM.

And another laughing dog at you coming here and making attacks on someone and then pretending that everyone is attacking you because your arguments are nonsense. LOL!

[Edx]

It didn't have any TRUTH to it, NOT EVEN so much as a microscopic granule to it.

There you go MISREPRESENTING the facts.

2 EMPLOYEES ONLY in ISRAel RECEIVED a message.

How can 2 employees TRANSLATE to 4000 ?

Yea its amazing how someone twisted that isnt it? Still, theres something else to the story they reported in Conspiracy Files, but they chose not to actually mention that there was a grain of truth to it or how the myth of 4000 jews got started. Do you deny they dont mention any of this? They cite one news sources, but not the other two I did, I wonder why.

[Edx]

:dl:

You want me to show you the posts where you claimed the film was unfair, unbalanced, and a misrepresentation? That's not much of a challenge buddy.

Yes, I did say that. Ive been very open about that. But you also claimed I was critcising the film in more ways than just this. Why dont you go back and see which claim of yours I called a strawman and prove I said that. Go on. Too bad you know you cant.

Now how about my challenge. Show us the text warning message that was sent over IM.

What would that prove? Are you denying that happened? Are you denying those news sources reported it?

And another laughing dog at you coming here and making attacks on someone and then pretending that everyone is attacking you because your arguments are nonsense. LOL!
How old are you?

[Edx]

It's really nothing personal. It's that our patience long ago wore thin with this song and dance.

Forget this is the conspiracy theory section for a moment and stop to consider you're on an educational/skepticism forum. Go to forums designed for this rot and you can make any blanket accusation you want, but here you have evidence or you have nothing. Since the smart guys here have seen it all before, to just start bleating the same mantras without anything new or legitimate to really show us up with means nothing more than another round of brick walls.

And moreover, to use this place as a soapbox against bias in the media because poor Dylan Avery and Alex Jones weren't given the respect you dolts somehow think they have an ounce of coming to them ANYWHERE outside of your little play world? You weren't asking for it, you were DYING for it.

So pardon my tone, but you can shove that victim card right back where you were pulled it out from.

No matter how many times Ive said it, just because Im against dishonest programming no matter if I disagree with the conclusion or not, this automatically makes me a truther. Good job logic boy.

[Slayhamlet]

Its not about the theories its the details. But I dont want to move a discussion Im having on another thread to this, already a train wreak, of a thread.

Fine, I'll leave that alone for this thread then.

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?

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).

Its been a long day yes I meant Israeli. You should read this post on previous page. It was meant to be my last but I wasnt aware people would ignore it and twist it quite as much as they had.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3412097&postcount=185

Okay, thanks. Here's the part of your post I'm specifically interested in:
5. At 40:35 is the most deceptively spun part. 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. I thought he was going back to primary sources to investigate the claims? "4,000 Jews" is of course an exaggeration, but instead of saying there was some truth to the story, they just claimed it was all nonsence. They also used emotional manipulation by showing a Jewish victems family member who asked why her husband wasnt warned. They even use sad piano music over the top. And thats it, thats all they say about that topic. They dont even interview any of the CTs to see what they said about it, could it be because neither Alex or Avery and probably Fetzer as well never actually made the claim the way they said they did? Instead its just implied this is what the argument is, its wrong and its still spread and it hurts the families and its anti-semitic. Presumably if they interviewed Alex he would have mentioned Haaretz and The Washington Post and then they wouldnt have been able to make as strong a point. How can it be fair and objective when they spin the argument?

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. The provenance of the claim that 4000 thousand Jewish workers were warned on 9/11 not to go to work at the WTC is an article from the Lebanon-based Al-Manar television station, the propaganda-arm of Hezbollah, just as the Conspiracy Files program says it is. The story was also repeated in an article by Pravda, I believe. Neither article makes mention of the Odigo warnings. Moreover, the Washington Post article about the Odigo "warnings" and the FBI investigation into it makes clear that the two people who were supposedly warned about 9/11 were Odigo employees in Israel, not Jews who worked at the WTC. It was later revealed that they were general warnings about a terrorist attack occurring on 9/11 and weren't specific to the WTC, or even America.

[Slayhamlet]

Yea its amazing how someone twisted that isnt it? Still, theres something else to the story they reported in Conspiracy Files, but they chose not to actually mention that there was a grain of truth to it or how the myth of 4000 jews got started. Do you deny they dont mention any of this? They cite one news sources, but not the other two I did, I wonder why.

