BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Part of the conspiracy?

Richard Porter | 17:12 UK time, Tuesday, 27 February 2007

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

BBC World logoUntil now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

An image of the website hosting the alleged BBC World footage3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 06:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • miss daw wrote:

No other building fell around the time of the report (approx 1657hrs)and the solomon brothers building did not fall for approx another 30mins (1720hrs).

What source told the bbc that the 47 storey solomon building (wtc7) had collapsed?

  • 2.
  • At 06:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then

seriously what was that about

it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists.

Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate no a propoganda machine for the state.

  • 3.
  • At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.

  • 4.
  • At 06:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Nick Hatton wrote:

Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee.

SERVE THE PUBLIC !!!

  • 5.
  • At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Justin Ross wrote:

If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

BBC have been BUSTED well & truely & this your lame attempt at trying to explain it?
This is karma for the hit piece you done the other week & yes you are accomplices to this crime for the communist style propaganda piece you pulled! BBC has lost all credibility & MILLIONS know it :)
Doubt your let this message through your "censorship" but know this BBC you have been exposed well & truely 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TELL THE TRUTH!

  • 7.
  • At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Eric wrote:

I dont think anyone is accusing the bbc as part of this. Its whoever gave the report to the bbc. What wire service sent this out?

  • 8.
  • At 06:26 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done.

WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 *rolls eyes*

  • 9.
  • At 06:30 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Emsley wrote:

So...

1. You lost the tapes of one of the most important events in US history? REALLY? The citizens of the UK should all stop paying their TV tax as this is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It is probably NOT TRUE as American broadcasters keep ALL FOOTAGE in controlled vaults/rooms.

2. You anchor CLEARLY states that WTC 7 has collapsED while it is still in the shot. It is repeated. She even says that it WAS 47 stories.

3. Your point "5" is a joke... just a mistake like:

A. losing the tapes.
B. The reporter NOT USING qualifiers such as "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" as you imply above.
C. The feed getting dropped.

Shame on you.

  • 10.
  • At 06:32 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Justin Ross wrote:

If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collape with your reporter telling the public it had already collaped.

  • 11.
  • At 06:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • William wrote:

Sorry, I am not convinced by this blog. I fail to see how it is impartial and crucial to the issue at hand..claiming to loose your own footage over an event like this doesn't seem to fit.

I am not labelling you as anything other than unconvincing as regards the comments you've posted here. Thank you for your time, sincerely William.

  • 12.
  • At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Justin Ross wrote:

If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

  • 13.
  • At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Emsley wrote:

Finally, I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

Of course the lowly BBC would not be "let in" on such a plot. You were simply used as pawns... mouthpieces and the evidence of this is in the "lost footage".

BBC BUSTED AGAIN HAHAHA :D

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say "well this is not original footage so it's not reliable!" How utterly unpredictable. The very fact that you claim not to have the archive footage (which I'm sure you're required to keep for various legal reasons) is enough to prove that in fact the British Brainwashing Corporation IS in fact part of a conspiracy.

Incidentally, as much as you'd like people to think otherwise, "conspiracy" is not a dirty word. The government conspired to convince us there were WMD in Iraq - which as you know there weren't. Conspiracy is an integral part of politics, and nothing would happen without it.

But you're obviously missing the point. If you had reported the building as having collapsed before it did so, it in fact DOES prove you were part of a conspiracy - for there is NO EARTHLY WAY anyone, not least the BBC, could have known that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been hit by nothing, and there was no significant damage. And yet you knew it was going to collapse, and even WHY it collapsed - before it even did!!! Sorry, but your quoting some naysayer from Youtube is as weak an explanation as it is possible to give.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!!

  • 16.
  • At 06:41 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Deep Fwoat wrote:

I don't think anyone is trying to imply that the BBC is "in" on anything.

It is remarkable, though, that the BBC believed a building was to collapse in an unprecedented way, and the idea that there was advance knowledge of the collapse doesn't fit well with the official story.

The clips are all over the net, finding them should be easy for a news network.

  • 17.
  • At 06:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Tim Zeiders wrote:

Pretty weak explanation Mr. Porter. Only 3 buildings in history have collapsed from "fire" (all on 9/11/01) and your reporter happened to predict one's collapse 15 minutes before it happened. And mysteriously her live feed was cut just before the actual collapse. It is as if you reported on the collapse of the World Trade Centers on 9/10/01. You are involved in the cover up Mr. Porter. ALso, maybe you could explain how she knew it would collapse when NIST still cant figure out how it happened. Your explanation is actually that she made a mistake? 3 buildings in history collapse like that and she makes a "mistake" predicting one right before it happens? I dont think so. The police (if they had the guts) would call that prior knowlege of a crime. If i went to the police and reported a crime before it happened i dont think they would take "oops it was a mistake" as an excuse. Not from me anyway. Maybe from you

Still no comments, Richard? Still waiting for SOMEONE to write a hit piece supporting your view and "discrediting" the obvious - that the BBC cocked-up on 9/11 and reported on something that hadn't happened before it happened and before the BBC could have KNOWN it was going to happen!!!

Mr Richard Porter, were you there to see what information was being passed onto reporters? I would like to respond to your five points.

1. The BBC does not have to be part of the conspiracy to have been given advance information that had been released too soon in error.
2. They didn’t use words like “apparently”, they flashed up the following message on the screen,
“The 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
That is pretty definite, and 20 minutes before it was brought down.
3. Are you trying to say that after the pictures from New York started going all fuzzy (i.e. when someone realised that the building was still standing), that the reporter did not remember five minutes later a 47 storey building collapsing behind her?
4. I believe you. You can view it here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
5. The BBC gets its second opinions from YouTube now, does it?

Serious answers are required from the BBC, not another whitewash. People are waking up all over the place that 9/11 was an inside job, yet the BBC still insists on trying to discredit conspiracy “theorists” left, right and centre.

When the whole world has woken up to the truth about 9/11, will the Beeb still be denying it?

Ok what credibility do you have? In 4 and 5 you imply you don't have the video to judge and then you admit to reading the comments about it on youtube?

I guess those technical difficulties were just coincidence too? Whatever, go back to sleep.

  • 21.
  • At 07:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • tom wrote:

so the footage has been lost ? how convenient !!

how can you people call yourselves journalists.

you make me sick

  • 22.
  • At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Dear BBC World,

Do you really expect the world to believe you when you say:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

Your credibility has been utterly annihilated!

Time to come clean folks...

  • 23.
  • At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.

  • 24.
  • At 07:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

Errrr clearly you did. The reporter said the building had collapsed 20 mins before it collapsed. What was it, a guess? A premonition?

Please stop avoiding the question.

Jane Standley has nothing to do with anything, she was told the building had collapsed so she repeated that. If you watch the video in question it is reported that the building has collapsed before the anchor goes to Jane Standley.

So you cannot pass this off as her mistake.

Now please explain to the people how the BBC knew the building was going to collapse.

  • 25.
  • At 07:27 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • De wrote:

Hmm, you lost the footage. It was there yesterday.

  • 26.
  • At 07:45 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Jan wrote:

The down to earth conspiracy theorists aren't saying the BBC had any part in a conspiracy, but are arguing that its clear that the BBC received message that the building had collapsed (probably part of a press release by a goverment official in NYC) and reported so.

It seems that this press release by whichever NYC official was released before the WTC7 building actually did collapse/implode and so it shows that at least some NYC officials had foreknowledge that the building was going to be taken down.

This brings even more validity that the building was pulled (imploded) which takes time to prep and had to be done in advance of the events.

You can't wire and place explosives for a CD in a couple of hours time. It has to have been done in advance.

  • 27.
  • At 07:47 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • chris r wrote:

lame white wash...

put this report into the context of other eye wittnesses who stated that they were told "the building is goin to blow"

connect the dots!

But nothing to do with conspiracy right, Richard? Just a "cock-up"?!?!

  • 29.
  • At 07:53 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • pg wrote:

Don't worry, simple "cock-up". Bye bye original tapes.

Welcome 1984.

  • 30.
  • At 07:54 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Doug Lain wrote:

Both CNN and the BBC received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse, or was collapsing. Why do you deny this?

  • 31.
  • At 07:55 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ajay wrote:

You assert you lost the footage due to cock up and not conspiracy..... Any evidence of the 'cock-up'???? Or just your assertion???

  • 32.
  • At 07:58 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Brgr wrote:

I do have the clip, unedited, downloaded from archive.org. It is 41min and 41 sec long and it is 1,0GB in size.

If interested; please contact me for any more information.

Regards

  • 33.
  • At 08:00 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • anon wrote:

911 conspiracy file program aired the prevoius weekend seems to have bitten you on the arse!

  • 34.
  • At 08:00 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michael Rigby wrote:

Pathetic.

Now everybody KNOWS that you are part of the conspiracy.

  • 35.
  • At 08:02 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • The NWO sucks wrote:

'The 9/11 conpiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentry,the conpiracy files'
There seems to be some doubt on the second point about these theories being 'addressed'. The BBC would need several hours to do the subject justice.

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

  • 36.
  • At 08:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • karl wrote:

this explanation puts shame on the BBC!

you "lost the tapes".. sure sure..

  • 37.
  • At 08:11 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • jfal wrote:

This story originates from 911.blogger.com - a 9/11 news blog. I've been following it there. The main point of the story is not to say that the BBC blew up WTC building 7. It's to point out that there may have been prior knowledge on someone's part. The collapse of WTC 7 may have been planned. Why don't you try to figure how Standley got this information? Why brush this off as a joke? Many, many people obviously don't think it's a joke. People are very suspicious of mainstream news because of the sad lack of investigative work on anything of great importance, like 9/11, like the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Please try to remember that this is your job - to ask tough questions. You are not asking questions here. Your making fun of real peoples' real concerns.

  • 38.
  • At 08:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

The BBC has some explaining to do before any remaining credability is washed away..

I say remaining, because of that appauling 9/11 documentary which failed to prove anything...aka, another whitewash.

Richard Porter, your blog entry could well go down in history as the most pathetic attempt to explain away the questions being asked by true patriots and honest people.

I beg of you to do the right thing!

  • 39.
  • At 08:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • justin t wrote:

"We no longer have the original 9/11 tapes". How convienent, its not like it was an important day or anything, why back it up. The intelligent community does not believe your lame duck explaination.

  • 40.
  • At 08:16 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Emmanuel wrote:

A "mistake" ?? The BBC can not avoid to explain this incredible TV premonition. Please, face your responsibility : who told you that this building had collapse ?

  • 41.
  • At 08:17 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • jay wrote:

You at the BBC must feel very embarrassed putting out such a feeble explanation!

  • 42.
  • At 08:17 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • John wrote:

BBC being "part of the conspiracy" is clearly a red herring and avoids the real question that this gaffe brings up: WHERE DID THE BBC GET THE INFORMATION THAT 1) BUILDING 7 HAD COLLAPSED, 2) THAT THE PROBABLE CAUSE WAS FIRES AND 3) THAT THERE WERE NO CAUSALTIES. This is highly specific information which renders your explanation dubious to say the least. Your "the video vanished" excuse is a real laugh. Maybe it went to the same place as the video of the "hijackers" and other passangers getting on to the 4 planes, the pentagon surveillance videos and the videos from the 4 cameras on the bus that blew up in Tavistock.

  • 43.
  • At 08:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ivan Sommer jr. wrote:

Dear Mr. Porter,
firstly if you still stand behind and consider the manipulative and biased attack from The Conspiracy Files about the 9/11 Truth to be called a "documentary", well we are perhaps living in different universe.

Detailed rebuttals of your hitpiece have been published on several respected websites including the website endorsed by the 9/11 victim families, who were deeply disturbed by your recent attacks.
http://911truth.org/index.php

In terms of the current issue with the apparent BBC foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC building 7, again you engage in very manipulative campaign. Most of the sites, citing this information only claim that the information has been probably passed over to the BBC newsroom from the guilty party not that you have been a part of some overall conspiracy.

It is very said the the last icon of journalism the BBC is now being managed by C grade propagandists instead of serious journalist and professionals.

My grandpa used to listen to the BBC during the WWII inside the occupied Europe when such activity was prohibited under the highest punishment. I continued in this family tradition. But for me today was the last day of watching and listening to your channels, goodbye, you won't be missed.

  • 44.
  • At 08:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Callan wrote:

I see you claim that "the 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now" and "the BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary"
Considering that there are 214 comments left, of which the vast majority disagree that the documentary by Guy Smith was unbiased I suggest that there is a large number of people who are no longer willing to accept the official story of 9/11. The reason for this is because of the many good points made by the many people who wrote in which were simply not addressed by the hit piece.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/911_questions.html

The above article does nothing to dispell the reasons why the BBC footage which is now appearing all over the internet is causing such a wave of feeling.
It does not answer the question of why Jayne Standley and the newscaster in the studio both tell us that the WTC7 has fallen..when it is clearly visible in the background.
As the official story is that the building wasn't "pulled" as stated by Silverstein, and that the building simply fell down due to damage, how then is it possible for the BBC to know in advance that it was damaged to such an extent, in advance of it actually falling?
So we are to believe that no one can remember the sources of this valuable piece of information. No one? Not even the reporter on the ground? I find that incredible.
May I suggest that as you have "lost" the original footage that you view the footage online, rather than chasing down the copies which people are uploading and having them removed...fairly quickly I might add. You seem to be able to do that with some accuracy.
You say "Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."
Okay, then clear up how she clearly report's the collapsing of WTC7 for us.
There can be no confusion surely, either the building is there or it is not. And we can clearly see that it is. The information must have come from somewhere....so who was feeding her the information that day?
You say "As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy..
This is a crucial point and cannot be overstated so I'll repeat it, How can you report a building collapsing in advance of it's actually doing so. When the official story is that no one knew it was going to collapse?

It is suspicious that you lost the feed just before the building actually collapsed. Or is this just providential as the embarrasment factor would have been through the roof, and explanation required, as it is now.

There is not even the possibility of a time delay as Jayne Standley moves to one side while the camera zooms in and even gestures at the scene while talking about it as being live.


  • 45.
  • At 08:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • edbo wrote:

Not very convincing.

If there was ever a real criminal investigation into the events of 9/11 this would be a lead.

And since you believe there is nothing to hide, why dont you tell us all who told you the building was going to collapse? After all, the tapes may be missing from the day but surely there are other logs and documentation surviving...

  • 46.
  • At 08:20 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Joseph wrote:

Thank you for this. It's a shame that the work that the BBC did on that day has been targeted by sore conspiracy theorists.

If you ever do get hold of the coverage, please release the moments after Shandley's feed was interrupted. It was in those moments that 7 World Trade actually fell, and the coverage would have gone back there. For some odd reason, the conspiracy theorists neglected to show anything past the moment of the feed being lost.

  • 47.
  • At 08:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • JudgeDredd wrote:

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

I do not recall qualifiying words in the report. Therefore, it must have been from a very qualified source.

  • 48.
  • At 08:23 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Whatever wrote:

I don't believe you, BBC. You've got a lot more explaining to do. There's no way this can be dismissed as simply as an editorial blog.

  • 49.
  • At 08:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Nick Murphy wrote:

Just to point out that BBC World / BBC World Service is not funded by the license fee but directly from Government funds.

  • 50.
  • At 08:28 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

I doubt there are any serious 9/11 investigators that think the BBC is actually part of the 9/11 conspiracy. The only thing you're guilty of is reporting the rubbish that's fed to you by the authorities and not doing any real investigative journalism.

It's clear that something is very wrong with this footage. You are clearly reporting that an event has happened before it actually happened, and as far as I'm aware the BBC doesn't have psychic powers. You reported accurate information about 20 minutes too early. It looks like somebody, somewhere messed up here, although not really the BBC, which I'm sure was just reporting on information that it was given and believed to be factual.

The real question is - who gave you this information?

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it suffered very little damage, and fires in the building were minimal (those statements are backed up by a ton of photographic evidence). Before 9/11 no steel framed building in history has ever collapsed because of fire damage. In fact all steel framed buildings that have been completely gutted by fire have remained standing.

So, it's absolutelely inconceivable that anyone could have predicted that WTC7 was going to collapse that day...unless they already knew it was going to collapse. And nobody could have known it was going to collapse unless the building was rigged to collapse. And nobody can argue against the fact that the collapse of WTC7 looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

So this footage is strong evidence that someone knew that WTC7 was about to collapse by a controlled demolition.

Your pathetic and highly misleading 9/11 conspiracy documentary said "Case Closed". I don't think so, and this footage proves it.

  • 51.
  • At 08:29 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • doug owen wrote:

I have read you statement reguarding the Pre Notice of WTC 7 (the salomon building),

I don't think the BBC is part of a Conspiracy. But if that is the fact, it seems pretty incredible that you guys were able to mistakenly pre alert the world to a building collapse that hadn't happened yet.

We want to know who put that information out. Who told the network to run the story. If there was no "conspriacy" then I am sure that the BBC will be happy to divulge that information as well.

This seems all to prophetic

  • 52.
  • At 08:30 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Judda wrote:

Let’s change the subject guys this one is getting old:

Have you seen what Brittany had Done with her hair lately?

Or

Did you know that Dame Helen got an award last night?

Oh my prediction for the future is the BBC is going to do a whitewash again and this important news won't make the headlines because of some pop culture crap takes precedence.

Please wake up,

Luv you J. xxx

  • 53.
  • At 08:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Stranded in Babylon wrote:

@ Nick Hatton, message 3:

BBC World isn't "publicly funded via a licence fee". It's a commercially-sponsored channel which carries advertising.

  • 54.
  • At 08:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Kevin Fenton wrote:

You wrote:

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

That is very obviously an untruth. You clearly reported 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed and you must have received this information from some person or organisation - or do your news gatherers have second sight? We want to know where it's from - phone call, e-mail, fax, face-to-face conversation?

What I find most disturbing about your response is that you should be conducting an investigation into this, but you have already pre-judged the result of the investigation, just like the politicians you are supposed to be reporting on.

As for quoting a YouTube poster in your defence - thanks, it gave us a good laugh.

  • 55.
  • At 08:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

I want my money back. You did not explain where you got information (you just made up this information on the spot?!) that building 7 had collapsed even though it hadn't and, as your own Conspiracy Files portrayed, the collapse was wholly unexpected. This whole thing, along with the completely discredited hit piece of your Conspiracy Files makes me have absolutely no faith in the beeb's impartiality. This isn't an explanation, its a denial of guilt. My email to you simply wanted to know who or what your source was claiming that the building had collapsed and that it was due to structural damage. You are a public servant BBC, please start serving the damn public!

  • 56.
  • At 08:37 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Wayne wrote:

So, let me make sure I'm getting this straight:

One of the biggest news corporations in the WORLD, and you've LOST the footage from arguably the most important day in modern history??

*shakes head*

Incompetence doesn't even begin to cover it, if I actually believed you.

I am thoroughly ashamed that you are funded through the TV Licence, and are therefore essentially there because we pay for you, then you try and 'fob' us off with this drivel.

Not good enough. By a long shot.

  • 57.
  • At 08:38 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • bruce mcintosh wrote:

Mr. Porter,

The truth will set you free.

Regards,
Bruce

  • 58.
  • At 08:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Roman wrote:

Richard,

I'm lost on your bizarre response in point 4.

I didn't think you'd need to be told but....the 'recording of your output' is all over the internet, spreading like wildfire. Why can't you 'get hold of it' like everybody else?

Why don't you post it on your blog like everybody else.

Seems quite simple then.

2. Then what was your source for this report, did it come across the wire, or was it called it, or what

3. Then what does she remember as she watched a building collaspe right outside that window after reporting it already collapsed. Does she remember that?

4. They are in the archive and everyone has them now.

5. What is the source of the error?

  • 60.
  • At 08:45 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Kevin Ryan wrote:

Mr. Porter,

Interesting piece on WTC 7. We're all hoping it is only a bit of doctored footage.

If it is not, please do let us know what is about to happen in or around Iran. And be so kind as to give us more than 20 minutes notice.

  • 61.
  • At 08:45 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Timothy Cleary wrote:

This really is a strange news article - you really have to ask yourself are we all getting paranoid or are the BBC really part of something much darker - its not funny and like most ordinary citizens I am not finding an awful lot of comfort in the way the BBC ahs and is dealing with 9/11.

  • 62.
  • At 08:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ian Bell wrote:

We are still waiting for your explanation as to why your reporter claimed to camera that WTC7, clearly visibly standing behind her, had collapsed, Mr Porter.

If you want to convince us the BBC isn't "part of the conspiracy" cover up at least, you would do well to attempt to do so.

  • 63.
  • At 08:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Sheiban Shakeri wrote:

I find it interesting how those who have read this editorial already had the bias in their head that the major news organizations were in on 9/11 and would not bother to change their opinion and accept that what they are believing is simply wrong, plain and simple. The government, the media and everything else that could have been involved in 9/11 is run by humans, and as humans, we make mistakes. It was a confusing day, now please put this to rest.

  • 64.
  • At 08:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

This also proves that the BBC and mainstream news is nothing more than reporters. All you do is report what you are told, even when the thing that is supposed to be levelled is standing 47 stories tall DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU! You don't even bother to look around to see if a building has collapsed :| How poor is that!!??

How can you call yourselves journalists? We need to know who gave you this information (I believe the BBC is innocent on this, so don't make it personal, even though you did with the hit piece) as they clearly had fore-knowledge of the building's impending collapse.

This could be integral to finding out what really happened on that day, please give us puney populace some answers!

  • 65.
  • At 08:49 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • David Reynolds wrote:

The only conspiracy is allowing these Editors blogs to be over-run by these infantile conspiracy nutters.

I think most of these people need to try and get a reality check, they seem to think they are starring in a episode of 24!.

  • 66.
  • At 08:50 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Simon Rafe wrote:

I am amazed by the fact that there appear to be no comments from people who are not of the opinion that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that the BBC was part of that conspiracy, or at least fed information from those who were.

The simplest explanation for the 9/11 attacks is that, sad and horrifying as it is, is that a group of extremists were able to carry out a brutal attack succesfully. It is horrific that someone would do such a thing, and it is difficult to believe that it would be successful.

But the alternative - that the government of the USA managed to successfully plant explosives and hijack their own planes etc. - beggars belief. It is less-likely than the alternative because the amount of planning that a government group would have required. To the best of my knowledge, no memos suggesting that 9/11 was a government action have appeared - and such memos would have had to exist in some form.

