Dylan Avery Gets Schooled By The BBC (Video)

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Gravy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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

Already discussed. Possible.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth website,

See under Steven Jones.

Originally Posted by Edx

the Patriots for 911 Truth website,

See under Steven Jones.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by DGM

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by DGM

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]

Originally Posted by cisco

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Have you ever seen a troother movie?

"But Miss he hit me first!"

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Quote:

the producer literally said that drop out in the UK is someone that never went to University.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by dbalsdon

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]

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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?

Originally Posted by Edx

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?

Originally Posted by Edx

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.

Originally Posted by Edx

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]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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..

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[dbalsdon]

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/drop+out

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.