Really, why? They're not related. The Odigo story doesn't substantiate the "4000 Jews" claim at all and in fact developed entirely independently from it.

[Drudgewire]

No matter how many times Ive said it, just because Im against dishonest programming no matter if I disagree with the conclusion or not, this automatically makes me a truther. Good job logic boy.
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."

Either way, I'm done with you. Welcome to ignore.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, I did say that. Ive been very open about that. But you also claimed I was critcising the film in more ways than just this. Why dont you go back and see which claim of yours I called a strawman and prove I said that. Go on. Too bad you know you cant.



What would that prove? Are you denying that happened? Are you denying those news sources reported it?


How old are you?

Ah yes, the posts of yours which I addressed piece by piece. Tell us again what I said you said that you didn't. Because what REALLY happened is I accused you of a certain behavior, which you then translated into me claiming you made a literal claim. That would be YOU LYING. But if you feel the need to lie to pretend you are being unfairly attacked, it's your business. Just don't expect to be taken seriously here with that kind of behavior.

What would the IM thing prove? Gosh, did YOU not bring it up? What were you trying to prove. Are you now claiming that the fact it was reported makes it somehow a conspiracy? PLease, show us those reports. Show us the grain of truth to it you speak of. Show us the message. Why can't you do it? it's YOUR argument, back it up.

Obviously I am a lot older than you. You can continue as long as you want, but sooner or later you're going to start having to be honest.

[Edx]

Where did I say that you stated otherwise? Can you read and comprehend?

Where did I say that you implied otherwise? Can you read and comprehend?

You were arguing against something different to what I was saying. Why were you are you telling me that it wasnt a specifc message? Why were you telling me it was only two Odigo employees?

Can you comprehend? I've provided FACTS that state only 2 employees received a message. AND when INVESTIGATED, it had NO MERIT to what happened on 911.

I know it didnt, Im not even arguing that. See what I mean?:rolleyes:

YOU are taking the position that 2 employees were warned; when all they received was a vERY vague message, and now are attributing it to that 4000 "jews" were warned. CAre to explain your logical thinking behind this?
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.

Which means YOU DIDN"T UNDERSTAND THE SEGMENT

It must be amazing to do the kind of mental gymnatics you are doing to justify it. I'd like to see you defend them implying that Avery denies Delta 1989 even existed and that the passenger wasnt even on the plane.

[Arus808]

Yea its amazing how someone twisted that isnt it? Still, theres something else to the story they reported in Conspiracy Files, but they chose not to actually mention that there was a grain of truth to it or how the myth of 4000 jews got started.
AGAIN YOU FAIL to COMPREHEND!

Please watch the SEGMENT again. You seem to be ignorant of why the BBC didn't bother to "chase" down the theory. And teh ODIGO story HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 4000 jews story.

You apparently are not good at reesearching.

Oy jeez. Really, do you have to have your HAND held through this?

[Arus808]

You were arguing against something different to what I was saying. Why were you are you telling me that it wasnt a specifc message? Why were you telling me it was only two Odigo employees?

I GAVE you links to where WE ARE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING THIS ON THIS FORUM! WHy dont you bother to REASEARCH? Why didn't you bother TO READ the reports?

[Jonnyclueless]

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.


STOP lying. There was no message warning regarding 911. Even the people at the company have acknowledged this in the press. 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. Of course people keep pointing this out to you, yet you keep making this claim about there being a 911 warning message. So if you want to settle this, present the news articles for these claims. WE have already seen them, but I think it's important that you now actually read them instead of saying what you THINK they said. It seems pretty obvious that you never actually read the articles from the press releases themselves, but from the truther sites where they add conjecture to mislead people. It's either that or you are intentionally lying.

[WildCat]

Still, theres something else to the story they reported in Conspiracy Files, but they chose not to actually mention that there was a grain of truth to it or how the myth of 4000 jews got started. Do you deny they dont mention any of this? They cite one news sources, but not the other two I did, I wonder why.
You didn't "cite" any such news report, do you intend on doing so soon?

[jproudj]

It was my understanding that the story about the Jewish employees being warned and not turning up on 9/11 came from a message on the Israeli govt website about 4000 Israelis who had not made contact after the attacks. The number was arbitrary because they didn't know who was actually in the WTC, or even in the immediate area. This story probably got merged with the Odigo company in Israel story somewhere in the conspiracy swamp. It would be a classic case study in how the conspiracy theories emerge.