Also, why have Muslim extremists claimed 9/11 as theirs? Afghanistan has been invaded because of this - why did the Taliban keep claiming they did it if they did not? Surely honesty on their behalf would be clear. Yet we see no YouTube videos from them saying that they were not responsible.

As for the BBC being "involved" - they made a mistake. If they were truly part of the conspiracy, then they would have been taking MUCH GREATER CARE than to report something so obviously in error.

  • 67.
  • At 08:53 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

The BBC is a disgrace.

  • 68.
  • At 08:54 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Someone clearly made a decision to make the announcement that WTC7 had fallen before it actually fell. Who made that decision? We're not going to let this one go!

Convenient that the footage got lost, perhaps it might turn up in the same place as all the 7/7 CCTV footage and all the film of the Pentagon?

It adds a lot of weight to your article when you sum up by quoting a post on Youtube as your concluding argument.

All anyone is asking for is answers , and these five bullet points provide nothing but hot air.

  • 70.
  • At 08:56 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Tomb wrote:

I'm not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it's collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you'd just look imcompitent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.


You can't possibly expect us to believe this. Let's look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC's report....or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley's live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it's 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He's 19 now. He was 13 when it happened.
So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of youtube and google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC's response is, 'there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.'

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like 'it appears' and 'we're receiving reports that..' were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it's definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

  • 71.
  • At 08:56 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • One of Many wrote:

This is crazy. Just release your source and be done with it. I'll make it easy for you.

A. CIA
B. Whitehouse
C. Brittish Secret Service
D. Downing Street
E. All of the above

  • 72.
  • At 08:57 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Dawn wrote:

As the days drag on and this 911 inside job theory gains momentum, more and more facts are being exposed. Bush and Cheney have not deviated from their plans(Rebuilding America's Defences) but they do seem to be in the act of desperation.They seem to understand that some of the american citizens have been awoken thanks to their lack of empathy for real issues that the American people WANT taken care of.
Also their allies are realizing the BIG picture includes their demise too.
I suggest anyone willing to believe the NEWS- AS SEEN ON T.V. Read Project for a New American Cenrty.

  • 73.
  • At 08:58 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

How convenient you lost the tapes. So next time something of this scale happens, we all better switch on our £100 VCRs because it could be possible that BBC World again forgets pressing the "record" button on the high tech equipment you bought with public means.
But you're lucky, on 9/11 someone indeed recorded your footage. It's on the Internet in various archives if you care to search for it. All of it.
And you can make mocking comments about 9/11 "conspiracy theories" all day long, the fact just doesn't go away that you reported the collapse of WTC-7 - while the building still stood behind Jane Standley for everyone to see.

Explain this to us. Ok, so you can't find your videos of 9/11 anymore. Cool, might be. But do you also throw away the files, faxes, press releases etc. you base your news reporting on? Show us the news agency report that first made you say that the Salomon building (WTC-7) had collapsed. Thank you.

we lost the 911 tapes.. oops sorry.. yeah right! guess the BBC also had something to do with the missing moon tape's. Well, if you need a copy just ask the conspiracy people they cover your tracks pretty good. The day of the century and you lost the tapes... seriously lame excuse if you ask me :-(

and it's not so much what she's saying more the "fell through weakness" story of the male reporter.. HOW COULD HE CLAIM THAT? Even NIST and FEMA don't know that!

Better come clean BBC or you got some real explaining to do... you ow THE PEOPLE THAT PAY YOU!!!

  • 75.
  • At 09:00 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • philcozz wrote:

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."

Uh, it WASN'T an error... That's the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn't the anchor say something like, "We're getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing... We'll have to check up on this... etc." No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was "...trying to make sense of what they were seeing... and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross... So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We'll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).

Do I think the BBC is "...part of a conspiracy"? No... but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.

It's all falling apart. The truth cannot be hidden forever. You will have to answer for your own knowledge of what really happened. Thanks for this wonderful, gigantic screw-up BBC!

  • 77.
  • At 09:01 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Barbaricfellow wrote:

Yeah.., we know its ONLY footage of the biggest event after WW2 so of course you would have lost it by now (!!)

How many lost and locked away footage, accompanied by an OCEAN of non working equipment is "reasonable" for any sane man to accept you reckon?
I think we are way beyond that point by now,and it amazes me there are still people who think otherwise..

Same as i have a hard time believing that in London's 7/7 "attack", there where 2 anti terrorism drills at the same time at the same stations.?

Indeed just like 911....

But i guess some people and the BBC included don't find it necessary to investigate such extremely far reaching,influential,and world shaping events extremely well.And are perfectly happy with the "investigations" done so far. Bit of a waste to invest money into "conspiracies" not?

  • 78.
  • At 09:01 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michelle wrote:

I suppose you are being paid a tidy sum to spout such nonsense, otherwise, how could you??

No journalists are to be trusted, they either are coerced to play along or choose to do so.

Which are you, sir?

  • 79.
  • At 09:03 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ken Eichler wrote:

You mean to tell me that the BBC - because of a screw-up - either lost or destroyed all of the tapes from the most infamous day in modern history?

I am curious, was anyone at the BBC held accountable for such a "cock-up?"

Where did you get the information you reported that the Salomon Smith Barney building (WTC7) fell?

Did you corroborate it with anyone else? If so, whom?

Who at your station was in charge of content that day ?

Please release immediately the entire set of tapes from your sister channel News 24.

It was obvious to the FDNY that the building was going to fall down at some point. It was on fire, creaking and leaning - this is why they cleared an area around the building. There is plenty of testimony to back this up, see this document:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

(Firefighter testimony is in section 2 which starts at page 36)

Are people really saying that the firefighters are covering up a controlled demolition of WTC7?

Its hardly unlikely that people on the ground would be talking about the building being likely to collapse - and that chinese whispers turned this into "has collapsed".

At just after 4pm EDT, Aaron Brown of CNN reported that WTC7 "has either collapsed or is collapsing"

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/cnn-got-press-release-too.html

You can see from the clip that he clearly doesn't know which building WTC7, and there is no reason to suppose that Jane Standly knew either.

It's post hoc reasoning to see this as suspicious and an indication of the desperation of the Conspiracy Fantasists that they are getting so excited about this.

  • 81.
  • At 09:05 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Mr V wrote:

So why take it down???????? If it was a mistake put it back up and let the people see it.

Oh that's right you don't keep things archived that are from one of the most important events in history.

Wow, how Lame.

DEAR MR. PORTER -
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS:

THE REPORTER STATES, I REPEAT 'STATES' THAT THE BUILDING HAS FELL - WHO TOLD HER.

WHO TOLD HER? . . .
WHO TOLD HER? . . .
WHO TOLD HER? . . .
WHO TOLD HER? . . .
WHO TOLD HER? . . .

QUESTION 2:
WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE - AND DO YOU MEAN ALL THE FOOTAGE FORM 9/11 - PLEASE EXPLAIN!

WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE . . .
WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE . . .
WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE . . .
WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE . . .
WHAT 'EXCACTLY' HAPPENED TO THE FOOTAGE . . .

  • 83.
  • At 09:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Herbert George Wells wrote:

I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on...but, the virtual reality that the "media" create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.

  • 84.
  • At 09:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Auer Westinson wrote:

BBC didnt have to be part of any conspiracy. The facts seem to be:
Somebody made a press release, stating that WTC 7 had collapsed, over 20 minutes before it actually did. BBC reports this, doesnt realize that your live feed is actually showing the WTC 7 that is still standing.

The question is - who reported this to BBC? How did they know it was going to collapse, beforehand?

And then the feed being cut a couple minutes before it DID collapse..Now id loved it if we could have watched it collapse live, right behind the reporters back. Good enough as it is thou.

And you claim you "lost" the tapes?? Why, im sure i grabbed it off BBCs servers! And now its lost? Whoa! Good one..

  • 85.
  • At 09:10 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • John Rowell wrote:

You guys at the BBC are either complete idiots are you are in on the whole thing. I tend to think the former is true. Basically, somebody was feeding the BBC and other news agencies with all the events of the day, and on this one they screwed up and gave it too early. You have just become the mouthpiece of the US authorities. They give you information, you guys don't check it's true, and you tell all your listeners it's a fact. What a waste of tax payers money you all are. The least you can do is open an investigation on this matter, if you wish to maintain any kind of credibility. We expect to hear you tell us who it was that actually cocked up, or more honestly, who it was of the authorities that provided this incredibly foresighted information.

  • 86.
  • At 09:11 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • frater plecticus wrote:

Why not admit it... the conspiracy regarding 9-11 is wider and more complicated then when it was initially formulated....


The possible reason for this denial?

In an eloquently penned reader's letter to the Los Angeles Times....


"The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness."

  • 87.
  • At 09:12 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • John Rowell wrote:

By the way, did you know that google keep pulling this video? Only for it to be reposted by us nutters (conspiracy theorists). That's also odd, don't you think? Why would it get pulled?

  • 88.
  • At 09:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • David wrote:

The bottom line is this: you have a news reporter -- and an anchor --reporting the collapse of World Trade Building 7 when it is clearly standing in the background. You can't explain that away. Someone sent information that it had collapsed just a little too soon.

Who was that person or group sir?

Oh ya, you probably lost those notes too, right? All the confusion and all that.

This coming on the heels of your 911 whitewash of the truth is just priceless. The wheel turning full circle, at least starting to. I'd admonish you to feel some shame at being caught red handed at your deceptions, but I realize shame is an emotion our media no longer experiences.

  • 89.
  • At 09:15 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

Sorry. You're running out of excuses. Fess up already, "the 9/11 hit piece" was more of the same propaganda.

  • 90.
  • At 09:16 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • sts060 wrote:

The really entertaining thing about PCTs (Paranoid Conspiracy "Theorists") is that there is nothing too silly and nonsensical for them to trumpet as "proof" of The Great Conspiracy.

Let's see. TPTB (The Powers That Be), bent on mass murder and mayhem, considerately wait several hours before blowing up WTC7 so as to allow incident commanders to clear first responders from the collapse zone. Then, since TPTB are anxious that news crews actually notice the collapse of WTC7 when it does happen, they tell the BBC without waiting for it to happen!

After all, it wouldn't do for reporters to simply notice a high-rise building collapsing and then report on it, would it? Especially since firefighters had only been observing collapse indicators for a few hours - we could hardly rely on journalists to be paying any attention to the damaged, burning, creaking building, eh?

As Hank Hill would say to the PCTs, "Just when I thought you said the stupidest thing ever, you keep on talking."

  • 91.
  • At 09:16 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • andy peters wrote:

considering the amount of cameras in the area, why wasn't footage of the collapse shown when the story broke or soon after?

in fact i think it wasn't shown til 20mins after the actual collapse.

  • 92.
  • At 09:17 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Bongo wrote:

Richard, you state that... "In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had."

... that is not the point Richard... The point is, that we are AMAZED how you managed to have evidence of an event which turned out to be completely accurate and absolutely true?... Albeit, at least 23 minutes BEFORE YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO???

So the BBC are the "Psychic Broadcasting Corporation" now?

  • 93.
  • At 09:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • David wrote:

I'm sure there are a lot of people pointing fingers at BBC as if they were part of a complex "conspiracy theory" (I hate those loaded words). And, of course, you react to those outragious claims.

However.

This so-called "error" proved to be utterly correct, and given the time-table, the coincidence is staggeringly difficult to believe.

Not saying that BBC is part of a conspiracy. But whoever initially perpetuated the reports of WTC 7 collapsing, well, that is strong evidence of fore-knowledge. There are many people, myself included, that want you to thoroughly investigate this issue to find out where the source of this 'error' came from.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. The small, sporadic fires in WTC 7 were not expected to bring it down. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (with the exception of the WTC complex). There was absolutely no indication that WTC 7 was due to collapse, yet it was reported by the BBC before it happened.

The circumstantial evidence is getting to be a bit overwhelming.

  • 94.
  • At 09:19 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Shame on you BBC!

  • 95.
  • At 09:20 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Deep Fwoat wrote:

I posted the link to the file in the archive. The link was not posted as a comment. Now the file is removed. Why is that?

  • 96.
  • At 09:20 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Toast wrote:

"Just because we reported that JFK was shot before he was actually shot,
does not prove anything!"

Come on,

You get a thrill by being a shill?

  • 97.
  • At 09:21 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • LeepII wrote:

LOST THE TAPES? Dude, way not just say the dog ate your homework, that would be more credible.

Your busted plain and simple, the BBC had foreknowledge that WTC 7 was coming down. Now be a man and tell us all how you knew?

  • 98.
  • At 09:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • musings wrote:

Contrary to the dismissive tone of the "explanation", whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.

Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It's gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.

In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren't talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.
Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come.

  • 99.
  • At 09:24 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Marcus wrote:

Could you please not insult our intelligence.


I would find it very hard to believe there is BBC involvement in this kerfuffle, although I would question the desision makers. Both there in your offices and producers of your biased/erroneuos programming.

  • 100.
  • At 09:24 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • tom jefferson wrote:

of course, if the bbc were not involved with any foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition, then you are at least guilty of horrible journalism.. "the solomon building collapsed" yet you couldn't look out the freaking window to see it still standing??!?

what does not help your image (other than the obviously biased hit piece you released last week), is how, between news reports, the anchors talk of "freedom being lost".. yadda yadda... watching the whole clip looks exactly like a propaganda video...

mine as well have been:
"you mean it cleans windows AND cooks food!!!!??!"

  • 101.
  • At 09:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • anon wrote:

Mr Porter can you ensure that the page;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6338551.stm

is amended.

Should read;

1002: United Airlines flight 93 crashes in open ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Conspiracy theories argue that the plane never crashed here, because there are no large pieces of visible wreckage at the scene. It is also alleged that the plane was shot down, and broke up in mid-air, spreading debris over a wide area.

1657: The UK BBC news media organisation reports World Trade Centre Building 7 known as the Salomon Brother Building close to the two main towers had collapsed. BBC Head of News, Mr Richard Porter denies to conspiracy theorists that the BBC is envolved in any conspiracy.

1720: World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey building close to the two main towers collapses. It was not hit by either of the two hijacked aircraft. 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest that it was destroyed deliberately, because it held sensitive or compromising documents in the offices of the CIA, Department of Defense and Secret Service, which were housed in the building

  • 102.
  • At 09:28 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Jordan Thornton wrote:

I believe that you may not CONSCIOUSLY be a part of any cover-up, when you air programs such as "The Conspiracy Files", which attacks those people asking honest and suspiciously-lingering questions about that horrific day, instead of honest programming designed to find the ANSWERS to those questions, you ARE a part of the on-going cover-up.

(Read the final chapter of Michael Parenti's "Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media".)

Just once, I would like to see someone within the mainstream media (after all, it's hardly the ONLY media anymore) grow a pair, and attempt to address the valid concerns of those who question the official Conspiracy Theory, which remains unproven and virtually uninvestigated, due to direct White House interference, well over five years after the fact.

(A review of the July 7th story wouldn't hurt either ...)

You could start with these reliable sources: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

and then talk to these people:
http://www.911truth.org

Responsible journalists would have done this four years ago ...

  • 103.
  • At 09:31 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Christian wrote:

The CNN "was in on it too", they also prematurely reported WTC7 as collapsed. Look into it: The collapse was expected, reports on its imminent failure were numerous. Seriously folks, this just goes to show that the "truther"-movement hasn't got anything left.

  • 104.
  • At 09:32 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Daniel Kensley wrote:

Mr. Porter:

I'm afraid that in attempting to clarify the matter you have only muddied it further.

Those of us who are amazed or baffled or angry about this matter are not making any assertions about the BBC being "part of the conspiracy". The fact is, reasonable people are asking a reasonable question. How is it possible to have reported the collapse of a building nearly a half an hour before its collapse?

It is both frustrating and troubling that you appear to be either oblivious to or willingly flippant about the salient issue at hand. Given the graveness of the subject, you do both yourself and BBC World a great disservice by offering what are either glib dismissals or outright condescensions.

If, as you state in point three of your clarification, Ms. Stadley was being fed information by "colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services"- then the question remains, "Who fed her information about the pending collapse of this building"? To ask this question is not to accuse the BBC of complicity in a conspiracy.

As you must be aware by now, the complete, symmetrical, free-fall implosion of WTC 7 STILL has not be explained by NIST, FEMA, or the 9/11 Commission. Reasonable people who have reviewed the collapse footage have noted that it shares a dozen unique characteristics associated only with building demolitions. Furthermore, the owner of the building itself, Larry Silverstein, appears to have claimed in a PBS documentary from 2002 that he authorized the destruction of the building on 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=larry+silverstein&hl=en

Video from the day- available for your perusal on Google Video, YouTube, and a variety of other sites- shows police officers and firefighters warning bystanders that this building was about to be brought down. This too suggests that the buildings were intentionally demolished.

The BBC footage with Ms. Standley is itself inadvertently bolstering the disturbing argument that people knew in advance of the collapse of the building because the collapse was caused by human agency rather than being incidental to the events of the day.

Given your station in life, you must surely be able to draw the obvious deductive conclusion that has haunted rational people for many years. IF the building was, as it appears, to have been demolished, then that demolition must have been planned ahead of time- not achieved in an 8 hour span on 9/11.

This points to not only foreknowledge of the attacks but direct complicity in them. And if you can't comprehend that, then you really should consider an alternative career far removed from journalism. Because if ever the world needed clear-eyed, fearless, truth-to-power-speaking media leaders- it is right bloody now.


The world clearly knows where you stand Mr. Porter.. and we will remember.

  • 106.
  • At 09:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Duane Sandy wrote:

In statement #4 you use the term "cock-up". In Canada we don't have that term so I don't know what it means. We have the term "cop-out" Are they the same?

  • 107.
  • At 09:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Andrew Ochtinsky wrote:

As an American and a New Yorker, and on behalf of reasonable people, I say thank you for addressing this issue.

There are a lot of people who want to believe in conspiracies. They don't like the things that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and they want to blame it on something evil. Four hundred years ago, the culprit may have been "Satan" or perhaps "the Vatican". It's paranoia, and it is, sadly, a common and natural state of mind for many people.

There are still people who say the moon landing was faked, that the world is flat, and that the holocaust never happened. I'm surprised I've never heard a theory about how the founding fathers of America got together and decided to form a secret government, with the allure of democracy, but actually loyal to the British crown. God save the Queen!

The arguments of these people are rubbish, but it is free speech after all. Those of us who know truth from lies will hear what they say and dismiss it, along with JFK conspiracies and UFOs.

Thank you, BBC, for humoring these people. It's better than our media corps, who just turn up the volume on Britney Spears' hairdo every time something like this pops up.

  • 108.
  • At 09:35 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • roman wrote:

Rewind for a moment to the first few statements in that broadcast...


ANCHOR:
'Now more on the latest building collapse in New York, you might have heard a few moments ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers building collapsing, and INDEED It Has.'

[Comment 1. "INDEED it has"?. This anchor is very sure of himself. What has he been told and by whom when no one else will know for over 20 minutes?]

ANCHOR
'Apparently that is only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were, and it seems that this was not a result of a new attack, it was because the eh Building Had Been Weakened eh during this morning's attacks.'


[Comment 2. "The, eh, building had been weakened". Huh? How does he know to say what will become the official line?]


ANCHOR:
'We'll probably find out more now about that from our correspondent Jane Standley, "Jane what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and it's collapse?"'

JANE:
"Well, only really what you already know..."

[ 3. "What more can you tell us?"
"Well only really what you already know."

?? So the reporter knows what the anchor and newsroom know (and what nobody else knows)...that the building has Indeed collapsed, and that the building had been Weakened during the morning's attacks? ]

ps: You still use tapes in your newsroom??

Everyone else seems to have gone digital a long time ago.


http://broadcastengineering.com/newsrooms/broadcasting_newsroom_technology/

"As computing power increased in the 1990s and network technology became more reliable, news production systems were deployed, and the replacement of tape as a production medium began."

  • 109.
  • At 09:35 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Greg Ashton wrote:

You are one of the gate keepers. You have been caught and are in full scramble mode. You should have run this explanation by some of your NWO friends because it really is a pitiful, and actually funny one. I feel sorry for you. 9/11 was an inside job. You know it...time to come clean.

Of course the BBC aren’t consciously “part of the conspiracy”, but certainly you’re fed information all the time that’s incorrect and misleading but yet you still propagate it as “fact” to the rest of the world. Granted there was a lot of confusion that day, but I still think this subject of whether or not there was indeed prior knowledge of WTC7’s collapse needs properly explaining. Also why the building rapidly, symmetrically and instantaneously collapsed into such a confined area needs to be seriously examined. There is still no adequate explanation of its collapse to date, and most people still don’t even know it existed let alone have observed the collapse footage.

  • 111.
  • At 09:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Edward wrote:

Come on give me break!!!
The video is very simple, the reporter is saying that the building fell and it's clearly still standing just behind her head. Obviously whatever wire the BBC got it's info from, that wire service knew what was going to happen before it did. Why? well if it really was just a simple mistake as this editor wrote, than why not make a simple mistake about another building collapsing why make the mistake on the one that actually did collapse 27 minutes later. Come on.

  • 112.
  • At 09:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Barry wrote:

Chris said it best, "To report that a (steel frame) building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so." No serious questioner is accusing the BBC of being "in on" the effort to demolish bldg 7. But somebody was, and released that info a wee bit too soon. We want to know who told the BBC.

  • 113.
  • At 09:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Chuck Feney wrote:

Of course the BBC aren’t consciously “part of the conspiracy”, but certainly you’re fed information all the time that’s incorrect and misleading but yet you still propagate it as “fact” to the rest of the world. Granted there was a lot of confusion that day, but I still think this subject of whether or not there was indeed prior knowledge of WTC7’s collapse needs properly explaining. Also why the building rapidly, symmetrically and instantaneously collapsed into such a confined area needs to be seriously examined. There is still no adequate explanation of its collapse to date, and most people still don’t even know it existed let alone have observed the collapse footage.

  • 115.
  • At 09:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Ticktock wrote:

"Conspiracy theories"? The very term reaks of bias and prejudice. People have presented alarming information that demonstrated prior-knowledge and
gaping holes in the "official story". This is the same procedure courts of law use in presenting a charge of culpibility. Do you call court cases "conspiracy theories"? Only a fool would insist the building 7 collapse isn't very disturbing. People simply want the incongruities addressed by those who have refused to address them. This isn't a "conspiracy theory", it's a formal inquiry BY THE PEOPLE.

Sorry BBC, you have just as much credibility on the issue of 9/11 as the u.s. media: zero.

I'm sure it's quite helpful to you to oversimplify the issue by declaring that you aren't part of a conspiracy.

I don't think many people actually think, "Gosh, that Jane Standley must be in on the WHOLE THING! I bet she works for the CIA!!!"

No, it is obvious that she and the fellow in the studio both received what they believed to be factual information stating that WTC 7 (aka The Saloman Bros. building) had already collapsed.

They state it as accomplished FACT, obviously not realizing or recognizing that the building in their live shot, right behind Standley, showed the building they were saying had collapsed, still standing!

That just means that they received erroneous information and didn't know what the building looked like. Neither did I, before all of this, and I'm sure I would have made the same mistake.

The problem is that this story further corroberates MANY other reports of foreknowledge of the the imminent collapse of WTC 7. Your footage is important for that reason, not because it shows that the BBC was part of a conspiracy on that day, which is a childish way to respond.

CNN also reported it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

And CNN ALSO showed footage of emergency responders and reporters saying the the building is "about to blow up."

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

So what's the problem here?

No steel scyscraper before 9/11 had EVER collapsed due to fire, and the official account states that the collapse was unexpected and still unexplained (NIST report), although they are trying to blame fire.

Your report from that day strongly suggests that an official fairy tale was already prepared, and someone started disseminating it to the media a little to early.

Why don't you try to redeem what is left of your integrity and soul by repudiating your ridiculous "documentary" of last Sunday and doing some REAL investigation of how your journalists came to report what they reported on that day?

Your vague and shallow attempts to dismiss this very reasonable and troubling question are absurd and transparent. I will do you the courtsey of assuming that the article above is an example of arrogance, laziness and a priori assumptions, rather than something more sinister.

However, it still exemplifies the BBC's incompetence and incoherence, vis a vis 9/11.

  • 117.
  • At 09:43 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Mr Porter said "In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had"

This can be very true. I'm also sure that there were many things reported incorrectly. However the other things that were reported didnt then happen 20 minutes later in the exact way it was reported. There was also no other complete building collapses to confuse it with as other than WTC1 & 2 this was the only building to collapse. And you've lost the news footage of this generations most shocking event? Give me a break Mr Porter. You must have been really annoyed when you were told you had to try and explain this cock-up?

  • 118.
  • At 09:44 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

There is no 911 conspiracy.

There is, however, human error compounded by the (unfortunate) desire for news outlets to be always be ahead of the competition. This, I believe, is what we have witnessed with this erroneous report.

If an official statement is given regarding the possible collapse of WTC7 (bearing in mind that eyewitness accounts from firefighters at the scene describe the building as being in very poor condition structurally and on fire, and rescue operations were ceased in the immediate vicinity to enable a collapse zone to be created), and this is filtered up through the reporting machine and becomes a statement that WTC7 has collapsed, then the end result is merely an example of poor information not being properly fact checked prior to broadcast. Something certain members of the 911 conspiracy crowd are only too familiar with, eh?

If this one incident is what the so called 'truth' movement is going to hang its collective hat on in order to convince the world that 9/11 was an 'inside job', then they are in very bad shape and are becoming increasingly desperate.

Of course, the beeb tearing the truth movement to shreds in its 'conspiracy files' episode has nothing to do with the glee we now see from the 'truthers' and this 5 year old 'smoking gun'. Oh no....

  • 119.
  • At 09:44 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

I'm confused...what is the conspiracy? What are the implications of reporting WTC7 falling before it actually did? Who cares I was living in NYC at the time and it was widely reported that other building that were part of the WTC were collapsing or would collapse eventually. So they jumped the gun? What are the implications everyone is getting at here????

  • 120.
  • At 09:45 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Neolution wrote:

Wonder why your ratings are plummeting? Fabricated stories like this is why. 911 changed everything among nations from a lie! Can you say coverup! The media is still denying the truth to those who lost their lives. We the people are the new medium of the truth. Get use to it idiots!

  • 121.
  • At 09:47 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

The internet crowd only pointed you to a discrepancy between your reporting and a simple view out of the window.

Would you call it a conspiracy too if the weather guy reports it's raining, while the sun shines through the studio window? The weather man would go check his sources, but all you offer is saying "we're victims of conspiracy theorists!". That's a new low for the BBC.

  • 122.
  • At 09:47 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Bob Brunner wrote:

With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved.

In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words "apparently", "it's reported" or "we're hearing" ARE NOT USED in context of building 7
The words used are those have definite and past tense.
"Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,...the Solomon Brothers Building collapse... and indeed it has"
"What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it's collapse?"
"When it collapsed"
Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”

Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter?
Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker?
Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information?
What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day?

The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a seperate site as a master.
As follows.
Ref No.
Policy Area / Policy Statement
01
Components to be Retained
01-01
The following components to be retained:-
Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top

  • 123.
  • At 09:47 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • aukai wrote:

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

  • 124.
  • At 09:49 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

I do not understand how you would mix up "THE BUILDING HAS COLLAPSED" with "IS POSSIBLY ABOUT TO COLLAPSE".

I am Horrified as a result of this. It just goes to show we cannot trust what we hear from the news.

And you guys just so happen to not keep the original tapes? Give me a break, you covered yourselves on this. And now its back to get you.

Only the truth will set you free! Not the BBC.... "Apparently"...

  • 125.
  • At 09:49 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • John wrote:

The BBC has been totally exposed as an unethical propaganda tool.

  • 126.
  • At 09:50 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Alan S wrote:

In response to your points raised:

1. Where did you obtain the information about the WTC7 collapse?
2. As above but in addition why were your reporters not briefed on which building was WTC7? You obviously had a team on site i.e. cameraman, soundman and technicians.
3. If Jane was in NY and the feed was actually live why didn't any of your colleagues in NY or in London note that WTC7 was indeed still standing? You didn't need to ask anyone as it was there for all to see. Who added the closed caption and briefed Jane?
4. Missing tape!? That's surprising. So you can't actually locate a copy anywhere of a tape of monumental importance and ask the public to assist! You didn't share it with any other news outlet?
5. That fact is if we assume the feed was indeed live that the BBC did report WTC7 had collapsed before it had. No if/buts or maybes!

The poster Stewart Cowan brings up a salient point. If again this was a live feed then your team on site would have caught sight or heard the WTC7 collapse a little later!
So was it truly a live feed?
Did you ask Jane if it was live?
Did you ask if she saw or heard the actual collapse of WTC7 some time later?

No conspirary advocate here. I'd just like to see the questions answered.

You know maybe do some digging and get the facts straight like a solid reporter as your blog in far from complete!

  • 127.
  • At 09:51 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • made brani wrote:


There were many people who were forewarned about the collapse of Building 7. Why should not BBC be one of them?

We just want to know who passed on that information to BBC.

Please tell the public or tell it that BBC claims its privilege of protecting its sources. Then we know where we (and BBC) stand.

  • 128.
  • At 09:52 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Russ wrote:

What are we paying for?

  • 129.
  • At 09:53 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • bob the builder wrote:

Its quite a coincedence how many coincedences happened that day.

I mean take the fact there was all those military war games going on which just happened to leave no planes to shoot down the hijacked aircraft.

Or the only 3 steel frame structures to fall due to fire alone all happening on the same day.

And then the bbc lost its footage of arguably one of the most important days in history.


Things just keep getting stranger!

Keep up the good work bbc i love to see independent investigative journalisim. And dont think your conspiracy files program for one minute makes us think your doing what we pay you to do. It doesnt!

  • 130.
  • At 09:53 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Neolution wrote:

And the yellow journalism award of the year goes to the BBC. Cowards! Face the truth! 911 was an inside job!
www.911blogger.com

  • 131.
  • At 09:54 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • richard gee wrote:

The BBC's explanation for the premature anouncement of WTV7's collapse is laughable.

See:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm
for details.

Come on BBC, divulge the name of your informant.

  • 132.
  • At 09:54 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Charles wrote:

Interesting conspiracy seeing how the basement of WTC7 was home to the NYC Emergency Management Center. Give me a break people!

  • 133.
  • At 09:54 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Geoff Stevenson wrote:

Oh look here it is. After Annoucing in your head of the news summary that the building has collapsed, you cut to a live feed of a newsreporter and there, visible behind her, is WTC7!

Amazing.

Now explain.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

  • 134.
  • At 09:55 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • teri wrote:

Hmmmmm.....an error...and yet pretty interesting to say a steel building is going to collapse, when it had NEVER done so before due to a fire, and has not done so since..and this actually happens in the next 20 minutes!!! ...but don't worry, nothing to see here...it's just an error

  • 135.
  • At 09:55 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Metroas wrote:

Sorry BBC but this isn't going to wash. Last sunday's propaganda piece really woke people up to how controlled you are, and this latest revelation and subsequent attempt to cover it up is the nail on the coffin for many of us.

Your reporters read out the official explanation about wtc7's collapse almost word for word, 20 minutes before it went down. The chances of this being an "accident" are too ridiculous even for the hordes of desperate "debunkers" to consider.

Google and Youtube then pulled the videos down in real-time in a coordinated attempt to suppress it.

The infowar is real gentlemen.

  • 136.
  • At 09:55 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Sven wrote:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage"

HaHa how stupid do you think we are the most important day in modern history original tapes lost u say?
here is the link for u then

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3994399691500840360&q=building+7+bbc

not taking comments any more, hmm?

  • 138.
  • At 09:57 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • richard gee wrote:

The BBC's explanation for the premature anouncement of WTV7's collapse is laughable.

See:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/270207bbcresponds.htm
for details.

Come on BBC, divulge the name of your informant.

  • 139.
  • At 09:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • aaron wrote:

You "lost" the footage? Surely you must have a legitimate archiving system for such a large company. Sept 11 was a MAJOR event (even though it was in the USA) it is unbelievable that you would have "lost" footage from such a major event. I don't buy it for one second. Listen to the people! We demand an answer!

  • 140.
  • At 09:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • George wrote:

I would like to ditto all of the above please, BBC obviousley weren't part of the conspiracy but by their response are most definately part of the cover up !! Why would it not be of interest to find out who the news originally came from that wtc7 had collapsed, when it hadn't !

  • 141.
  • At 09:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • larry wrote:

Just tell us where the info came from!! Your reporter told us the building came down, you typed that info on your screen, your reporter told us why it collapsed...where did this prophetic info come from? From Larry 'pull it' Silverstein? From Rudy 'we were told it was coming down'Giuliani? Stop tap dancing and answer that simple question. Who gave you the info. Stop the B.S.

  • 142.
  • At 10:00 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Fiona wrote:

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now.

Start as you mean to go on Richard, by presenting the so called 'conspiracy theories' in a negative way; it is all a big yawn, everyone's tired of them, shut up and move on.

Unfortunately, fate has delivered unto you something which shows the BBC's spoon-feeding selective journalism at its best. Oh dear, is that excuse really the best you can come up with? That farcical 'Conspiracy Files' programme was one thing, but this is something else! This speaks volumes about the Beeb's perception of its audience!

  • 143.
  • At 10:01 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • tomz wrote:

It's not difficult to understand the HUGE difference between the twin towers and the "solomon Bros. building". And to report on the very building you're standing directly in front of and not know that what your saying has something to do with what being shown behind you smaks of poor journalism, poor visuals and certainly unchecked sources.

To simply "claim" that they were "being told" does not exonerate them. They must produce their sources, and, of course, being the BBC, their source would have been the US media or US government.

Whether or not they were 'part' of any conspiracy is certainly NOT the point here. The POINT is that they had been given and were giving out information about an event which had not occurred yet. Their sources KNEW what was about to occur. Larry Silverstein made the decision to PULL building 6. It was brought down by controlled demolition.

Add my name to the list who seek further explanation on this matter.

  • 145.
  • At 10:02 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • david wrote:

Sorry?!?

Yes you are.

  • 146.
  • At 10:03 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Louis Lambert wrote:

>Part of the conspiracy?
Indirectly it would appear so.
You need to expose the source of that "news" you were reporting. If you don't make an effort to follow this up beyond this pathetic response, the BBC will become part of the conspiracy.
Coupled with that lousy hit piece of "journalism" you broadcast last Sunday in trying to discredit the 9-11 Truth Movement, you now have considerable problem on your hands as to the BBC's creditibility.

It's time to do your job properly investigate the truth.

  • 147.
  • At 10:04 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Edward Teague wrote:

Evidently Mystic Meg had taken over the news room that morning.

Mr. Richard Porter,

I sincerely believe your statement that you are (meaning were) not part of the conspiracy.

You were fed information regarding a scripted demolition that was part of the conspiracy, just a wee bit ahead of schedule, eh? It's no conspiracy on your part to report the news as it's given to you either.

However, now you must realize the truth, that 9/11 was an inside job, that you were inadvertently involved. And because of your empty denials, you now include yourself in the continuing conspiracy and its cover-up.

And for that you will be damned in the court of public opinion.

It's time to come clean, while you admissions will still be accepted.

  • 149.
  • At 10:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Jayhawk wrote:

I downloaded the whole 40 minute segment myself this morning. I can lend it to you if you like. Don't tape over it this time.

  • 150.
  • At 10:08 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • tom walker wrote:

I thought your response was extremely lacking. This just proves how bias that 911 programme you did recently was. Not asking the important questions like all the witness testimonies not interviewing any of the professors or scientists on the side of the truth movement no mention of the molten metal. This list could go on. I think you need to come clean and be honest. its the least you could do. My last comment i posted you never put up at least be neutral enough to put this one on.
I know you had no prior knowledge to what happened but clearly one of your sources did.

  • 151.
  • At 10:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Jason J wrote:

Censor comments all day long, the TRUTH IS THE TRUTH.

My comment didn't include any profanity, threat, anything of the like.

But some people simply cannot confront the TRUTH.

The TRUTH is, your organization, like the US GOVT, made a whopper of a mistake in underestimating the intelligence of the People.

www.911weknow.com

This is cosmic justice being dealt out to the BBC for their 911 hit piece full of incredible lies and distortions! You should change your name from the Big Brother Company to the Pyschic network, because obviously you have the power to predict what will happen to buildings before it occurs! And then you "lost" the tapes?? BBC is the laughing stock of the world now!

  • 153.
  • At 10:10 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Scott Campbell wrote:

Let's say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn't - why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN'T actually go down?

  • 154.
  • At 10:10 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • George Washington wrote:

Your special The Conspiracy Files fails to discuss ANY of the relevant proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and instead focuses on red herring after red herring.

Here's some of the REAL proof: http://www.911proof.com

  • 155.
  • At 10:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • max wrote:

People please... it is obvious that none of you were in NYC that day. I was (evacuated from WTC 2) and let me tell you it is surprising that more wrong info did not get out on the airwaves. The FDNY had been saying since noon on 9/11 that WTC was going to likely come down. They reported it so often that someone screwed up and thought it had... do you really think that if the beeb were 'in' on it that they would be stupid enough to report it with the building burning behind them?

I recall hearing on CNN at one point that day that there were 10 planes highjacked. They made a mistake, surely the BBC is not immune to them?

It does bear looking into as to where the correspondent got her info from - but this is hardly a smoking gun folks...

  • 156.
  • At 10:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • A Azure wrote:

You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history... ;)
(Good job! That way no one can "prove" anything that day...)

Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage - WTC 3,4,5,6 - and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 - Salomon Brothers Building), BBC - by merely a mistake and in confusion - picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -.... ;)
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent - they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven't - but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a 'lucky guess', huh?)

BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds - you'd be rich.

BBC is not part of the conspiracy - but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.

You capture the biggest smoking gun in history ... and your response is ..... to call yourselves incompetent and go play 'blind/deaf/dumb monkey' on your public.

Good job, Guys!!

Yet again the BBC spin this as paranoia, and yet again NOBODY is seriously suggesting the BBC was in on the cover up, but any reason to stick the boot in i guess ? anything that will make the 9/11 truth movement look like paranoid idiots aye ? what most people want to know is WHO gave you the info that the building had collapsed, given the chances of a collapse happening due to fire this is bizzare, no steel framed bulding has ever collapsed due to fire so why was nyone even speculating it might fall ?

Please clear this up BBC and don't use it as a reason to stick the boot into the truth movement yet again, the hit piece the other week was bad enough, now most people think 9/11 truth is about anti semites/"drop outs" "evangelical preachers" and TV drama plots, thanks to your ill informed and badly researched attack piece.

  • 158.
  • At 10:17 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Rufus Middleton wrote:

Quite extraordinary reporting on the 'fateful day' that changed it all and staggerring that you can lose such footage of importance. Especially just one day after someone plucks it from your archives!

Even more shocking is such a poor attempt to explain it away, as to quote peoples Youtube comments in response to valid enquiries as your defense.

Clearly the BBC world recieved a press release from somewhere that needs disclosing, that foretold the unprecedented imminent collapse and even the official reasons for it, before it had occured.

That needs explaining with alot more than this blog.

Whilst I dont hold the BBC as part of a conspiracy on the day, after 7 hours of filming the WTC complex, you'd of thought someone knew which buildings were which! Jane must've been puzzled when the live feed died out and the collapse began too. Poor girl.

Pity Guy Smith didnt pick up on it in his '9/11 debunking research'.

Hey did all TV networks suddenly cut off as wtc7 was about to collapse ? hmm i wonder5 indeed.Most coverge of wtc7 came from hand held cameras.

  • 160.
  • At 10:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Richard Gold wrote:

If this is the kind of journalism we can expect everyday from the BBC then I suppose it's time the politicians pay for license fee and the public appoint the governers.

"Oh, look I've lost footage covering one of the most important events in modern history. Silly me, lets ask them to increase the license fee"

  • 161.
  • At 10:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Hunt wrote:

Right....so who is supplying the BBC their information? Im sure it's not the firemen who are busy working, or anyone there. Who besides those overseeing the operation had the capacity and purpose of feeding the BBC pre-made news that apparently got out a little too quick. Especially since they even gave them the official reason why it collapsed, due to "falling debris". But at the same time other buildings suffered more from the falling debris and stood tall. Now they are giving us an analysis of an event that didn't happen yet. It was a cock up alright.

  • 162.
  • At 10:20 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Henry Groth wrote:

I am dismayed and angered that your organisation, which I have admired and relied on for many years as a bastien of truth in the sordid world of corporate - controlled journalism, has failed so abyssmally in such an important event. It's rather like Edward R. Morrow reporting from London that no German air raids are contemplated while their bombs can be heard exploding.

Bet you didn't lose the footage on that!

  • 163.
  • At 10:20 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Benjamin Wolfgang wrote:

Poor Richard Porter,

I seriously feel sorry for him.

Richard, just take a step back and look at what is happening.

Sure the BBC is not part of the conspiracy, whoever gave them that information to read that day is.

Take a step back and look at those moments in the tape at face value.

Can you seriously blame ANYONE for being concerned and/or shocked about this video? Especially those who were suspicious about 9/11 to begin with!

You cannot convince anyone to the contrary that this video is a RED FLAG because it is too late.

They already saw the video, and that is all anyone needs.

Whether or not the BBC had prior notice of the collapse of the building, many people apparently did:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-did-they-know.html

  • 165.
  • At 10:21 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • James Blair wrote:

Why have Youtube and Google pulled the videos then? National Security Letters perhaps? recognize a sinking ship,lad. US and British Gov are finished.

  • 166.
  • At 10:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Malcolm wrote:

I guess the BBC could well have been unwittingly part of the conspiracy if they were fed the same information that CNN were reporting when with WTC7 in full view they said the building "is either collapsed or is collapsing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&eurl=

  • 167.
  • At 10:23 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

Well! What can we say! It is really frustrating when a broadcast station with a good profile tries to deny something with such few words. Why have we been treated like children for so long! Any five years old can see that there is something unorthodox about this cover-up! I hope the BBC will start seeing its funders as real adults able to judge something by themselves.

  • 168.
  • At 10:23 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • ben wrote:

No longer have the original tapes of one of the most important news events in modern times???? Do you have the orig. tapes of the coverage of Prince Charles and Diana's wedding or the covereage of her death. Cmon...give me a break, you should have a stone cold process for storing all of your news footage...the fact that you are saying you dont have it and are asking outside sources to send it to you it really very very funny....and completely insulting.

  • 169.
  • At 10:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
  • Norman Rose wrote:

The internet allows us to see clearly how "The News " is merely another show. Richard Porter looses the real news and when he is reminded of the fact, blames someone else, and claims that this news is Not news. LOL.
This so reminds me of the news footage 20 minutes Before a tower fell, when Sir Guliani (mayor) states "We heard that the towers are coming down "as he heads towards the Port authority offices ( for his paycheck ? )
It's deja vu 2.
Wake up Richard , We Know !
William Rodrigues is in the UK Richard, How about interviewing him ? He was the last man out and he knows, Richard, He was there.

  • 170.
  • At 03:15 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Justice wrote:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage

Ah ... yes you do, where did you get all the source material for the documentary film you mention at the begining of your blog? This documentary was full of what looked like 'archive footage' of New York city on 9/11/01.

Also could you please quantify exactly what you know about this 'cock-up' which caused the footage of the events in New York city on 9/11/01 to be absent from the BBC archives.

  • 171.
  • At 03:17 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • smz wrote:

What a feeble, pathetic and shameful response from a supposedly world-class news organization.

  • 172.
  • At 03:17 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Eric W wrote:

Mr Richard Porter,

I take it by now you've reviewed the footage and questioned your anchor, reporter and support staff. So you'll certainly be able to tell us where they got their information from, right?

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

No? Clearly, your people weren't reporting their own first-hand witnessing of the collapse, since it hadn't taken place yet. And it's really not typical for BBC reporters to invent stories out of thin air.

So of course they must have been told. Where did they get the information? The question remains: who told them the building had already collapsed? Who were they getting their information from on that day and at that time? Who were they in contact with? We want you to name names and organizations.

You at the BBC have already lost credibility in broadcasting your biased hit-piece about 911 conspiracy theories. You will lose what little remains unless you make a full and honest investigation of how your own reporters could have stated that WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually happened.