Here is a link trying to explain the Odigo story, it really isn't a 'grain of truth' at all. It's much smaller than that :)

911myths.com/index.php/Odigo

[Edx]

Ah yes, the posts of yours which I addressed piece by piece. Tell us again what I said you said that you didn't. Because what REALLY happened is I accused you of a certain behavior, which you then translated into me claiming you made a literal claim.

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!

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

That would be YOU LYING.
Thats pretty funny coming from you.

But if you feel the need to lie to pretend you are being unfairly attacked, it's your business. Just don't expect to be taken seriously here with that kind of behavior.

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 .

What would the IM thing prove? Gosh, did YOU not bring it up?

Did YOU not READ why I brought it up?

Are you now claiming that the fact it was reported makes it somehow a conspiracy?

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

PLease, show us those reports. Show us the grain of truth to it you speak of. Show us the message. Why can't you do it? it's YOUR argument, back it up.

What do you expect me to prove?

Obviously I am a lot older than you.
Older is possible, but Im not posting pictures of laughing dogs.

You can continue as long as you want, but sooner or later you're going to start having to be honest.
:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Ah now Im being called an anti-Semite as well!You guys are getting more and more laughable. :rolleyes:
You bring up the 4000 Jews warned, which is a lie, false, stupid, etc. No wonder. If you say stupid stuff you get tagged for being an stupid and not looking up the facts first before making dumb post after dump post pushing a lie around as if it was real information. Next we will hear the terrorist are alive an you will go from a know truther to super truther.

You went wrong on the thread, first by not sticking to the OP. Next, do not defend a 9/11 truth liar like Dylan on a same point of junk. You could have ignored the bs about dropout, it mean you do not care about content, you just want to defend an idiot 9/11 truth false information merchant. At least you post count is up and you have become a full truther defending false stories and lies with no evidence. You are the definition of a truther. But there is hope for terminal stupidity, it is knowledge knowledge.

I am just a old fool, but if you had taken my advice you would not be a truther defending stupid people and false stories of woo. Next advice, do not trust newspapers or the news.

[WildCat]

What do you expect me to prove?
For one, that you're not simply parroting truther claims and haven't even seen the article yourself. Secondly, the date of said article would show whether or not it preceded the 4,000 Jew rumor. 3rd, maybe the text of the actual "warning" could be seen.

You have so far refused to link to the article you claim to have read... :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Still, theres something else to the story they reported in Conspiracy Files, but they chose not to actually mention that there was a grain of truth to it or how the myth of 4000 jews got started. Do you deny they dont mention any of this? They cite one news sources, but not the other two I did, I wonder why.
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?

[Edx]

You didn't "cite" any such news report, do you intend on doing so soon?

As I have said many times Haaretz is a primary news source, as is The Washington Post report that followed it up. Are you guys just ignoring me on purpose now or what? Admit it, you'll all having a joke with me, you all are just winding me up right?

What do you expect me to prove?
For one, that you're not simply parroting truther claims and haven't even seen the article yourself. Secondly, the date of said article would show whether or not it preceded the 4,000 Jew rumor. 3rd, maybe the text of the actual "warning" could be seen.

The Jerusalem posts article came out one day after the attacks, according to this (http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/Missing_Jews.htm)page debunking the CT claim.


You have so far refused to link to the article you claim to have read...

I didnt think people were denying its existence. Haaretz (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:XqQbNnIkx5QJ:www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D77744%26contrassID%3D/has%255C+odigo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca&client=firefox-a) and the Washington Post (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/WTC_OdigoWarning2.html)(the original article appears to be lost)

It was my understanding that the story about the Jewish employees being warned and not turning up on 9/11 came from a message on the Israeli govt website about 4000 Israelis who had not made contact after the attacks. The number was arbitrary because they didn't know who was actually in the WTC, or even in the immediate area. This story probably got merged with the Odigo company in Israel story somewhere in the conspiracy swamp. It would be a classic case study in how the conspiracy theories emerge.

Here is a link trying to explain the Odigo story, it really isn't a 'grain of truth' at all. It's much smaller than that :)

911myths.com/index.php/Odigo

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?

[Unsecured Coins]

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 got this one, Cat...

I never said that

[Edx]

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?

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?