  • 173.
  • At 03:19 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • kate wrote:

I'm missing something. If the BBC did know the building would fall (that's a big if, but for the sake of argument...) what does that mean? Someone told them it would fall? Why?
If it was because the mysterious they were going to bring the building down, then why tell anyone beforehand? It would be obvious 20 minutes later.
I'm perfectly willing to believe Bushco is capable of appalling evil, but I don't see how this relates. If I'm misunderstanding the point please educate me.

  • 174.
  • At 03:21 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • kathy wrote:

Too many lost tapes! Like the video footae of the 'plane' hitting the Pentagon.

  • 175.
  • At 03:25 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Sean wrote:

I remember that day. The information on the news flew fast and furious. Not all of it was true, not all of it was untrue. That is just the nature of a crisis.

Richard, sorry mate, I don't think that there is anything that the BBC could possibly say that would satisfy some folks.

  • 176.
  • At 03:38 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Daniel wrote:

No legitimate television network worth it's salt "loses" footage from one of the most historic events of recent times.

All video from that day would have been backed up and duplicated a million times over for archival as well as documentation purposes.

The BBC has totally lost all credibility as a television network.

  • 177.
  • At 03:39 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Nigel wrote:

A truck ran into my house & demolished it. Luckily i rang the insurance company 23 minutes before it happened. Now they want to know how i knew as they reckon something doesn't add up here. I don't understand what i did wrong.Why should i tell them anything.

  • 178.
  • At 03:39 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • partha wrote:

BBC is part of the propoganda machine.

How can they deny multiple references to the collapse BEFORE the event as a mistake?

  • 179.
  • At 03:46 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Common Man wrote:

Without trying to sound sarcastic, you really must come up with a better line than "we lost the tapes". Oops, my dog ate my homework. Really.

I want to know how your reporter knew that the building fell, AS WELL AS the reasons given initially for its collapse BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

This will be better than Criss Angel.

  • 180.
  • At 03:47 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Adam wrote:

Hmm, whether or not you were actually part of the conspiracy, you were still fed the bogus story about WTC7 having already collapsed. And you regurgitated it on live TV while it was still standing.

Just because you claim you're not a part of some conspiracy doesn't prove some conspiracy doesn't exist.

  • 181.
  • At 03:48 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Patrick McGuinness wrote:

About 2. Listening to the feed, the reporting of the collapse was not qualified; it was simply reported as fact.

Haven't you listened to it yourself yet?

And so what was your source?

Oh but I forgot, you lost the tapes.

  • 182.
  • At 03:50 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Maz wrote:

Point No. 4 begins: "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)." That's one monumental "cock-up" to the least! If such a "cock-up" is possible by the broadcast leviathan the BCC - why not a cover-up here and now?

  • 183.
  • At 04:28 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Thanks BBC for contributing yet again to the 9-11 conspiracy zombies. Good luck with this one.

  • 184.
  • At 04:33 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Adam wrote:

This is unacceptable. You need to look into this huge mix up a lot further.

  • 185.
  • At 04:40 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • prophet wrote:

The worst attempt at a lame cover ever. This discredits a news service many value. I am ashamed for all of you.

  • 186.
  • At 04:50 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Amanda Berry wrote:

Conspiracy works on a need to know basis. Just because those who front the news may be unaware of conspiracy is not evidence that it doesn't exist at a higher level. Reporting an event before it actually happened is either evidence of supernatural powers or evidence that the events of 9/11 were scripted in some way and the media or elements within the media or official sources were in on it or manipulated in some way. That footage is a real smoking gun.

Nice try but no cigar.

No, I take that back - it wasn't even a nice try.

  • 188.
  • At 05:36 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • PDL wrote:

Blimey, I see the conspiracy nutcases are out in force.

  • 189.
  • At 05:36 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Linda wrote:

If the footage had continued, we'd all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.

Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.

What in the world would you have said if that had happened?

What is going on here?

I'd like a little truth please.

  • 190.
  • At 05:40 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Ace Baker wrote:

I agree with everyone else. Clearly the BBC was told that WTC7 had collapsed, before it actually did. Someone at BBC knows who provided the information, and ought to come clean.

  • 191.
  • At 05:48 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Carlos wrote:

Wow, this is really crazy. I think we are ignoring that the news has misreported things so often ESPECIALLY during a time of crisis.

If we are going to nitpick about the misinformation about 9/11 then why not the South Asian Tsunami? Where's the report saying all these people died before it really happened? Who told them they were going to die? It must have been done on purpose then.

I dont believe the media always tells us the truth, in fact I believe they routinely skew information. But these conspiracy theorists take things to far sometimes.

  • 192.
  • At 05:49 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Barrett wrote:

I remember watching coverage of the events that day. The overriding impression I got was confusion - all sorts of stories were flying around, and it was hard to separate truth from rumour.

At post #7, Simon points out that WTC 7 was "clearly visible" behind the reporter. Clearly visible? Are you saying the journalist *must* have known which of all those buildings behind her was WTC 7? How precise is a journalist's knowledge of the Manhattan skyline supposed to be?

At post #14, Laz says WTC 7 had suffered "no significant damage". This is incorrect. The building was struck by debris as a result of the plane impacts, and again when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. Firefighters were aware for several hours that it was also likely to collapse. You can see that by reading their accounts of the day.

It doesn't take much for stories to mutate from "it's likely to collapse" into "it has collapsed", especially given the confusion which reigned on the day.

As for the loss of the film - yes, that sounds like a serious foul up, and it would be good to hear a more detailed explanation of what happened.

  • 193.
  • At 06:13 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Vic wrote:

That's it? That's your explanation?! You don't have the tapes?

Well, some of us have seen them - and heard her declare it go down, even as it was still standing right behind her.

How laughably pathetic!

  • 194.
  • At 06:17 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Jan Burton wrote:

Oh look - the kooks have now expanded their conspiracy to include the BBC.

Truthers, read carefully: WTC7 was heavily damaged and the FDNY reported that it would probably collapse 2 hours before it did! That's why they pulled their men back.

This was widely reported BEFORE the collapse. I myself heard about it on TV at the time.

The BBC reporter (probably not knowing which building WTC7 was) apparently misrepresented the reports to say it had collapsed.

So what's your theory, truthers? The BBC recieved a memo from Bush annoucing the demolition and read it too early???

Do you clowns think for even a second before spouting this mindless crap?

  • 195.
  • At 06:26 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • thatruth wrote:

THE RESPONSE IS LAME. YOUR PROVING THAT YOU DONT RESEARCH YOUR INFO BEFORE YOUR AIR IT. HOW CAN SOMEONE GET WRONG THAT A BUILDING FELL IF THEY ARE IN THAT STATE AND ARE IN PLAIN VIEW OF IT--WHAT ABOUT THE CAMERA MEN WHO COULD CLEARLY SEE THE BUILDING IN THE DISTANCE?? THIS IS SO CRUICIAL AND SUCH A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. REGUARDLESS OF WHATS GOING ON--REPORTING FALSE NEWS HAS NO EXCUSE--DO YOUR JOB YOUR PAID FOR AND RESEARCH YOUR SOURCES ALITTLE BETTER

  • 196.
  • At 06:28 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Des Currie wrote:

If one leaves the Twin Towers for another argument, and we concentrate on the Pentagon and the plane in the woods it does seem extraordinarily strange that a lot of what is computationally being said seems circumstantially true. After all we cannot be asked to disregard the messages images present to us.
And if neither a plane went down in the woods nor flew into the Pentagon, and this becomes fact, then should the Twin Towers be completely re-evaluated.
Des Currie

  • 197.
  • At 06:36 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • norman wrote:

How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?

  • 198.
  • At 06:39 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Barbaricfellow wrote:

You end your comment with "everybody can make a mistake"..BUT aren't you forgetting she also gives the official "explanation" 20 min in advance of the event!!!!!!

  • 199.
  • At 06:47 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • T wrote:

Wow! That's the best you could do? Amazing

  • 200.
  • At 06:50 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • David wrote:

I am a staunch anti conspiracist and I strongly believe that the events were not an inside job. However, if a building is reported collapsed before it actually does collapse, that indeed is very suspicious indeed. It also seems incredible that the BBC footage of one of the most significant events in the history of Man has been 'lost'. You obviously need to look harder.

  • 201.
  • At 06:54 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Ian Jessiman wrote:

One of the worse atrocities to happen on American soil, with 3,000 + dead, and some people believe that the BBC was given notice of the events before they happened?

  • 202.
  • At 06:58 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Al wrote:

Oh dear, Richard.

As you can see, there are no shortage of nutters out there who are never going to accept any explanation you might offer. Because, of course, the more people that have to be involved in a conspiracy, the more plausible it becomes! So obvious!!

You might try pointing out that important events in American history has never stopped the BBC from losing tapes before. Your coverage of the lunar landing tapes in 1969, for instance, which you wiped in 1975.

On second thoughts, maybe not. That'll bring a whole other bunch of conspiracy loons to your doorstep...

  • 203.
  • At 06:59 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

I would just like to say i dont personally believe the BBC is part of a cover up from that day.

I do find it quite odd though that a professional and experienced media organisation like yourselves would start reporting a story based on conjecture, rumours.

There must of been a reliable source(s)who gave you this information to report. And the BBC surely must of know/trusted this source to run with it in a live broadcast?

There is also the small matter of the live feed being lost 5 mins before the building actually collapsed! Very convenient and also very suspicious dont you think?

It leads me to believe someone realised the so called cock up and terminated the feed. Which would mean the BBC probably already knew about this cock up and now its come back to haunt them.

There's alot of people out there who are going to want real answers to this serious issue, and i would call for an immediate investigation on this matter.

I also find it strange that there has been no major media coverage of this story its absolutely going crazy on the net. Its hardly a cold story now is it?

  • 204.
  • At 01:05 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • James wrote:

Busted. I can't see a possible way in which the BBC can wriggle out of this one. I've reviewed the footage and yes, WTC 7 stands proudly in the background, with no visible signs of smoke, whilst the unknowing reporter pre-empts it's collapse. No-one is saying the BBC is one of the conspiritors, rather the BBC became involved with the conspiracy unwittingly.

It can only be a matter of years before the BBC falls so out of favour it has to be scrapped. Perhaps this new age of the internet is just too much for the BBC to hadle. I mean relying on Youtube to keep records of your footage of the greatest terrorist attack on the USA since Pearl Harbour is hardly the conduct of a true news agency.

If the event wasn't so tragic I'd be laughing at the blunder the BBC has made. Perhaps someone was trying to make a fool of you?

  • 205.
  • At 01:05 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Dear Mr. Porter,

In your own words: "We did what we always did - sourced our reports... and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving." - Richard Porter, Head of News (BBC World)

In the interest of free and open public discourse, as befits a public broadcaster, the BBC must provide the aforementioned "source" for its premature report on the collapse of WTC7.

This story will not be going away any time soon!

  • 206.
  • At 01:12 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • BoomBatta wrote:

Thank you for all the cock-ups and your pathetic damage control documentaries about conspiracy theories. Please keep up the pathetic explanations, you are helping the truth movement no end. You gotta be kidding "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)." Your the BBC, of course you have the origionals, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. Tell the truth!
BB

  • 207.
  • At 01:17 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • Mert wrote:

Dear Sir,

Firstly,

I am finding it hard to believe that Mr Porter has adopted an exceptionally patronising / mocking tone for his reply. I am not sure if that is the way a 'Head of News' should be acting in these circumstances.

Secondly,

Anyone who has done any research into how building 7 managed to fall on 9/11 would know that there are - at the highest levels - no answers. The 9/11 Commission neatly didn't mention it and NIST has admitted on one occasion that their analysis as to why it collapsed had a 'low probability' of occurring and then at a later date admitted that 'the use of explosives' remains a possibility.

Thirdly,

Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 1, 2 and 7 has admitted in an interview that he called for the building to be 'pulled' - why is this interesting? Why is the fact that the BBC reported the building had collapsed before it did interesting?

Because the official version says that it was not demolished that it collapsed due to fire damage and that pre-knowledge of this building collapsing, points in the direction of a major crime...that is why it is interesting. so please don't mock, like your Conspiracy Files 'documentary'

As a Head of News i would expect (for my licence fee) that you would research things like this as natural journalistic reaction to events that have changed the world.

In disgust,

Mert

Pathetic.
And the pyre of burning bodie on the imperialist altar of greed grows and grows.

  • 209.
  • At 01:20 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
  • james wrote:

You state "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

If that's the case then why on earth did your reporter and news anchor state that WTC7 had come down? No modern steel framed building had ever come down before 9/11 because of a fire, so honestly, what are the chances?

Address the question instead of side stepping it and pretending people are accusing the BBC of participation in a conspiracy.

Oh, and my last five comments have been censored so please be good enough to post this one.

  • 210.
  • At 11:18 AM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Ed Redacshun wrote:

How awful for the BBC that it tried to debunk the theories around 911, but turns out to be at the center of the whirlwind. The 911 theorists contain among them many rational, inquisitive people who are able to identify holes in the stories that have been spun. Rather than dumping all over them, it would have been much more interesting to look at the way the official stories unravel under close scrutiny. Was 911 an inside job? No one knows. But is the whole story being told truthfully in the official version? It doesn't seem so. Trying to get this video deleted from the internet just fuels concerns that the major media outlets don't want people to get closer to the truth, whatever that may be.

  • 211.
  • At 11:55 AM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Tim Bolshaw wrote:

Why did the BBC not acknowledge its error?


I can (just about) credit a coincidence where an expected event is anticipated by declaring it already happened. What I cannot begin to understand is how the BBC would not correct their error when they received calls saying WTC7 was still standing. The BBC cannot possibly have remained ignorant of their error for over 20 minutes. That makes the loss of the live feed even more suspicious. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect someone did not want to ackowledge that a coming collapse had been reported prematurely.

  • 212.
  • At 12:30 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Michael Aitken wrote:

I am constantly involved in in depth discussions with my brother, who regularly adds comments to this, and other blogs on the bbc website about 9/11 and the london bombings. one of his main complaints is that the bbc has failed to address any of the conspiracy theories about either event, which i'm sure many people shared. Now that the bbc has runa programme about this, everyone is now commenting that it proves them right. i actually found the programme to be well balanced, and for one was convinced by many of the arguments shown. Like the moon landings, kennedy assassination many people will believe there was a conspiracy regardless of what evidence is produced. As for the argument that the BBC has just shown themselves to be part of it, how stupid do you think they are that they would run a programme showing that they were part of a conspiracy. People make mistakes, it's what makes us human, tapes can be lost, erased, all it needs is one person to press the wrong button, or throw out the wrong box. doesn;t make is a conspiracy.

  • 213.
  • At 12:42 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • moonrock wrote:

We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.
I can tell you in advance that maybe tomorrow is going to rain, but you CAN NOTreport TODAY that it's raining, comon, don't insult my inteligence, this is too fishy.

Ok let me understand this; according to you colleagues in London were monitoring feeds and wires services? and they told you what to do or say, so If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened.

My final question did anybody got fired for this huge mistake according to you?

  • 214.
  • At 02:25 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Andrew Nonymous wrote:

A BBC reporter called R. Porter? I smell a conspiracy. -Andrew Nonymous

  • 215.
  • At 03:11 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • cabdul wrote:

I grew up respecting the BBC more than any other network. But shame on it ! Shame on it ! Mr. Porter, I am sure you realize how this monstrous cover up will tarnish the bbc`s image once most of your listeners come to know of it. Mr. Porter, God-willing, the real engineers of this heinous crime (deliberately blamed on the innocents rather than the guilty ones with the aid of the mass media) will one day be disclosed. It is completely hard to fathom that bbc would "lose" the tape of such an immense, historical significance. Finally, I thank the bbc for atleast giving us the opportunity to comment and thanks much, Mr. Porter for taking the time .

  • 216.
  • At 04:24 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

I can only laugh in amazement at these people - and their belief(s). That BBC, CNN, US, and British governments are all in some big conspiracy to blow up a couple trade center buildings. . and the pentagon. Yeah why not . . .

I find the BBC explanation 100x more credible then any other "theory" so absurd as that the BBC new the WTC7 was coming down. . .Other then the fact it was a big piece of burning rubble without any water to put it out and looked like it WAS coming down to crew on the field.

  • 217.
  • At 05:09 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Monado wrote:

There's no time stamp on the broadcast. Isn't it more likely that she was recording an event that had happened, but the graphics guys were playing their tape of "the scene"? They were unlikely to have transcribed a tape of something that had only happened a few minutes earlier. A certain amount of data transferring and editing would be required. They probably just replayed their tape from earlier that morning.

  • 218.
  • At 05:31 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • exod-US wrote:

I've heard:
For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.

  • 219.
  • At 06:19 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • Frank Rizzo wrote:

Hey RichPor, so you lost all the tapes? Did your dog eat your homework too? Stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. You are either really dumb and don't know any better, or really dumb in your attempts to cover up the truth. Either way, you are really dumb.

  • 220.
  • At 06:41 PM on 03 Mar 2007,
  • jim wrote:

I asked a while back if you could shed some more light on the missing coverage.
My request wasn't posted so I ask again
Have you lost the news footage for the entire day or just parts of it?
Do you suspect it has been stolen ?
Has it been confiscated ?
Your use of the word "cock-up" suggests someone has taped over it
Please clarify.

  • 221.
  • At 11:07 PM on 05 Mar 2007,
  • Robert Carnegie wrote:

I'd like to observe that "one of the most important events in modern history" is one thing, and hours and hours of BBC talking heads on videotape discussing it is another. How many people were watching BBC at the time? Who weren't British in Britain?

It's quite an amusing conspiracy story and it takes everyone's minds off the stupid, ugly, wicked war in Iraq for a while, which is nice, but it isn't very important.

  • 222.
  • At 12:23 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

I am a very sceptical individual. But this story seems to me to be an incredible piece of potential evidence further indicating that something very strange lies behind Building 7's collapse. Mr Porter, your attempt to slap us all on the back, say 'oops' and move on is wildly off the mark. The BBC should urgently address this issue if it is to maintain any credibility. Who told you? Loved the analogy with the Lord Mayor's trousers falling down!!

  • 223.
  • At 01:50 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Thomas Renshaw wrote:

I don't believe that the BBC were directly involved in the conspiracy of 9-11, however they clearly received information from the propaganda machine that was running to keep 9-11 covered up.

However someone made a cock up and released the information too early.

The BBC was well and truly played for fools by the American Governemt.

The BBC need to do a full and public inquiry into where this information came from, and let us know the results.

However I suspect that this will never happen.

  • 224.
  • At 03:09 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bastion wrote:

WHO WAS THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION? To check your source you only had to look over the reporter's shoulder.

  • 225.
  • At 03:29 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Mr X wrote:

Well, some guys here are really missing the point. For normal guys in the street the term "badly damaged and likely to fall" can be interpreted as "has fallen" or "has collapsed". But not for the news company and especially not for BBC. Are those who fall for this explanation really think that BBC doesnt look at their system and follow what other agencies are reporting? In news reporting, the competition is always for bringing the news first before any other agency reports it. I dont blame BBC on being a part of conspiricy but one thing is clear, BBC is a propaganda machine and as such it does get busted

  • 226.
  • At 04:04 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

"Pulled" - LOL. He never said the building had been "pulled" like in "pulled down". In fact that is a term NEVER used to demolish buildings. He was referring to the firew crew that were pulled out. Stop trying to reinvent news.

  • 227.
  • At 05:10 AM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Dee wrote:

Very Lame response Mr. Porter.

"Apparently", from what "We're hearing" and seeing, based on "what's reported" (by BBC & CNN) let me "qualify" by saying- IT IS WHAT IT IS.

  • 228.
  • At 12:46 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Bob Jackson wrote:

A reporter on the scene reports what she sees. Full stop. You've entered a murky world where London starts putting words into her mouth, to make her seem more knowledgeable than she is. A conjectural story then seems to be independently corroborated. This is grossly unprofessional. It is misleading the public. You're not a branch of showbiz.

  • 229.
  • At 05:31 PM on 06 Mar 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

With the 8 FULL WORKING-DAY HOURS between the time the Twin Towers fell and the collapse of WTC 7, are we really expected to believe Jane Standley got confused in the "heat of the moment" as to which building was which and which had fallen and which had not? Eight hours is a long time to get an act together, whichever way you look at it!

FOR GOD'S SAKE!

... We are big boys and girls now! ... Tell us WHO fed her with that 'deja vu' information before the building actually collapsed.
Somebody obviously did! ... And WHO told them? ... Let's get right up to the President if needs be!

  • 230.
  • At 08:41 AM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • SH wrote:

I like the posts on this blog that say that people make mistakes and everything is ok. Knowing that WTC7 was going to collapse before it did IS NOT A MISTAKE. It means that someone knew the building was loaded with explosives which had to be prewired weeks in advance, so whoever gave out the press release was one of the command and control people for the entire 911 event. That press release was probably issued from a central location where the attacks were directed.

When the truth of 911 finally comes out in full, the world will have learned how to identify mass deception. 911 truth may bring about the demise of many common institutions, especially banking and government.

  • 231.
  • At 11:33 AM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

HOW IN HEAVEN'S NAME HAS ALL THIS U+N+B+EL+I+E+V+A+B+L+E NEWS NOT GOT INTO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA??

Here is the real PROOF that something is VERY VERY VERY wrong with our world right now!

Just fasten your seatbelts, folks!
It's obvious MUCH WORSE is coming!
No need for tarots, crystal balls and tea-leaves!

Surely, everything which is being written on here is being registered too; make no mistake!
Give them the WORST you have, folks!
This story is GROTESQUELY OBSCENE no matter how you see it!

  • 232.
  • At 11:56 PM on 09 Mar 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Is asking for the SOURCE for this 'cock-up' considered abusive?

What is happening to the BBC'c well-earned prestige built up over decades and decades?

  • 233.
  • At 09:33 AM on 10 Mar 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

Thank you this clarifies everything. You put it succinctly and I commend you. You do your job as head of the ministry of information well. Orwell would be proud

  • 234.
  • At 05:28 PM on 11 Mar 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

I am a structural engineer. I cannot see how the BBC would have known that WTC7 had collapsed ahead of time. I have very big doubts about the integrity of the BBC.

  • 235.
  • At 06:19 AM on 12 Mar 2007,
  • Chad L wrote:

Remember, it has been known for governments to create false events, not only to do things like what has been done, but the after affects. When the citazens realize the truth, some rise up, causing an uproar, thereby also allowing the government to remove even more rights. Be careful, these little 'scew ups' are sometimes planned for any occasion. Usually election times.

  • 236.
  • At 02:00 PM on 12 Mar 2007,
  • Jamie Gates wrote:

As a US Citizen, I am outraged that the BBC would intentionally cover up such a sensative issue! On 9/11, I was a supervisor for American Airlines working out of a major international airport. A number of individuals within the industry have always suspected fowl play by our government, (the Bush administration in particular). My hope is that the truth will eventually come out and if I might add before further damage is done! Too bad the British people are more privy to this information than the average American. I'm hoping this news will get out in more abundance within this country. It's time the truth be told!

  • 237.
  • At 03:35 PM on 12 Mar 2007,
  • Bab wrote:

Thanks for responding to this issue. However:

I found my way to this blog looking for the quick explanation that would discredit these rumors that BBC reported the building 7 collapse before it happened. I was expecting to hear you say that the building in the video simply isn't the one reported as collapsing, or something similar. Instead, I found an uncomfortably defensive rant that you can't believe about not being able to find the tapes and that IF this rumor is correct, it was an error. Come on: this video clip is everywhere. You must have seen it. Does it look right? Is it doctored? And saying it was a mistake doesn't cut it -- the interesting part comes afterwards: How did such a mistake happen? Why? Where was the error? Where was the faulty information coming from? This is worth your time to investigate. Please don't waste ours with silly responses. And please don't credit your detractors by refusing to even look into this further.

  • 238.
  • At 07:22 AM on 13 Mar 2007,
  • JIM wrote:

YOU LOST THE TAPES WELL IM SURE YOULL SEE A COPY SOON ON GOOGLE OR MYSPACE OR SOME OTHER SITE OH BY THE WAY I HAVE A COPY BUT IM KEEPING IT FOR FURTHER REFERENCE YOU WILL ONLY LOOSE IT!!!
THIS ONE IS NOT GONNA GO AWAY AND THE HOLE SEEMS TO BE GETTING DEEPER YOU SEEM TO THINK INTELEGENT PEOPLE WILL BE PALMED OFF WITH AN EXCUSE LIKE THAT!
ANYONE CAN SEE THERES SOMETHING TO GET A LITTLE UNEASY ABOUT CONCERNING THIS BECAUSE YOU MUST HAVE NOTICED VERY SOON AFTER THAT YOU HAD DONE THIS AND WELL WHAT CAN I SAY IT WAS TOTALLY INCOMPITANT TO SAY THE LEAST AND TO KEEP DENYING IT IS JUST CRAZY! IM SURE YOU MUST HAVE LOADS OF COPIES BY NOW DO YOU STILL SAY IT WAS A SIMPLE COCKUP

  • 239.
  • At 12:04 PM on 13 Mar 2007,
  • Gregor Aitken wrote:

In response to comment 212 ( my Brother)

Please remember michael that the iran-contra affair, watergate, the gadaffi attempted/plannned assasination and many more were conspiracies that were uncovered and however fantastic they may have seemed they were not a series of coincedences but instead genuine and proved conspiracies.

And as soon as anyone explains how the 4 guys on 7/7 managed their way through luton station from front door to the train and buying tickets (returns) in under 3 minutes with allegedly about 10lbs of highly volatile tapt on their back.

Explain this one brother Mikey.

  • 240.
  • At 10:23 AM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

What a load of paranoid people we are! Quit hassling the BBC - I'm surprised Mr Porter even dignified this "theory" with a comment.

  • 241.
  • At 10:25 AM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • daniel wrote:

Mr. Porter,

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

In other words: You're a coward. But don't feel bad, because mainstream media, without exception, uses spineless boys like yourself, to report their agenda. Sissies like you rather score brownypoints with your boss, than standing up for whats right. But remember, in the end, you won't be able to blame anybody but yourself for being a coward. You're chance, to show god that you believe in rightousness and good for all humanity, seems to have come and gone. So when you go home tonight and look in the mirror, remember that you are looking at a COWARD.

Daniel

  • 242.
  • At 10:58 AM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • frederick rolfe wrote:

Could at least one of you people, especially the CAPITAL LETTER fans, please Google the term 'Occam's Razor'. Please. In the name of sanity. Your own, principally.

  • 243.
  • At 01:12 PM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • internet user wrote:

Why do you people keep asking where the info came from? Is it that hard to figure out?

Look, the firemen knew well in advance that it was coming down. They saw several indicators. So they all left the building, cancelled a rescue operation... you can even watch videos on youtube where you can hear the firemen saying it was going to come down.

So... where do you think they got the report from? It only takes a little bit of miscommunication for someone to think that it already collapsed when they're saying it's *going to* collapse.

Guys... seriously... stop being so paranoid.

  • 244.
  • At 04:43 PM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • Steve B wrote:

Ah yes, there's nothing quite like presenting your thoughts entirely in capitals with a peppering of exclamation marks and missing full stops between sentences. Throw in some childish animosity too. Yep, that will help convince people to take you seriously.

Is it any wonder the 9/11 truth movement still gets laughed at?

(and please bear in mind I say that as someone who suspects 9/11 was indeed an inside job, albeit one where the terrorists were funded and instructed via a murky alliance of elements within the US, and a certain foreign intelligence agency)

  • 245.
  • At 06:05 PM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • bruce steinberg wrote:

I used to be an avid reader of BBC.com

You have proved yourself to be incompetent.... or at best lyers.

The story that you are presenting of your false reporting and missing tapes is so convenient and transparent, it is obvious ot intelligent people that you have much to hide... even if it is embarrassing incompetence.

Report the source of the information about the collapse of the tower that you obviously knew about in advance. This information would not only prove you to be a credibel news organization.... but not part of any conspriacy.

The WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHTING... AND TRUST ME BBC... WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY. WE HAVE YOU SQUARELY IN OUR TARGETS AND WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL WE FIND OUT WHO GAVE YOU THIS INFORMATION, WHAN AND HOW.

  • 246.
  • At 10:24 PM on 14 Mar 2007,
  • Tom Matthews wrote:

I have watched a couple of the conspiracy DVD's and am pretty convinced by a lot of their contents. However, you have to be careful not to simply become irrational.

How many of you remember the BBC documentary "The Day Britain Stopped"? It was the fictional documentary portraying events on a day in the future when there was a huge plane crash over london, total gridlock on the roads, everyone stuck in the traffic jams are subjected to freezing conditions, Heathrow is closed and UK airspace shut down etc etc.
If you watched that and, say, next year, two planes crashed over London, would you then immediately jump to the conclusion that the BBC had played a part in the incident?

News, especially 24 hour news in a situation like 9/11, is an extremely high pressure business. The BBC do incredibly well, keeping people up to date with exactly what is going on 24/7. On 9/11 the reporters in New York were not only trying their best to do their job, but were also probably worried about colleagues and loved ones. They were under pressure which I doubt many of us can even imagine.

Think, don't just become irrational and jump on the bandwagon. After all, isn't that the idea behind the conspiracy theories of 9/11 - use your own mind, don't just nod and follow the crowd with your eyes shut.

  • 247.
  • At 12:15 AM on 15 Mar 2007,
  • Guy wrote:

This is unbelievable. I have just found this footage on youtube and I have to say that this stinks somewhat. I have been digging into the facts of that day and have always hoped that it happened exactly how the US government claims. However, when the BBC claims to have "lost" the footage from the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbour you have to wonder whats going on. I dont beleive the BBC is part of a conspiracy but I do believe that those tapes have surely been confiscated by a more powerful government that we just happen to be lap dogs to. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that the British public would swallow any of the above excuses. Give me the truth or give me my licence fee back. Disgusting. Richard Porter should be sacked for even thinking that we would swallow this.

  • 248.
  • At 03:20 AM on 15 Mar 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

Watch everything you can by Adam Curtis - the reason behind these lies will become clear. Shame on you BBC!

  • 249.
  • At 01:15 PM on 15 Mar 2007,
  • Diana, London wrote:

It's not going away you know, we want to know who told you about the building 7 collapse before it happened. No one is saying the BBC made it fall down. We just want to know who knew what would happen before it did.

I believe that people should take an easier stance on their critisims of the BBC. After lifetimes of proper service to the public and international news comunity, I am sure that one can understand that sometimes mistakes and confusion can happen during a time when everyone is in a state of panic and fear.

  • 251.
  • At 11:06 PM on 15 Mar 2007,
  • Alan Burke wrote:

Why is there no answer about this forthcoming from the BBC. I pay my licence fee you are responsible to me and i would like to know. The sound bites at the top are not an answer. I think the questions have been asked numerous times already but since you seem to keep ignoring them here they are again. Who gave you the story...before it happened. and how where the tapes lost?
simple enough

Everyone please stop referring to the "ALTERNATIVE theory" as "the conspiracy theory" Let us remember, the U.S. Govmint wants us all to believe THEIR CONSPIRACY THEORY.
19 hijackers CONSPIRED to fly planes into the twin towers. In ANY dictionary on the planet THAT is a conspiracy. So all we are presenting is an ALTERNATIVE THEORY that BETTER explains the facts. It is not THE or A "conspiracy theory."

The theory that better epxlains the facts is parsimonious, and should be believed over a theory that requires super natural forces or extraordinary powers or probablity to have it happen.

We have all been duped by the largest conspiracy in human history, the belief that George W. Bush is actually interested in preserving the U.S. Constitution.
He needs to be arrested, indicted, convicted and then hung.
Same goes for the whole Bush clan.
A composte heap is too good for them.
Arrest, try, hang, liquify

  • 253.
  • At 09:19 AM on 16 Mar 2007,
  • Frank wrote:

It's a joke. BBC has a lot of humour. Same with US Neocons.
If there is still someone in the world to believe 9/11 events were not a conspiracy involving both neocons & islamists, just offer him an internet connection (not a TV !)

US military spending has increased. The goal has been reached.

What makes it so ridiculous is that Building 7 would not have collapsed because of fire - so why would they assume that it was about to collapse?

How could this be a simple error?

There wasnt even a raging inferno big enough to weaken the over-enginnered structure!

A skyscrape in Madrid which was a raging inferno stood for days!

  • 255.
  • At 09:12 AM on 17 Mar 2007,
  • Hmmm. Really? wrote:

As far as i can see this blog does not answer the big question that everyone is asking - why was it said that building 7 had come down when it was clearly still standing - not only due to the time the report was being made but also (as is seen in the report) it can clearly be seen behind the reporter. I'm not a conspiracy nut or anything i'm just after the truth of what happened that day.

  • 256.
  • At 02:53 PM on 17 Mar 2007,
  • Brian J. wrote:

227 comments and not one reply to them from the BBC.

So, what is going on with this story?

BBC, your silence speaks volumes.


  • 257.
  • At 08:15 AM on 18 Mar 2007,
  • Daniel wrote:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage :( for reasons of cock-up ?! - what was the cock up ? did someone pour coffee over it ?

I 100% DONT THINK THAT THE BBC WAS PART OF, HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH, OR EVEN HELPED EXECUTE A CONSPIRACY.

1) TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY EXECUTION.

2) TOO MANY PEOPLE = TOO MANY CONSCIENCES AND SOMEONE WOULD HAVE MADE A STAND AGAINST THAT TYPE OF "SHOW TACTICS."

3) ANALOGY: KISS AND TELL = $$$$$$$

  • 259.
  • At 11:53 PM on 18 Mar 2007,
  • john jacoby wrote:

The whole thing is just a bad joke by now. The media have done such a terrible job at explaining things like WTC7 that one just has to look to the alternatives.

It's quite unbelievable that a world-class news agency such as the BBC would 'lose' all the tapes of the most significant event in recent history.

Also, how likely is it that 19 cave-dwellers overcame Thousands of well-trained professionals working for scores of the world's best security agencies (immigration, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, various state's SBI's & police, DIA, NORAD, FAA, etc & also 2 giant corporations--American Airlines & United Airlines) from start to finish over the course of years?

How could so few with limited resources completely overwhelm So many who had overwhelming resources?

If the official conspiracy theory is correct, then who got fired for extreme incompetence leading to the 9/11 disaster? Surely there would have been hundreds or thousands fired and many others demoted, right?

The most outrageous 'conspiracy theory' is the one being told by those paragons of honesty, integrity & virtue--Bush & Cheney.

  • 261.
  • At 05:32 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • John wrote:

Fact. The collapse of WTC 7 was reported more then 20 minutes before it actually happened.

Fact. That was reported because that is what you were told.

Question. Who told you? Name the source. I for one, would like to meet this modern day nostradamus.

  • 262.
  • At 06:07 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • brianv wrote:

Do you think that there is anything new in this revelation?

Lets take the Birmingham Bombings. 6 innocent Irishmen pulled of a boat, beaten severly and stuck in jail for 15 years for a bombing they did not commit. Although the men were eventually exhonerated NOBODY else has ever been charged. So who did it? The IRA? MI5? MI6? I know who my money is on!!

Similarly Guildford.
Similarly Warrington

And similarly Manchester, of which the footage was only released last year. Nobody was ever charged except a journalist who printed the name of a suspect.

Similarly Omagh.
Similarly Dublin.

All these incidents created the conditions required by the UK Government to keep NI part of the UK, when it was looking mighty shaky and when most English actually supported the calls for Civil Rights and Independence by Irish Catholics.
Problem Reaction Solution.

All inside jobs, just like 9/11.

  • 263.
  • At 01:24 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • Victor wrote:

to Tom Matthews over at number 228.
If you can look at the premature report of WTC7 collapsing along with the piles of evidence and motive for controlled demolition and not see how perhaps the origin of the report was inside knowledge from somewhere, then it is your eyes that are shut. You claim that it is irrational to suggest that the source of the report was from inside knowledge. Let me outline the alternative theory that we our expected to believe.

1. A firefighter predicted the collapse of WTC7.
Firefighters know that steel frame buildings don't fall down because they are on fire. The damage from debris was mild compared to WTC6, which was battered beyond repair, yet noone even mentioned the collapse of WTC6 and indeed it did not collapse, so damage from debris doesn't cut it either.

2. A very imaginative game of chinese whispers between reporters and news feeds led from " WTC7 is damaged" to "WTC7 has collapsed, and the reason for the collapse is damage from the towers collapse."
Do not forget that it is NOT normal to report the cause of an incident like building collapse before an investigation reports its findings. There was obviously no investigation into its collapse before its collapse.

3. BBC lost its tapes by accident.
I don't need to explain why that is so hard to believe.

If you still think we're irrational, i urge you to tell us how that report ended up on the BBC without using any explanations as emphatically improbable as the one presented by Mr Porter. Once again, the so called "conspiracists" are thrown insults rather than arguments.

  • 264.
  • At 06:45 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • eric tull wrote:

You've lost the original tapes?

Have you looked under all those weapons of mass destruction?

One of the greastest news stories in history and you've "lost the tapes"?

Well you're no worse than the FAA, they lost the ground air communications. You're no worse than the FBI who appear to have lost the four tapes showing CCTV footage of whatever crashed into the Pentagon.

Please arrange the following into a well known phrase or saying.

UP COVER

  • 265.
  • At 11:52 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • Terry Connolly wrote:

Anybody who's worked in the media will know that news organisations recieve information off the news / press wires.

If the BBC got their source off a news wire, then other news channels - who recieve the same wires - would have also reported the collapse of WTC 7.

However, nobody can produce any footage of other worldwide news bodies reporting the collapse of the building prematurely.

I geniunely believe that the BBC made error at the time of the live broadcast.

Do you want a real conspiracy theory? Try this... Flight 93, that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania (after the passengers allegedly fought back) was actually shot down by the order of the US government.

Several news organisations (mainly in the US) reported this, before the story was quickly changed to "crashed in a field".

Understandably, during all the post-terrorist chaos, the US government did not want (nor need) the hassle of having to explain to the world why it decided to sacrifice the lives of those innocent passengers on board.

  • 266.
  • At 04:31 AM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • John Stone wrote:

Sheesh, do you lot not understand. If it was an error in wording! It means they DIDNT know it was going to fall but said it did at the time (my golly gosh, mistake!).

You know, people do make mistakes, for all the posters here who claim wrongdoings, would you like someone behind you pointing the finger at you, ever time you goof up?

No, but then your all perfect I guess. Wow, the BBC is not perfect. What a shock.

  • 267.
  • At 11:37 AM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere that Giuliani's office was in charge of the entire emergency operation that day, which would have included press releases. And he wants to be president now? God help us all!!

  • 268.
  • At 05:15 PM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • Jimmy Jones wrote:

I will be the first person to stand up for the BBC's integrity on this forum !

I think the BBC always do a marvelous job, always report the truth and they obviously have annoyed the people who leaked the report too early to them regarding WTC 7.
Those involved in the 911 conspiracy obviously slipped up.

The BBC know who gave that leak, and so have been 'held by the balls' by them, and the reason they make excuses and cannot locate the 'missing' tapes, is probably because if you have unknowingly helped expose the biggest government conspiracy ever, and have the raw footage too, it will mean those same people know you know too much and so will seize those tapes and say something like;
" ..if you don't want to lose your life, family members, or career, then what is understood does not need to be discussed.."

The BBC were crying out for this stuff to be noticed much sooner, as they have their 'balls held tight' by the government, and good people in the BBC know it, without publicly making out they agree.

The way they pretend nothing is wrong means what I say is correct, as they can't all become directors and producers for so long and be dumb and oblivious !

I almost reckon when the news feed came in regarding the tower 7 collpase too early, that the BBC knew it was wrong and an inside job, and so decided to seize the opportunity to report that, knowing full well that the tower was still standing etc, so that years later like now, it would be exposed.

You see, the BBC won't admit it, but they possibly deliberately did this to allow what we have witnessed this month to occur....they are heros, as the evidence we have is tremendous to show 911 was an inside job, but this news report is absolutely staggering and so the BBC are heros which though are not free, sill do stuff to show the public that they are signalling to us the truth whilst being forced to hide behind a controlled media party line....


Well done Beeb, you are HEROS, & more intelligent than people give you credit for.

I know you will no doubt deny all I have said in this post, but just give me the usual 'nudge and wink' code words to show you secretly approve...

"nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean know what I mean...say no more, say no more.."

  • 269.
  • At 08:32 PM on 23 Mar 2007,
  • Erik Lund wrote:

We in the U.S. believe BBC was part of the conspiracy. So unless you conduct an actual investigation, and tell the public who gave you the foreknowledge of building 7's collapse, BBC's image will continue to be tarnished.

  • 270.
  • At 12:52 AM on 26 Mar 2007,
  • Winston wrote:

I sure miss George Orwell...But as Number 232 Jimmy Jones says: nudge, nudge, wink wink....:-)

  • 271.
  • At 11:13 AM on 26 Mar 2007,
  • Geoff Stevenson wrote:

It's time for the Freedom Of Information Act to be used.

  • 272.
  • At 04:36 PM on 26 Mar 2007,
  • crazyknight wrote:

it is very obvious that BBC is lying to us, but when all is said and done what can we do about it?. how can we challenge the powers to be, when and how can we get a totally independant investigation underway, i would like to look into the future and see numerous people brought before a judge to answer for their crimes and participation in 9/11 and its cover up...ahh one day....

  • 273.
  • At 02:21 AM on 27 Mar 2007,
  • Brian wrote:

GET A LIFE, CONSPIRACY DORKS. I had such high hopes for the 21st Century, and it's turned out to be a bunch of bored guys who've never touched a girl and think the government is after them. Depressing, really. Curse bin Laden for unleashing such a loserfest. It's more irritating than the actual attack.

  • 274.
  • At 01:11 PM on 28 Mar 2007,
  • Tim Clacy wrote:

Why aren't any 'news' channels following-up on this?

Dear BBC! I love you, I respect you, I belive you! Please give a credible answer to our questions!

  • 276.
  • At 07:43 PM on 28 Mar 2007,
  • matt wrote:

I dont believe the BBC was knowingly part of a conspiracy.
However, as a license fee payer - thus a BBC stakeholder - I would like to know the circumstances of the 'cock-up' which resulted in a the loss of footage from this centurys biggest news event...

  • 277.
  • At 12:20 AM on 29 Mar 2007,
  • elek wrote:

WHO TOLD THE BBC THAT WTC7 [THE SOLOMON BUILDING] HAD COLLAPSED? This is a reasonable question!

  • 278.
  • At 01:22 PM on 29 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

264. Brain-dead--Mi6/Cia--(your all the same). Thank God most of us have a healthy and vital distrust of politicians and controlling powers: people who do NOT accept as gospel, EVERYTHING we are told. You display a highly dangerous naivety (or stupidity) your type are the true ''Dorks''.

  • 279.
  • At 01:31 PM on 29 Mar 2007,
  • Archie McTernan wrote:

I havent read all the comments on here but I put forward a simple explanation.

1) The original information provided is that WTC 7 is significantly weakened and in danger of collapse.

2) BBC pick this up and it gets mangled somewhere along the line as WTC 7 HAS collapsed. (I think there is a kids game called chinese whispers which may be relevant here)

3) They run with that - hence the live report.

Having watched the report elsewhere it is quite clear that the BBC reporter is a) miles away from the scene and b) doesn't really know what is happening. - so is going on secondhand info amidst the confusion.

Sloppy journalism - definitely
Conspiracy - hardly

  • 280.
  • At 04:07 PM on 29 Mar 2007,
  • Old-Fashioned Catholic wrote:

First, destroying evidence is not a 'cock-up', it is a serious crime: obstruction of justice. It also creates a _presumption_ of covering up a more serious crime.

If you actually believe that a mere 'cock-up' erased your tapes of 9/11, then tell us precisely which of your employees was fired for such gross incompetence? And of course, the list of fired employees had better include their manager. If you refuse to fire this entire colony of imbeciles, you then show that you are part of the cover-up.

I must reiterate: Destruction of evidence of a crime is a serious crime in itself, and is also strong evidence of covering up an even more serious crime.

Don't bother to pretend innocence until you've produced a list of this colony of imbeciles you've fired.

  • 281.
  • At 10:56 AM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • mike tyson wrote:

how could bbc have known that wtc 7 was going to fall usless it was told that, it was going to fall. after all no other steel framed building in the history of the world had fallen, due to fires. therefore one can only come to the conclusion that either (a) wtc was intentionally brought down by pre planned explosives(which would require weeks of prep work and knowledge of 911 in advance?) or (2) the BBC took it opon themselves to second guess that steel framed highrise buildings were FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY going to collapse due to fire damage.
so to sum up its obvious that the (media section)of the cospirators got their wires crossed (sorry about the pun) and released their media control statement too early to (plants) in the foreign media like the BBC. PEOPLE SHOULD WAKE UP AND REALISE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE TRUE LINKS TO PROVING THAT MORE WAS GOING ON THAT DAY THAN WE ARE BEING TOLD ABOUT(THANKS TO MEDIA COMPLICITY)

  • 282.
  • At 02:06 PM on 30 Mar 2007,
  • Joe wrote:

The ministry of newspeak called. The word culpable will be removed from the lexicon and your memory. Please push it through the pnumatic tube on your left. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. ..end of message INGSOC.

  • 283.
  • At 12:49 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Victor wrote:

I have to say I feel very sorry for Mr. Porter right now. He probably watched the BBC's conspiracy files excuse for a documentary on 9/11, and actually BELIEVED the implications about the 9/11 truthers being a small group of eccentrics with no factual basis to go on.
This isn't the flat earth society Mr. Porter. As you can now see, your patronising and authoritarian response was totally out of place, and insulting to far more people than you were led to believe.
Heres some advice for you Mr Porter. Don't trust what the BBC has to say about 9/11, go online and find out for yourself.

You should have thought twice before dismissing the Jane Standley report as one of the many outrageous COINCIDENCE THEORIES concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.

  • 284.
  • At 02:42 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

Come on people...

Any reader considering this situation who has NOT already embraced a conspiracy outlook can see the likely explanation... disorganization and chaos.

I'd like to hear more from BBC, but for pity's sake.. if there is a conspiracy skilled enough to down 3 WTC buildings without a shred of evidence nor a single whistle-blower, how and why did "they" pump out phony press releases BEFORE the collapse of WTC 7? If you are going to blow the building up, fine, why issue a press release? All the worlds media are watching anyway? That's silly.

And if BBC is a conspirator, why report a collapse while standing in front of the building? What purpose does that serve?

Try this instead: Someone screwed up. Across emergency radio lines, on systems that were failing, somebody reported seeing WTC buckling and collapsing, ready to fall over. After an adult version of the game of "telephone" somebody mis-reports that WTC7 has already collapsed.. while standing in front of the building.

Can I prove it? Of course not, but I can't prove the Holocaust happened either. But a reasonable assessment of the evidence indicates it did.
We need to question our press and our governements about their actions (Iraq!) but senseless conspiracy theories only encourage extremists and bigots to hate.

  • 285.
  • At 07:08 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

Archie McTernan 272. No--I think you SHOULD read all the enties here--your far too trusting and naive to base your conclusions on such flimsey supposition ! PC.

  • 286.
  • At 07:11 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

No 266 Just go back to sleep eh?

  • 287.
  • At 07:21 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Arif wrote:

Well this is truly an interesting debate hot nowdays. Actually to be honest, when I think about the 9/11 tragedy, I get suspecious too. At first I used to rebuff all my oponents that the 9/11 tragedy was a staged drama, but now when I think about one thing I am left puzzled myself. Howcome that such a strong building, which is made with scientific calculations and have tons of much more capacity than it is designed for, that when an aeroplane struck it and was hanging right at the top of the building, the building started to collapse after half an hour? why? The plane was stuck at the top of the building and the building had the capacity to bear much more load than a small aeroplane stuck in it! Why did the building started to collapse from the base? Can anyone answer this in a scientific and sensible way? I would really appreciate it.

  • 288.
  • At 09:26 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Lozzevie wrote:

This issue is still ongoing....If we keep adding to this blog, hopefully "SOMEONE" with the ability to do an honest/"UNBIASED" evaluation of "ALL" the evidence will produce a television programme that can be properly evaluated by the public. Till then...blog on...

  • 289.
  • At 09:28 PM on 31 Mar 2007,
  • Rinse wrote:

>>how could bbc have known that wtc 7 was going to fall unless it was told that, it was going to fall.

Well, you said it correctly: the news came out that it was going to fall.

More than an hour before the collapse the NYFD feared that it would and cleared the area.
CNN reported that, and BBC mistakingly thought that it had already collapsed..

  • 290.
  • At 03:45 AM on 01 Apr 2007,
  • Cindy wrote:

As a US citizen I am very disappointed to see BBC not standing up and providing more information about this error in their reporting and in fact defending it. I had given up all of my US-based media links (CNN, MSNBC) and had started to look to the BBC for solid news coverage about what is happening in my own country. I am sad to learn that BBC appears to be a sad excuse for a news agency as well. Just ask Jane where she got the information about the collapse! Just provide us with backed reporting! You shouldn't have to receive 276 comments to make you do what you should be doing anyway.

  • 291.
  • At 12:23 AM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • Ferruchi wrote:

How about a serious response to the BBC WTC7 "pre-collapse" broadcast?
The response here is so convoluted and incredulous as to undermine the trust of the BBC in general.

Responses like this remind me of my (unfortunate) president, Mr Bush, who consistently misses (and convolutes) the point entirely.

As has been oft repeated, it's not the point that the BBC was or was not involved in a conspiracy. It's that information and documentation exist (such as your broadcast) that grossly contradict the official story.
In this case, specifically, that WTC7 was knowingly "scheduled" to come down.
Yet the BBC, and most other "official" sources choose to follow the US govt's suspect explanation.

As a US citizen, I offer my apologies (for the very little that it's now worth).

  • 292.
  • At 08:25 AM on 02 Apr 2007,
  • simon wrote:

It hasn't gone away has it, bbc?

And although you/'they' can keep it from being properly and openly reported in the Main Stream Media, so many of 'us' know or suspect, that it's not going to go away.

Even if you shut down the 'net.

Today, tomorrow or ten years down the line heads will roll, and it's the little people that get sent to the wall first.

Do yourselves a favour bbc. turn yourselves in while you've still got the chance.

  • 293.
  • At 05:30 AM on 04 Apr 2007,
  • R Lea wrote:

You all say this, but i bet you dont stop watching BBC programs :)

Personally im not too bothered, i wouldnt expect them to hold onto information like who gave the word that a building fell in a newsroom where noone really seemed to know what they were doing. Im sure the whole news team was doing their best to report on the incident in question, but in that kind of hectic situation, i can forgive a few reporting mistakes.

PS no, i am not an accomplice to a conspiracy. im only saying that because these days it doesnt seem to take a lot to be accused.

  • 294.
  • At 02:56 PM on 04 Apr 2007,
  • Rye wrote:

The American People DEMAND that you release the source of this information.

I'm telling you. It had better be good!

  • 295.
  • At 11:37 PM on 04 Apr 2007,
  • jonathan spratt wrote:

The BBC governers should be convening an emergency meeting on these blogs as it is obvious that sytematic brainwashing propaganda is at the heart of BBC news on this issue. The mass media silence on the biggest provable hoax of the modern era is easy to achieve as 4-5 people control the lot. 10,000 doctors March on London & Glasgow & this only made a few bulletins on Channel 4....complete BBC silence yet again.

Richard, SOURCE PLEASE for this astonishing news item

  • 296.
  • At 11:19 AM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • Vic wrote:

In many years time our children will be taught in their history classes about small political group that took over a democracy, violated the constitution, attacked its own people, started a war over a false flag operation, and yet the world took years to see past the propaganda and lies.

Hangon... sounds like something I was taught when I was in school.

the BBC have made it clear where they stand. This will not be forgotten.

  • 297.
  • At 05:58 PM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • LJ wrote:

I trust that maybe on the fly the BBC will do so much better next time.

  • 298.
  • At 10:08 PM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • norwegian wrote:

Mr Porter :

I have read every single post here. Don't you feel a bit lonely? Maybe all the responses here are the work of an armada of "tinfoil-hat-wearing-nutjobs" as anyone questioning the official 911 fairytale is usually labeled?

Seriously : I must commend the BBC for documenting - on live TV - that WTC7 was CLEARLY NOT ENGULFED IN FLAMES, not even 15 minutes before its perfect, symmetrical, 6.5sec collapse.

If you, Mr Porter, can solve for us the mystery of how ANYONE could have possibly predicted THE COMPLETE COLLAPSE of a 47-story STEEL STRUCTURE with some damage on ONE SIDE caused by falling debris - and how these could trigger any uncontainable fire - you will earn a place in history.

That is the whole point.

If you are a serious journalist,Mr Porter, please take the time to read the entire NIST report - accessible to anyone on the web - and form for yourself an opinion on this matter.

And then get back to us - do not evade this most important question of our era - although I sense you will do just that.

I respect you for not having closed down this blog yet.

Regards

Simon Shack

  • 299.
  • At 11:20 PM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • norwegian wrote:

Having read all the above posts yet again (yes, I'm studying this - I am a reporter for a major newsletter), I think I can sum up the general demands of the overwhelming majority of this forum's community.

I must say I feel a little sorry for Richard Porter. That doesn't mean he hasn't got a distinct, unavoidable responsibility : Richard, please ask Jane Standley to dig into her memory and answer THE crucial question. WHO gave her the report of the imminent/definitive collapse of WTC7?

She MUST remember who gave her that information that afternoon - clinging to justifications such as the 'fog of war' and 'the day's confusion' is utterly unconvincing.

During my career, I've been dispatched in 11 different countries, and I recall every single source of information for much lesser events than 9/11.

Do it, Richard.

And let us know.

  • 300.
  • At 11:26 PM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • Cameron wrote:

Had you simply left it at: "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."
Had you simply left it at that, then your innocence would have been probable, but...lost the tapes? You no longer have the 9/11 footage?

  • 301.
  • At 01:29 AM on 06 Apr 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Am I dreaming all this?

Could I dream that I am pinching myself in a dream to see if I am awake?

THIS STORY IS B+I+Z+A+R+R+E AND THE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE CATASTROPHIC FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD WHEN THE PENNY DROPS!

... And it WILL!

  • 302.
  • At 01:34 AM on 06 Apr 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

JANE STANDLEY:

TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!
TELL US YOUR SOURCE!

  • 303.
  • At 05:48 PM on 06 Apr 2007,
  • Peter Offen wrote:

Well, as the saying goes: 'The truth always comes out in the end'. If you are UK based, send a leter expressing your concerns to your MP regarding the BBC and their lame explanantions.

What was said from tape:
"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Centre, right there in this financial capital," states the anchor Gavin Estler.

  • 304.
  • At 01:35 AM on 07 Apr 2007,
  • Casey wrote:

Who are you going to Believe? The guy on the TV or your lying eyes?

  • 305.
  • At 04:47 AM on 07 Apr 2007,
  • Jesper Mejrup wrote:

The following link shows BBC's policies regarding backup of media content:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_ management_policy_overview.htm

  • 306.
  • At 10:20 AM on 07 Apr 2007,
  • kay bee wrote:


dont talk
man

you are only making it worse

you cant even see what they are
asking you in plain sight

resign and sleep
all you did was prove
you dont get logic, and
cant explain anything

  • 307.
  • At 04:27 PM on 07 Apr 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

MORE AND MORE AND MORE PATHETIC, BBC!


THE LONGER YOU LEAVE IT THE WORSE IT WILL GET!

THE SOURCE ... PLEASE?

S+O+U+R+C+E!!!


How rightfully PROUD the BBC was ... ONCE!

... NOW A SHAMBLES!

  • 308.
  • At 11:47 PM on 07 Apr 2007,
  • simon hytten wrote:


Dear Sirs,

I may suggest one simple way to 'make amends' for this (in your words)'cock-up' which, clearly, has disturbed and continues to disturb a lot of people. Indeed, I don't see how the BBC would/could evade responding to what undeniably seems to be a pressing, distinct majority of unsatisfied BBC viewers (even allowing for the assumption that, on this blog, 'conspiracy theorists' would naturally outnumber believers of the official Bin Laden theory).

I feel compelled to remind to all and sundry that the news story of the astounding collapse of WTC7, is probably the most under-reported historical event of recent times. To back up this allegation, I would say that max 50% of western citizens have even heard of it - and I'm stretching this figure to the absolute limits of my beliefs. In other words, I would not be surprised if a scientific poll would put this figure closer to 20%, i.e only 2 out of 10 would respond 'YES' to the following query : "Did you know that a third, 47-story building - not hit by any airplane - collapsed in New York City on Sept11 2001?"

So, to get back to my suggestion, I believe the BBC would amply re-establish its credibility on this particularly controversial issue by airing a comprehensive debate centered on the WTC7 collapse.

This debate could be attended by representatives of NIST(the National Institute of Standards and Technology,which issued the official scientific analysis of the WTC7 collapse) and top scientists/structural engineers with conflicting views on the subject.

This potential prime-time feature would combine, it is fair to say, the merits of divulging a little-known historical fact with excellent audience ratings.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion on this topic.

My findings: The area had been been cleared beforehand, as it was suspected the building was going to go. The souce of the original reports came from firefighters and were then reported in various US media and filtered to the BBC.

MY conclusion: It's far easier to believe that these reports were fed through to the BBC and misinterpreted along the way in the madness of that day...

(Reporter: "Details are VERY, VERY sketchy...")...

than it is to believe that conspirators "fed information early," rather than simply allow it to happen, then let reporters pick up on and report it naturally.

My Question: Why would a conspirator do that? :-0

  • 310.
  • At 07:02 AM on 08 Apr 2007,
  • John Smith wrote:

I am totally amazed at the lack of research, thought and reasoning ability shown by a lot of people, leading them to join the flocks of sheep who are shepherded by every word of the conspiracy theorists.

  • 311.
  • At 04:19 PM on 08 Apr 2007,
  • Henrik wrote:

To Rinse:

They THOUGHT that the building had already collapsed? They were about to broadcast LIVE and didn't bother to make ONE phonecall in order to confirm that the building actually had collapsed? It was a 47 story building...not a newsstand.

No way...this story stinks to high heaven and I don't believe anything can make this look good.

  • 312.
  • At 04:33 PM on 08 Apr 2007,
  • zizyphus wrote:

I live in the country formerly called the land of the free and home of the brave. In my life I have witnessed the gradual erosion of our constitutional rights and the increase in executive power along with the emergence of a dominant international corporate class.

People wishing to understand the 911 events should first begin by researching the history of the CIA.

  • 313.
  • At 03:06 AM on 09 Apr 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

So let me get this straight...

nobody told you in advance that building 7 was going to collapse?

If you reported a building colapse before it happened,then its nothing more than an error?

Two more questions...

what type of fools do you take the public for?

is there any room left for journalists in propaganda driven mass media?


  • 314.
  • At 07:57 AM on 09 Apr 2007,
  • Susan Kipping wrote:

9-11 was an inside job. The American media has helped cover this up. I would hope the BBC would care enough to investigate, but than what other countries do you think were in on this. Who do you think runs America? Not the citizens. Follow the money. The 9-11 truth seekers must never give up until the whole story is told. Until then, freedom and democracy in the United States is over.
If you haven't noticed, you haven't been paying attention. Anyone that attacks us for asking questions can no longer think for themselves. Those people are afraid of the truth or cannot handle it.

  • 315.
  • At 06:41 PM on 09 Apr 2007,
  • Christian wrote:

It may be an "error" to mix up names of affected persons in a news cast.

Casting the news before the event had occured is simply - impossible. No error in there.

So, whoever gave notice to BBC about what happens at _that_very_moment_ the BBC is casting a live chat with their representative who has the not yet collapsed building behind her back for minutes along is the one who mixed up the plot, not the BBC. But let me cite from the footage available at favorite places in the internet:

4:57PM: We´ve got some news just coming in actually... the Solomon Building _has_just_collapsed...We got now word yet on casualties...

Repeated three minutes later in the news cast. So, as it was casted as a fact, no we heard, no there are rumors...

So, with one thing you are absolutely right: It was an error, but not yours. It was your news source that was simply not synchronized.

So, the only question worth talking about is:

Who/What was the source for that news on that day?

Answer it and you can have your honour back.

  • 316.
  • At 04:06 AM on 10 Apr 2007,
  • Richie wrote:

Was this story covered on the main site? or the TV? if not why? its a glareing Gaffe.

Yes, yes explanations of some things, but not the ACTUAL question being asked - who told the BBC the building had collapsed, and especially HOW and WHY it collpased!
How could anyone know HOW and WHY it collpased when it took FEMA a year to come to the SAME conlcusion! Why did Fema take so long, if someone already knew?!

WHO TOLD THE BBC?

  • 318.
  • At 06:52 PM on 10 Apr 2007,
  • jm wrote:

It seems fishy to me that the live broadcast, showing WTC7 standing in the background as the BBC reports that it has collapsed, is miraculously interrupted/disconnected just minutes before the actual collapse. Where is the rest of the footage from that broadcast? Even though the broadcast cut out, that doesn't mean the footage wasn't taken.

Or is this why the BBC has allegedly "lost" the footage?

Sickening!

BBC must come clean now. Fess up, tell us the source of the info and in doing so, you might salvage your reputation.


  • 319.
  • At 11:08 AM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • neil wrote:

I expected and hoped for some better explanations from BBC.
This is truely a big step backwards for millions of people in the world that still hope that 911 ressearch will prove that it is not a inside crime.
BBC, back us up with some facts we can believe. Your comments just create more frustration.

  • 320.
  • At 12:06 PM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • Stone wrote:

Funny explainations... I got one for you that would been almost believeble if BBC would have come up with it instead of what Mr Porter wrote.

Lets say that the newsanchor and the studio was not at this place with such a super view over Manhattan and the fallen towers but infact in a regular studio. Behind the reporter is a blue screen where BBC projected a filmed sequence from point-zero. To make this possible they had to use a earlier shot film and screen it onto the bluescreen to make the hole thing look "Live" and "on spot reporting". When the reporter says "WTC 7 has also been reported to have fallen" it accually had fallen. But of course on the piece of film on the bluescreen it was still there.

Tadaa!

  • 321.
  • At 04:50 PM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • Frasier wrote:

"If you haven't noticed, you haven't been paying attention. Anyone that attacks us for asking questions can no longer think for themselves. Those people are afraid of the truth or cannot handle it."

I love this style of argument. It is hilariously loaded. "If you disagree with me you are afraid of the truth". No actually, we're not. The vast majority of the people on this planet disagree with you because your own theories do not explain how the government have tried to keep this hushed up, but yet a couple of students in a bed sit managed to undo their attempts.

If the government had all this power, do you really think they'd make it so easy to figure out that a couple of paranoid internet websites could "discover" what happened? Of course not, it's pure fantasy.

Have any of you conspiracy theorists actually worked in a media organisation? Because it's funny; a conspiracy theory always makes everyone who believes it an expert. "That wouldn't have happened!" they cry. Really? How the hell would you know?

  • 322.
  • At 04:55 PM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • Sandra wrote:

I guess somebody stopped Mr. Head of News Richard Porter.
I think BBC World News are digging a hole to hide.
Say somthing BBC. It is not good enough.
Sandra, Sweden

  • 323.
  • At 10:28 PM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

It's kind of odd that he never mentions the words "Building 7", or "WTC Building 7", or "WTC 7", so that people will not actually look into what the building was.

Perhaps Michael Grade (Winogradsky) ex chairman of the board of governors of the BBC now with ITV knows the whereabouts of the missing BBC archived video tapes from September 11th 2001? Contact him at ITV and ask ... He'll probably tell you the Muppets pinched them!

308
No blue screen!
Ho Ho!

  • 326.
  • At 04:18 PM on 16 Apr 2007,
  • Mark Shuttleworth wrote:

Can you please look into telling us what sources were used? You may not have access to detailed info on the particular source used to obtain this 'report' on building 7 but you should be able to find out a list of those who were used.

We could then try to work our way back along the chain.

  • 327.
  • At 07:39 AM on 18 Apr 2007,
  • Dave Burton wrote:

These conspiracy nuts apparently think the reporter is standing in front of a window. Actually, she's standing in front of a video screen, of course, which is (obviously) showing footage that was previously recorded.

But the conspiracy nuts are not just idiots. They are also shamefully dishonest, as, for example, when they add their false timestamps to the clip, and claim that the report was broadcast before it actually was.

-Dave Burton
dave at burtonsys dot com

  • 328.
  • At 08:49 AM on 18 Apr 2007,
  • Prasad wrote:

Hi ,

I am sure that there is a much more rational explanation from BBC. Looks like after 5-1/2years they have either really lost their tapes or just cant recollect from where they got the information from? So they are not willing to accept their failure in keeping track of their information flow. Also it could be that the reporter is not quite familiar with the geographics of the area and she just reported what she was fed with. Anyway, journalism seems to be a shark fight these days ... and at moments after 9/11 BBC seems to have gone on with reporting the information that it got without really verifying it. Which still leaves the point open ... did someone really know about it before? I think, there is a chance, after watching so many movies/documentaries favouring a conspiracy twist including Michael Moore !

  • 329.
  • At 02:37 PM on 22 Apr 2007,
  • Vladimir G. wrote:

Dear,Mr Porter
Some folks instead you already record the streaming video of your program.

Can't you agree that recordings are TRUE ..

If Ms Standley "unsurprisingly, doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said" what a better chans to see herself then to watch these records and remember. If she doesn't agree with something she say she can justify herself at least by saying who encourage her to talk such a things.

The conspiracy theories do not support the truth- The FACTS DO!!!
SHAME ON bbc

  • 330.
  • At 06:15 PM on 22 Apr 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Only 3 steel fame buildings have ever collapsed due to "fire", all at the same place in new york on 9/11. I find it hard to believe that the BBC would make a "mistake" about such an unlikely event before its actual collapse! I wonder what the probability of that happening is?

  • 331.
  • At 09:26 AM on 23 Apr 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

So the source was? ... Is the question and its answer SO complicated and outrageous that we will NEVER receive a reply?

Here is REAL madness ... and REALLY sinister implcations!

  • 332.
  • At 01:53 AM on 24 Apr 2007,
  • Ian.hughes.btv@itv.com wrote:

328 post OVERWHELMINGLY on the conspiracy side.

Hmmm. I know people need to cling to something, you know, out of a need for belonging, but I just cant help feeling so sorry for these people.

Your deluded! Honestly! What you believe is just rediculous and insane.

Why oh why oh why would you believe that the government tells the truth? Why would you believe that the clandestine services of America and Britain would not want war with no end?
The only way to control the population is by maling them fear something. TERROR!
It started with volcanoes, then earthquakes then the Sun then religion now... TERROR!

I know it's nice in the cotton wool of denial but really, if yu don't step up to te mark soon... GAME OVER.

  • 333.
  • At 07:38 PM on 24 Apr 2007,
  • Marco L wrote:

Hi!

Why new comments are not appearing to these threads?

BR
Marco

  • 334.
  • At 06:25 PM on 25 Apr 2007,
  • 911building7 wrote:

I want to make a complaint about our intelligence being insulted, with this very short, quick and pathetic explanation from the author. It is reasonable to say the incident is very suspicious, and it is more suspicious when the BBC refuses to answer any more questions and act like they are insulted from people who have reason to inquire more on this matter.

  • 335.
  • At 05:28 AM on 26 Apr 2007,
  • eric tull wrote:

It's amazing how the denial works for these BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS in an effort to stay in their immediate comfortable fluffy bunny world. Your spin is showing.
Jane Standley is standing in front of a window, look at the reflection to her right. Is that a TV screen too? Not only that but CNN also put out the same press release actually before the BBC did. It's just that CNN had the good sense to check out what was clearly a pre-scripted text coming out of a news agency. The BBC didn't check it out.

If anyone thinks we are going to drop this ball, think again.

Who gave you that premature press report? Stop weaseling BBC and come out of the closet.

  • 336.
  • At 12:25 AM on 27 Apr 2007,
  • Andreas Levinson wrote:

There is one possible way the BBC could have got this wrong. I remember hearing on quite a number of tv stations on 9-1-1 about buildings that were in the near vicinity and had been scoped as ready to collapse, or in the process of collapsing.

It could be that a BBC researcher mistook this information to mean 'has collapsed', or 'is collapsing'.

It is unlikely that a news station would reveal their own lie, by showing the screen shot of the still standing WTC7.

I am not a fan of the BBC and believe they have many issues with very bias reporting but this is not one of them.

  • 337.
  • At 02:41 AM on 27 Apr 2007,
  • Aadrien wrote:

"As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Excuse me sir, such a comment does not inspire much confidence in you're statement.
What of the chain of people preparing the segment?
This was a few hours after the most panicked moments of the day, why would such a mistake happen in the midst of the otherwise calm reporting in the preceeding minutes?
Who told Jane Standley to go with this breaking news at the site where her live feed was?
Legitimate questions you have failed to answer.

  • 338.
  • At 11:18 AM on 27 Apr 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Richard Porter's flip and condescending reply - which reflects badly on BBC journalism - riled many of us. Presumably, Porter believed he was addressing a rag-tag bunch of tin-foil wackos who believe Elvis killed JFK before taking off in a UFO. Instead, Porter came up against the growing number of rational, tax-paying citizens who raise valid questions about glaring 911 anomalies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the 90-minute NORAD air defence stand-down on 911 amounted to full unilateral disarmament. Seeing as 911 is the cornerstone of massive illegal war and state-sanctioned Islamophobia that threatens world peace, there is a frustrated call for media to take a closer look at that catalyzing event. For the BBC to host a broad panel of physicists, engineers, fighter pilots and demolition experts would be more appropriate than holding up an 'X-Files' narrative spinner as an expert on 911, as the BBC did in its 911 mockumentary. I wonder if the BBC understands quite how badly this episode has dented its 'apparent' journalistic integrity.


  • 339.
  • At 05:53 PM on 30 Apr 2007,
  • James Horan wrote:

I find it absolutely rediculous, absurd, wholey incredible that the BBC did not save it's footage of 9/11. Please, that is rediculous on it's face. This age of data bases absolutley precludes that a news organization as big and pervasive as the BBC would not save it's own footage from one the most infamous days in history. This is beyond incredible; it lacks credibility completely. Come on!!!

The Salomon Bulding, World Trade Center 7, was taken down by controlled demolition. How did BBC World know in advance that this was going to happen to wtc 7? It's too obvious. Explain where the informstion came from, the names. Then it is possible to track the source chain. Thank you.

  • 341.
  • At 02:35 AM on 01 May 2007,
  • Dan Noel wrote:

Jimmy Jones (#268) makes an excellent point: a perfectly miscalculated cover-up would be well in line with the BBC’s widely respected tradition of worshipping truthful reporting, and could earn the BBC some well-deserved recognition as light slowly pierces the fog of the 9/11 mysteries. BBC employees would be on par with the few (or many?) 9/11 conspirators who bravely left a kilometric track behind their involvement under the pretense of “making mistakes.” Who knows how much longer the official fairytale would have lasted had 9/11 gone flawlessly?

Not all public servants and contractors involved in 9/11 deserve firing or prison. Some of them deserve gratitude for their courage. Let’s hope that they get it in due time!

Love,

  • 342.
  • At 06:36 AM on 01 May 2007,
  • Frank Santos wrote:

I'm not going to bother with debunking any facts about WTC7, because they'll probably cause the conspiracy theorists (oh sorry, I forgot they're "truth-telling freedom fighters representing the people") to mob up and discredit them as government-propagated disinformation.

Even if a majority of people believe there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 (a very vague question in itself), they'll still quabble with each other as to its little details and variations. If the people really got their wish to have an open inquiry, each variation would be used against each other and ultimately discredit the entire movement.

Generally speaking though, the people who want us to "wake up" and "inquire" and ultimately see that their side of the story is right are using the exact same tactics that they accuse the government of using. That they want people to ignore any counterpoints to their "truth" is indicative not of the democracy they purportedly want to have but of a populist mob mentality reminiscent of Stalin-era show trials, and that's not counting all the insults against the persons they argue against.

They say they want answers, but the only answers they won't ignore whoever they're asking it from are the answers they want to hear, because it's more comforting (nay, appeasing). Anything ELSE - even if it really is the truth - is clearly just a government-fed lie to them and should be ignored.

Finally, they cap their preaching by saying that people should do their own research...but by then they've already played on their target audience's emotions enough to convince them that they shouldn't even bother to look at the other side of the equation.

All that can be summarized in the word doublethink, from the definitive book about Big Brother.

These "truth-seekers" are about as unfaithful to the principles of true democracy as they say the government is. The only real difference is that people believe their "facts" more since it's NOT the government saying it, and it's hard to trust a government that lied to them about Iraq.

So the BBC made a mistake. So what. I've seen other networks make typos or even omit titles on their captions and tickers, even their reporting. Doesn't mean that they suck at journalism. You get wrong data, you correct it. Don't like what you're reading? Don't tune into the channel/radio/website. Simple.

But apparently, the people who want us to wake up can't realize that when someone makes a "cock-up" as Mr. Porter complains, sometimes it really is that simple.

Sometimes even nobody could be right, but that's a lot harder to see when nobody likes to admit they're wrong.

But to the "truth-seeking" crowd, you can denounce everything I just said as government lies and propaganda, deep down you'll only prove the real bearers of the truth right, regardless of their stance for or against the government.

Happy May Day.

  • 343.
  • At 01:02 PM on 01 May 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Dear sirs,

as you know my e-mail address, and I am a License Fee payer could you please explain your censorship policies in relation to these posts as I have, personally, been rejected repeatedly without ever using inappropriate language or dealing with anything other than facts.

Yours more in hope than expectation,

Chris Taylor.

  • 344.
  • At 02:04 PM on 01 May 2007,
  • Bryan wrote:

An alternate theory to consider for the collapse of WTC7, which has no evidence to support it - although the same could be said for the many other theories being espoused:

Could it be that WTC7 was built with second-rate materials as a cost-cutting exercise, with the money saved being skimmed to line the pockets of some as yet unknown Mr Big. This would explain the ease with which the building collapsed whilst other, better-constructed ones have remained standing despite receiving more damage.

Following the arguments of many conspiracists I have read, unless you are able to provide irrefutable proof that what I have said is wrong, it MUST be the truth...

  • 345.
  • At 03:25 AM on 02 May 2007,
  • Don Barone wrote:

Dear Richard.

I hate to repeat what has been said but how on earth could you possible lose the tapes from 9/11 ? A cock-up ? I am from Canada what exactly does this mean ?

You have been asked several times but have failed to answer us. What wire feed told her that the buidling has fallen ? Oh yeah you lost your notes ... Please ! Surely you jest.

Sir this is the most pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable I have ever witnessed. You have made a mockery of the BBC and what it used to stand for with this ridiculous attempt at appeasing Washington.

Now for the last time I don't care how confusing it was as we were all witnessing the events as it happenned. Where did she get the feed !

  • 346.
  • At 10:55 AM on 02 May 2007,
  • Mbutfo wrote:

Any bets on how long before the BBC break their silence?
Probably not until the full independant inquiry into 9/11, which is being avoided at all costs by those in power.
It is bad enough that the governments ignore us, but it is tragic that even the BBC are too scared to stand up for the truth, simply because it doesnt comply with the bigger agenda.
We are told we are in a democracy, but we are not a free people,our voices do not matter. Instead we are conditioned to fear a government sponsored enemy while the wealthy and wicked make their millions by starting wars based on WMD lies, which would be called a "conspiracy theory" to this day if the government really needed to keep the lie going for longer than a few months.

  • 347.
  • At 10:57 AM on 05 May 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

STILL no answers?

... Ignoring THOUSANDS of complaints? ... That is what the BBC has come to.

WHAT A DISGRACE ON THIS ONCE PRESTIGIOUS NAME!

YES! ... The BBC IS "Part of the conspiracy" ...

... YOU said it, Richard Porter; the silence is self-evident!

  • 348.
  • At 01:18 PM on 06 May 2007,
  • Sam Walls wrote:

Who do we pay licence fees to fund an organization that covers for mass murderers?

  • 349.
  • At 10:48 PM on 06 May 2007,
  • andi wrote:

Good to see this tread continuing.Seems we are all in agreement bar a few misinformation peddlers,the 'official 9/11 conspiracy theory is basically unbelievable.No doubt this thread will die,I will be surprised to see this post,Mr Porter you haven't put up my last three entries,why are you so scared of the 'dubunking the BBC conspiracy files documentry link?
Dosen't matter one iota what you do with this thread the 'issue' has gone 'viral','they'(with BBC help) are going to have to close down the 'free net' to gain some control now. Sadly that may happen as 'corporate/state 'intrests'will try to find a way. I'd be surprised if the BBC came out in defense of a 'free' internet when the attack comes. No doubt you lot will take the 'side' of anyone but your licence fee payers.

  • 350.
  • At 12:52 PM on 07 May 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Any bets on how many comments BBC will allow through here before this '911 Conspiracy' catch-all is shuffled off its coil? In the meantime, journalism 101 students are studying all political speeches/interviews aired on BBC on 9/11/2001 - speeches that emerged with crystal clarity out of the Manhattan fog - Jack Straw's and Ehud Barak's among them. Again, no-one is accusing the BBC of conspiring to do anything other than getting out a factual weather report. What we are saying is that trawling back through all September 2001 television archives - the BBC's among them - proves instructive indeed. No conspiracies needed.

  • 351.
  • At 08:24 AM on 08 May 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Conspiracies?
'In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.' - Franklin D Roosevelt.
'To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.' - Tony Blair, The Times, 17 July 2002.

  • 352.
  • At 08:23 AM on 09 May 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Rather than nitpicking about alleged conspiracies, I believe the BBC needs to look more closely at how it has failed to tackle the established 911 narrative that is false at so many levels. The institutionalised lies about 911 will be dismantled one after the other and serve as stark testimony to the cowardice and self-censorship of media like the BBC. One wonders whether history will judge the state broadcaster to have been a co-belligerant in the Bush-Blair wars?

  • 353.
  • At 09:25 AM on 09 May 2007,
  • merle wrote:

'(Six) years after the worst terrorist attacks in US history, the seminal event of our era is still wreathed in mystery... While this administration uses 911 as a rationale for perpetual war, we are not supposed to examine the facts surrounding it too closely.' - Justin Raimondo, US journalist.

  • 354.
  • At 04:44 PM on 09 May 2007,
  • Johnson wrote:

This comment is just to check whether the BBC really are refusing to allow this link in the comments.


http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

I was here a good while back and came back for a browse. Oh dear. Some people just cant live without a good conspiracy can they? If its a choice between cock up and conspiracy my money is on cock up every time. Seen it too often.

Seems we just cant let go of the "gunman on the grassy knoll" and need to pick away at everything. Unfortunately folks life is not neat and orderly and doesn't always fit your expectations. The conspiracists always expect to see conspiracy so guess what -- that is exactly what they see.

  • 356.
  • At 07:27 PM on 09 May 2007,
  • john wrote:

Just read this thread and the utterly abject article at its head. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I was gobsmacked to learn just now that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. That fact alone blows the "official" 911 story apart. I also note that there is no BBC resonse whatsoever to the perfectly rational questions posted here day after day for several weeks. Why no response? As for the "missing" tapes, words just fail me. Does Mr Porter think we are all complete idiots? Don't bother answering that one, Mr Porter, since the answer is obvious.

  • 357.
  • At 09:28 AM on 10 May 2007,
  • gore wrote:

Mr Porter, I wouldn't worry too much about either Jane Standley or the BBC's astoundingly bad 911 mockumentary as they are but blips on a far bigger screen. I guess the BBC will only cover the cornerstone event of the Bush-Blair Middle East wars during the full independent inquiry into 9/11, which is being avoided at all costs by those in power.
The Fourth Estate has undermined Western democracies because it is too self-censored, too cowardly to stand up for the facts and allow the chips to fall where they may.

  • 358.
  • At 12:54 PM on 10 May 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Dear Mr Porter,
We note that you conflate 911 discussion with conspiracy theory. One would expect the BBC to carefully unpack loaded words like 'conspiracy' before using them to compartmentalise public debate. More people are becoming aware of how the 'conspiracy' word gets held up like a red card to shut down debate, as well-thumbed copies of David Ray Griffin's books on 911 do the rounds. Says he: 'There are two basic theories about 9/11. Each of these theories is a "conspiracy theory." One of these is the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks of 9/11 were planned and executed solely by al-Qaeda terrorists under the guidance of Osama bin Laden....Opposing this official theory is the [sic] alternative conspiracy theory, which holds that the attacks of 9/11 were able to succeed only because they were facilitated (in some or other way) by the Bush administration (and/or) its agencies.' Among the conspiracy theories that proliferate everywhere - from Santa & The Elves to UFOs and crop circles, there are important nuggets of real research about real collusions/conspiracies to be found. Surely it's a journalistic duty to differentiate between fairy tales and official lies? Surely a media group like the BBC should investigate rather than dismiss out of hand? I wonder if you will publish this?

  • 359.
  • At 02:02 PM on 10 May 2007,
  • john wrote:

The fact that my comment of yesterday has not appeared on this blog has finally persuaded me- yes, the BBC is part of a conspiracy. Please don't invite my input if you don't intend to publish it, especially if you don't explain why it isn't being published.

This thread does not bode well for the BBC and their credibility. Richard Porter must be kidding. His attempt to explain away this amazing premonition is woefully deficient regardless of what you believe about 911. I use the word premonition because unless the BBC is hiding something, that's exactly what it was; a detailed prediction that came true moments later. Or does Mr. Potter expect us to believe that a "mistake" by his reporters can actually cause buildings to fall down?

People should think twice before relying on this network for information. You're better off using many sources from the web and elsewhere and then reaching your own conclusions.

  • 361.
  • At 10:57 AM on 15 May 2007,
  • Johnson wrote:

I wonder, would the law be able to get the name of the source?

  • 362.
  • At 07:57 AM on 18 May 2007,
  • Shaughn wrote:

Watching the footage, it is absolutely clear that the main background is a projection of older footage.
At the left side of the screen there is (as we all can see at the image with point 3 above) a view of the real background. There one can see time and again smoke blowing the opposite way of the smoke on the main background projection.

Therefore, Jane Standley must have been at place opposite to the point from where the background video was made. A place probably that did not allow a direct view tot the collapsed building(s) or at least not a better view than the projected background.

Which is a simple and logic explanation for all confusion on this subject.

  • 363.
  • At 09:32 AM on 18 May 2007,
  • Jose wrote:

If I were head of news, I would be ashamed of releasing an answer so incoherent and lacking of logical arguments to the public. It would be implying that my audience is not able to think rationally or are mentally retards. It would also imply that I am a person with lower moral that cannot stand for myself. Honestly, I would have resigned if I had to make such a declaration. I would not care even about job or money. This sucks!

  • 364.
  • At 02:10 PM on 20 May 2007,
  • Steven wrote:

There seems to be so many of these strange "coincidences" that day, the tapes were convieniently lost, all three building that collapsed were all owned by silverstein etc etc. The BBC has been caught out and can't admit it, do i believe the BBC was "in on it"? no i don't, but someone told them the building was coming down and now their denying it, and i think it's a disgrace that our two major news services (BBC and Sky) both like to discredit "conspiracy theorists", give ample news time to the bogus war on terror, and both took part in the propaganda campaign before the Iraq war. Shame on you BBC and shame on this "journalist" for trying to fob us off with an excuse worthy of Rumsfeld himself

  • 365.
  • At 03:22 PM on 20 May 2007,
  • George wrote:

If the BBC isn't "part of
the conspiracy", then what
does it have to hide? It
certainly appears as if
the beeb has SOMETHING
to hide!

  • 366.
  • At 03:52 PM on 20 May 2007,
  • Boris wrote:

Oh gawd this thread has surfaced again

Ok take off your tin foil hats and pay attention

The 2 towers were not destroyed by controlled demolition as you would have had to of installed enough demolition charges in order to destroy the buildings, and have prior knowledge of exactly where the aircraft are going to hit in order that the demolition charges are not disrupted by the crash.
The collapse of the towers was not at 'free fall' speed as the videos clearly show debris ahead of the collapse point.

Next WTC 7
The owner saus 'we gonna pull the building' so you take it they are going to demolish it...... do you really think that some demolition experts can safely lay the charges in a building thats been heavily damaged by the debris from the 2 towers plus is on fire from the fuel tanks that were ruptured?, or perhaps the charges were laid before?

Work out how many charges and how long it would take for a competent demolition company to lay the charges in 3 buildings in regular day to day use, and make sure that they are not found. plus make sure they can survive plane impact and serious fire.

Then work out how many people it would have taken, plus the number of people required to make sure the aircraft hit the towers if they were flown in by remote control.

As the more involved the conspiracy becomes re pentagon and flight 93 the numbers of people involves grows drastically until the point 'Are you sure your neighbour was'nt in on it?' which is where I believe paranoia takes over and not rational thought

  • 367.
  • At 04:06 PM on 20 May 2007,
  • Joseph wrote:

Boring, why don't the lot of you anti-American haters go away and upset some other nation?.

God, you lot make me sick with your idiotic comments and so called 'factual' statements.

As for the comments in post 460#, I think thay you should take a leaf out of your own book and start reading sites which disprove your crazy claims.

  • 368.
  • At 01:35 AM on 21 May 2007,
  • Andy S wrote:

It seems to me that whilst getting a head of steam up over the conspiracy theories, some of the contributers here may be guilty of making the evidence fit their beliefs. Come on, you seriously believe that Auntie (who leaks like a sieve) is up for a part in such an outragious fraud? I don't think so :)
Thanks....
PS - Watched Doc Martin on UKTV last night. Loved it. Thanks again.

  • 369.
  • At 10:17 PM on 21 May 2007,
  • David McCarthy wrote:

Mr Porter, are you suggesting the losing of the videos as a laughable matter?

A "cock-up" sounds very much like you want people to believe the losing of the videos is insignificant and almost makes it sound like it was a comedy error

Mr Bean makes a "cock-up" when he spills a glass of water. Losing a huge piece of evidence to what will be one of the most sought after pieces of footage and one of the biggest points in World history and you Mr Porter wants to make it seem like a routine blooper. Scandolous.

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy).

Sounds familiar. The BBC ate the chocolate and hid the wrapper.


Finally, Mr Porter, I may be 15 and achieving a B at the moment in English but I realise you need a lesson in how to speak to an audience correctly.
You are Head Of News in the BBC World section. I think you need to deflate your head a bit and maybe not try to give an answer to everything when you don't even know the answers for sure.

P.S. the "cock-up" here is you Mr Porter for inviting so much criticism.

STINKS OF CONSPIRACY

  • 370.
  • At 10:58 AM on 22 May 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Yes! ... And the SOURCE was?

This WILL be forced into the limelight eventually.
The sooner the BBC comes clean, the better.
The longer it is left, the more implicated does the BBC become.

IF the whistle is blown, Auntie will go down in history as the LIGHT which spotlighted the most heinous crime of the world's history.

If it does NOT ... The BBC and all its well-earned prestige of decades will be scorned and reviled forever.

YOU who are actually reading and moderating these postings are directly responsible for either outcome.
Make no mistake, even rejected postings here are being archived.

  • 371.
  • At 01:51 AM on 23 May 2007,
  • Ma wrote:

Dear Mr, Porter,
I note that the last comment at this time is recorded for the 15th May 2007, today it is the 23rd May 2007. Do we take it that you need some overtime to deal with his matter? Surley you could have ascertaimed the "Sauce"(!) by now!
I do hope you update that nice Mr. Rudin and his paltry effort with the latest report by Professor Jones who has ascertained that thermate has been found in dust particles from the WTC site. [see 911blogger.com]
Is that not news? No, of course not it might make the BBC look stupid and incompetent! But then again I suppose that is now not 'news', as disclosed by the circumstances of Rudin's program and your failure to give some simple answers.
Not going away is it?
MA
Australia.

  • 372.
  • At 12:15 PM on 23 May 2007,
  • Frasay wrote:

According to the original footage, which I have a copy of, the time stamp earlier in the report proves that the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, in surprising detail, long BEFORE it collapsed.
I am surprised Mr Porter can't even admit this obvious fact. Shows how little research he has done to find out the truth.
The timestamp argument completely overrides the bluescreen/video background argument, because it shows the BBC reported the collapse before it happened, regardless of what was in the background of the shot.
Notably however, the BBC are not telling us the background was a bulescreen or video.
Why are the BBC being so vague and useless? Who told the BBC AND CNN to report the collapse of building 7 before it happened?

  • 373.
  • At 11:49 AM on 24 May 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Thank you for your efforts in getting what you CAN put up on this forum before the public eye.
... At least we know that shreds of democracy can still be found in small pockets!

But for the LOVE OF GOD ...

ADDRESS the question of the source!

Just by ignoring this story it will not go away ... which is obviously what the authorities are hoping for.

Time is AUGMENTING the problem here, not diminishing it.
Alex Jones is at the head of the crusade and thousands upon thousands are beginning to fall in behind him.

SPEAK UP! BBC! That is YOUR war-cry, after all!

  • 374.
  • At 07:46 PM on 24 May 2007,
  • Ms M Vidal wrote:

Dear BBC Gatekeepers,
'It is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the World Trade Centre Building (collapse) is false.' - Dr Paul Craig Roberts, Research Fellow, Institute for Political Economy, USA.
'WTC7 was, with the utmost probability, brought down by controlled demolition done by experts'. - Dr Hugo Bachman, Engineer, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
'Although I have spoken to people who fear what will happen if the public at large finds out the truth, I believe that dismantling the 911 hoax and exposing to public view the real perpetrator is essential for salvaging democracy.' - Dr Clare Brandabur, Counterpunch contributor.
'I have come to believe, in accordance with many people who are certainly more qualified than I ... and who can in no sense of the word be regarded as conspiracy theorists, that the official 911 story is an unbelievable cover-up of a major crime against the American people and the world.' - Professor Ralph Metzner, California Institute. 'Knowing the truth has never hurt anyone. And we all know the corrupting effect of lies and deceit.' - ibid.


  • 375.
  • At 08:12 PM on 25 May 2007,
  • Johnson wrote:

I think the only reassurance that the BBC have right now is that not many people actually visit this website. Why don't we do the BBC a favour and post this link all over the place. Maybe when the comments reach the thousands Mr. Porter will finally speak.

  • 376.
  • At 12:45 AM on 26 May 2007,
  • Susan Kipping wrote:


BBC, it would have been nice to see you investigate. Maybe next time? No, I guess not.

And still you have nothing to say.

  • 377.
  • At 05:55 AM on 27 May 2007,
  • Thomas wrote:

Nearly six years after 9-11, amidst the debacle and quaqmire of the war in Iraq- and NOT ONE 'conspirator' has ever had a change of heart, and come forward.
No smoking gun = no conspiracy.
Get over it.

  • 378.
  • At 10:58 PM on 01 Jun 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

The premise is that "false flag terrorism" is a myth. - That all down the ages and across history our governments and ruling authorities have all been composed of little goody two-shoes taking us to heaven whenever they can.
I don't think it is quite like that.
Get over it.

  • 379.
  • At 03:54 PM on 02 Jun 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

So "false flag terrorist" tactics is just a make-believe invention; never ever used across the world's history down the ages?

Speaking personally, I can't really see the world from a TellyTubby perspective.
I'm sorry!

So where WAS Jane Standley's source?
Did she invent all that at her clairvoyant caprice?

  • 380.
  • At 03:57 AM on 03 Jun 2007,
  • feebas_factor wrote:

*sigh*

With the number of comments nearly exclusively berating and dissecting this explanation approaching 400, I suppose all evidence indicates that the BBC will not address this issue again. Alot of people clearly believe your explanation was wholly unsatisfactory. But though I doubt you'll ever read this, Mr. Porter, I'd like to say something too.

I will not jump to conclusions, I will not accuse the BBC of conspiracies, I will not try to highlight fallacious arguments or explanations. But I will tell you this: alot of people feel very strongly about this issue. That is more then evident. And the least a reputable station such as the BBC owes them, the least it owes all the viewers of the world, is to take their questions seriously and answer them satisfactorily.

Don't fuel the indignation and suspicion by dismissing the claims as you did; find the tapes, on YouTube if you must, and explain this properly. I ask you to do this, not for political ideals, but for what I fear journalism may have forgotten and yet we so desperately need. Please: bring little more truth to the world.

  • 381.
  • At 04:12 PM on 04 Jun 2007,
  • dennis wrote:

I believe without a doubt that 911 was an inside job. But BBC's cock up is just too unbelievable to believe. Many supporters of the official account are right when they say " if the BBC were in on it, why would they report the collapse of wtc 7 30mins early?" It doesn't make sense until one looks at it from a different angle. BBC's video clip proves absolutely nothing. It isn't an admission of guilt and would be thrown right out of court. On the other hand, what it does do is shrouds the already established hard core evidence in mystery. This cock up might very well have been intentional. A red herring to throw people off (the hard evidence). The 7 second near freefall collapse, squips seen on the top west corner, the sudden and completely symetrical drop and 700C temperatures recorded by a NASA weather satellite 5 days later are the things people need to know about wtc 7. the more mystery that surrounds an event, the more unbelievable the event becomes. Bush's comment that he saw the first plane go in the tower and Silverstein's " pull it " comment on PBS are also suspect.

  • 382.
  • At 07:26 PM on 08 Jun 2007,
  • Richard Wicks wrote:

It's true, you are only printing a very small group of letters. Why is this? Mine never showed up, and I wrote over a month ago now. This is a large issue for Americans. We now have Presidential Directive 51 because of 9/11, we are at war because of 9/11, our national debt has gone from 5.6 trillion to over 8.5 trillion because of 9/11, H1B accessibility has vastly decreased because of 9/11. It's important for us to know what is going on and what really happened on that day to justify all this garbage.

  • 383.
  • At 10:39 AM on 09 Jun 2007,
  • stan in Taiwan wrote:

I think the most shocking part of this all is the complete lack of any response on the side of the BBC to the many reaction of this amazingly unanimous crowd of contributors to this blog.

Where is the BBC? Are we talking to a wall here?

  • 384.
  • At 09:39 AM on 10 Jun 2007,
  • merle wrote:

By keeping this thread up week after week, you continue to invite comment, even after that remarkable 'ex cathedra' statement: 'there is no story here'. You do not answer these comments in any way, but that's okay as questions and theories precede answers - if one adheres to Scientific and Socratic methods. A grassroots movement posing questions and theories around 911 events has arisen precisely to fill a vacuum left by mainstream media which skipped the question stage in its entirety to hunker down around the Official Answer.
I am not so much annoyed by your lack of an answer, Mr Porter, as the circular thinking evident in your writing, ie: If we don't buy your version we must be conspiracy theorists and you don't debate conspiracy theorists. End of story. Thing is, there's sweet nothing 'Being Discussed Here Now' anyhow, as this thread has succumbed to pitiful constipation. Put it out of its misery.

  • 385.
  • At 10:52 PM on 14 Jun 2007,
  • Joy Borgia wrote:

Can you elucidate on how the original tapes were lost? And what disciplinary action (if any) was taken over this convenient incompetence?

Or is the Beeb like most other industries, where the numpties end up getting promotions?

From my experience more and more people are realising that the official story is full of holes. No alternative 'theory' is necessary, if the official one is seen to be impossible. 110 storeys pulverised in 10 seconds? Please!

See you on the way down.

  • 386.
  • At 04:36 AM on 16 Jun 2007,
  • a rational American wrote:

CNN reported earlier that WTC-7 either has or is collapsing. I think it is probable that someone got word that the structural integrity of the building had already been compromised and reported that it "is collapsing". This could easily be misinterpreted to mean that the building is coming down at the moment.

In addition, assuming that it was an inside job, what possible motive could there be for them to alert anyone in advance? Miscommunication seems much more likely.

  • 387.
  • At 09:35 AM on 17 Jun 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

This story will NOT go away!

The longer the BBC puts off addressing this SHOCKING issue, the more harm to its prestige will ensue!
- It's a mathematical equation!

  • 388.
  • At 10:40 PM on 19 Jun 2007,
  • Christian wrote:

Mr Porter,

What is the source that provided the information that 7 WTC had collapsed due to fire? Even the NIST, after years of investigation and millions in taxpayers dollars, have yet to determine a cause for 7 WTC unprecedented collapse.

All that hot air and you still refuse to answer the simple question, what was the source of your information?

  • 389.
  • At 01:29 PM on 20 Jun 2007,
  • Benedict wrote:

I'm reading this with awe : Ladies & Gentlemen, from now on the walls in the room are GREEN, the paintbucket has however BLUE on the can and so: The walls in the room are painted RED. This is postmodernism pur sang. Congrats BBC. => Who gave you the news about the event? Associated Press? GNA? Reuter? Where? Where? Where? and who was the scripter that found chance getting influence to make you guys report including scripted banner bottomscreen - - who approved? Who verified first? Daah! AMAZING!

  • 390.
  • At 06:21 AM on 21 Jun 2007,
  • Robbie wrote:

HAHAHA BBC Got OWNED!

Try covering this one.

  • 391.
  • At 09:16 AM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • merle wrote:

My biggest beef is the BBC's indignation at being seen as part of'the conspiracy'(sic) by some website.(a) ignore the alien/ufo/lizard website and (b) be transparent enough to spell out exactly WHICH conspiracy you feel you've been falsely accused of, as there are a lot of them out there. In the meantime, people everywhere have the right to resist being labelled "conspiracy theorists". Aside from being ad hominem attacks, they merely label. Bush "theories", meanwhile, insult the intelligence of everyone with the most absurd official conspiracy theories to ever come down the pike. If"conspiracies" did not exist, most crimes would be petty except perhaps murder and egregious assaults. Conspiracies are rather common. The law books are full of them. Google or Findlaw the word "conspiracy". You will find at least 200 years of precedent and case law having to do with "conspiracies". I daresay most crime is conspiratorial in nature. Even Bush felt constrained to posit the existence of a vast conspiracy -al Qaeda! Why are Bush theories -full of logical inconsistencies and misstatements of fact- given a free pass, while critical analysis of such theories is sidelined out of mainstream discourse into peripheral blogs?

  • 392.
  • At 05:35 PM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • Susan Kipping wrote:

The people will have to bring the truth out. All the people that have doubts
one way or another must keep an open dialog with each other. The media is not going to help. The truth of 9/11 must be told for all the world to hear. Millions know it was an inside and outside job. Those who pulled this off need to be held accountable. I am sorry that the BBC did not investigate. I find that a sad situation, but the people must stay focused and united.

  • 393.
  • At 11:59 PM on 23 Jun 2007,
  • Matt Walker wrote:

Your explanation is almost as pathetic as the fact that you jumped the gun on the information you were given; that World Trade Center 7 was going to collapse. It is more than obvious that you misread the information you were given. Millions of people know you are a joke. We're not saying you were IN on it, but in order to gain back the credibility you once had, we need the source. Do some investigative journalist work. Prove you care about news and truth instead of bullshit propaganda... or remain a third tier bullshit hackjob machine of nothing.

  • 394.
  • At 12:34 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Just curious... Why are you killing the plethora of different opinion flowing in to these blog threads? Remember that quaint concept - the democratic free flow of information? It's clear to many of us that there's a backlog here - one would like to think it's due to a technical hitch as the BBC struggles to modernise, but it comes across as garden variety gatekeeping.
At the moment the only sign of life from mainstream journalism comes from Dorothy Byrne,
Head of news and current affairs, Channel 4: 'Impartiality is journalism for scared people. We've got to go out and find passionate, angry, exciting, interesting people and we've got to somehow get their views on to the screen so other people can hear them. We mustn't be in the way. We're not there to mediate.'

  • 395.
  • At 03:13 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • John L. Wilson wrote:

What are you people actually saying, BBC asside? You believe that my government (U.S.) actually created this event or allowed it to happen. I cannot and will not believe it. There is a conspiracy though. It's a growing Islamist extremist movement grown out of a cult religion that's been allowed to fester. We Americans may have created them in our earnst to stop the Russians. We neglected the very people who are now threatening civilization. It's our fault for abandonning them, but it's not a global conspiracy on our part.

Islamist extremist want to stop everything they see as offensive: like women wearing pants, having a job, saying no, people singing and dancing and having fun, saying Mohammed is not the prophet, drawing pictures of Mohammed (cult leader). Basically they want to take away the freedom of all British citizens and make you follow a flawed document called the Quaran. You should be directing all your energies against this, instead of the BBC.

You are in severe danger by seeking hatred in things that don't really deserve it. Help give those desperate people who turn to this sort of thing (terrorism) a reason to be productive and do something else. In your own way your helping fuel their hatred. Think of solutions, act. Don't believe in the worst.

  • 396.
  • At 07:45 PM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

911 was an inside job

  • 397.
  • At 01:59 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • TruthFreedomJustice wrote:

How did Jane Standley react when she saw "another" huge building fall 5 minutes after her report?

..and..

Why didn't you immediately report a 4th building falling? You could have been the first on the story in the rush to get news out that day.

  • 398.
  • At 02:04 PM on 25 Jun 2007,
  • Spqr wrote:

Thats the best you can do to answer these very disturbing & important questions?

I want my license fee's back!!

  • 399.
  • At 12:26 AM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Sebastian Cartwright wrote:

I know that this will stand out strongly over all the other comments that are looking to see the Director-General's head on a spike, right between the heads of Mr Porter and Ms Standley, but there seem to be some glaring omissions... On the side of the conspiracy theorists.

There's no indication of the time the bulletin on YouTube went out. People have argued "BBC WORLD ONLY DOES HOURLY BULLETINS" but usually big news stories preempt other programming. Somehow, World Business Report doesn't seem that important when Wall Street's been evacuated.

"YOU CAN SEE 7 WTC IN THE BACKGROUND!" Can you? Can you really? There's a brown building, but it's the wrong shape and has the wrong windows. "BEHIND THE BROWN BUILDING! THE GREY/BLUE ONE!" Very good! Fairly accurate on the shape part... unfortunately, 7 WTC was in fact brown.

As for the missing footage, completely unsurprising. It was probably wiped and recorded over, or it's deep in the archive at Television Centre. And, no. American channels don't keep every second of footage inside of a vault. America has thousands of independent terrestrial and multichannel broadcasters. They do not have the space to keep thousands of channels footage from every second in a vault. It would also cost quite a bit. DVCAM tapes can run $10/hour, they could fill 1 TB hard drives fairly quickly at raw 640x480, and hard drives require a lot of networking infrastructure into the vault. And then you have to keep all the hard drives stable, or, if on tape, in an environment where it could never be damaged. But, if you happen to be walking through Bush House one day and find a room with all the footage the BBC has ever shown, try to find some of the missing episodes of Dr Who.

To the man who said only 3 buildings in history have collapsed from fire. How do brick houses burn down? The insides catch fire and they collapse in on themselves. Happens all the time. You need only turn on the television or open a newspaper. 7 WTC was an office building. Offices have lots of paper and lots of furniture in a small space. Excellent conditions for a fire.

And, finally, let's say that the BBC did report it early. So what. The building was evacuated. The Mayor was told "The building is going to collapse! Get out!" hours before it collapsed. Someone sees all the people shouting "NUMBER SEVEN'S GONNA COLLAPSE!", mishears, and phones the news desk with "NUMBER SEVEN COLLAPSED!" Think of all the false obituaries that are published. The Queen Mother was reported dead all the time. Alfred Nobel founded the Nobel Prize after reading his own obituary in the paper. And that's on regular news days, when the biggest news story of all time isn't taking place just outside the New York Bureau. (False obituaries not a good enough example of false reporting? How about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Haven't found those, have we?)

Let's review. The beeb was not complacent in the largest terrorist incident to date to boost ratings. The world's largest broadcaster does not have the space to save every second of footage indefinitely in a locked vault. There is no indication of the time the video circulating on the internet took place. 7 WTC is not clearly visible in the background. Buildings have burned down in the past. And mistakes do happen in news reporting. That's the entire argument blown up in smoke. (Or maybe it imploded into itself? A bit like No. 7. Such symmetry in nature.)

I'm going to have to go into an underground bunker with Mr Porter now to ensure the conspiracy junkies do not track me down and slay me.

-S Cartwright, 25 June, 2007

  • 400.
  • At 10:53 AM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • gregor Aitken wrote:

I read yesterday about twin brothers one of whom has recently been killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

The article told about his home life, how his friends had created a facebook account to persuade him and his Girlfriend to marry, as they were seen as the perfect couple. His platoon called him goldenballs because he took the same attitude to soldiering as beckham does to foorball. He had also just been given the highest mark in his year for the seargents exam. His twin brother was with him when the bomb went off and brought the body of his twin brother home to be buried.

I often blog in these pages and i more often than not don't know why. Then i read something like this and i remember.

Possibly it all to easy for you all at the BBC to forget that as you play with the truth and decide what news you should tell us that you go home to your familys whilst others live by the effects of you labour (or lack of).

BBC you could have helped prevent this young mans death, instead you are gulity of journalistic negligence allowing a sick and inhumane war continue without any desire to see it end.

This Blog is called Too much conspiracy. Well you can avoid the issue for as long as you desire but the truth will out and when it does i would love to know how you will explain your negligence to the twin brother of the dead soldier.

So people like me will continue to ask questions until we get answers. You can avoid the questions as long as you wish but the truth will out.

Please Help Us

  • 401.
  • At 11:00 AM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • Ben wrote:

Stop hiding our feedback!

  • 402.
  • At 02:33 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • merle wrote:

8th, 17th and 21st June - the dates of the last three posts. Do you really only allow a post through once a week? If there's so little interest, kill the thread. If there is interest but you're holding it back at the gates, may we ask why?

  • 403.
  • At 03:15 PM on 26 Jun 2007,
  • David P wrote:

The Conspiracy Files obviously touched a nerve:-)

Allow me to insert a comment here on behalf of those people who watched the BBC's reporting/coverage on that awful day - and felt it reached the usual impeccably high standard we have come to expect from them.

  • 404.
  • At 09:29 PM on 27 Jun 2007,
  • abo wrote:

Was sitting in a hospice in Australia when the first tower was hit, saw it lve on the tv.
How come they had all the cameras set up from all angles to cover the twin towers being hit.
Wish i was that clever to pre arrange my camera would make a great deal of money. Smells to me.

  • 405.
  • At 12:17 PM on 29 Jun 2007,
  • rich wrote:

Just wondering why people believe that a government would need to tell reporters that a building had fallen down. If Bush had decided to blow it up it would be obvious when it did.

Are journalist incapable of reporting what happens. NO they may make mistakes but they don't need a press release to report something like a building falling down and killing 1000s of people

You have to wonder if all these conspiracy theorist are themselves a conspiracy.!!!!

:D

  • 406.
  • At 03:39 PM on 29 Jun 2007,
  • merle wrote:

I go back to my contention that the BBC creates a convenient conspiracy catch-all here. Question (a) WTC7 demolition or (b) the BBC's pre-emptive reporting of it and find yourself painted 'conspiracist'. How about a blog on global warming headed'Fanatic Greenies'?
Clearly, until all the facts are in we should stick to objective analysis.
People have the right to keep their intellectual options open. A loss of critical standards is more dangerous than particular interpretations of events.


  • 407.
  • At 03:40 PM on 29 Jun 2007,
  • rich wrote:

The problem with conspiracy theory's are the same problems with religion and science.

Its is impossible to prove a negative!!!!!.

e.g. I cannot prove that god doesn't exist!. This doesn't mean he does exist

I cannot prove '100%' that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. This doesn't then mean it the MMR vaccine is harmful.

In the same way the BBC cannot prove to people that there wasn't a conspiracy.

An idea people should also remember about the world is 'The simplest explanation is normally the correct explanation!!'


:D

  • 408.
  • At 07:54 AM on 01 Jul 2007,
  • merle wrote:

While we're on the subject of conspiracies... Care to bet on autographed pictures of Ahmadinejad being found in the glove boxes? An anonymous source says Gordon Brown has dismissed the Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang scares as ""half-arsed and transparent". An anonymous official close to Brown said: "He feels a badly driven Merc with a couple of gas bottles in the back does not cut the mustard. Neither do Glaswegian SUV drivers. He is understood to be disappointed with MI5's 'Police Academy' effort, which was supposed to scare the holy excrement out of the populace and soften them up for his geo-political projections. 'Bears all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda?', he was heard to harumph over his oats. 'All the hallmarks of a bloody set-up if you ask me.' - (additional reporting courtesy of Mush Newspaper)

  • 409.
  • At 09:26 AM on 02 Jul 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Seeing this particular WTC7 'conspiracy' thread seems moribund, how about we widen the lens to take in some other curious 'conspiracies'. Like the conspiracy of lousy pyromaniac non-British (Iranian?) drivers who seem intent on some kind of street theatre. What strikes one most is how, after the initial curiosity, the general public reaction is a stifled yawn.
This latest gas-nails-petrol affair follows a familiar pattern. Despite no time for forensics, the authorities and the press immediately trot out the familiar line: 'This bears all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda'. The authorities then arrest the ‘usual suspects’, who, not surprisingly, are all Asian-variety Muslims (we are waiting for one of them to be found carrying an Iranian passport),thus completing the circular reasoning. It's encouraging that less people are fooled and recognize a crock of sh*t when they see it.

  • 410.
  • At 02:38 PM on 02 Jul 2007,
  • Howard wrote:

July 2nd 2007. I have just watched a video on the net, called 911 and the british broadcasting conspiracy, that is an answer to the conspiracy files. It asks certain very important questions about the BBC coverage and continued coverage of 911. In these times it is very worrying that the BBC is not really investigating these things. There are so many points raised in this video, with credible scientists, not 'conspiracy nuts.' Could the BBC actually make a programme that isn't biased? That looks at other theories, and if neccesary ends up saying that certain questions have not been answered by the 911 commission.

I am starting to distrust the BBC, an organisatin that I have always held to be reliable. We need to know that the corporation is trustworthy as a news reporter in these days of terrorism, propoganda, lies and half truths. Could you look into this video and respond to the claims in it?

  • 411.
  • At 06:26 PM on 03 Jul 2007,
  • Alex K. wrote:

Where di you learn that tower 7 had collapsed, 20 minutes before the actual event?

How many times will people ask you this?

Why don't you answer the question?

  • 412.
  • At 04:53 AM on 04 Jul 2007,
  • Yousee It wrote:

For God's sake, man, you people should have been LAYING INTO those lying politicians right from the start.

Reminds me of the Pope meeting Blair and Bush . . . if he had any conscience at all he would have slapped their faces

  • 413.
  • At 10:59 AM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • pisstof wrote:

I have always been concerned as to why the BBC is funded by UK residents by law yet it is available all over the world for free?

  • 414.
  • At 09:21 PM on 05 Jul 2007,
  • Fredrik Holmberg wrote:

I´ve seen a very thorough answer (by someone from the bbc) to why the report could be made before WTC 7 "imploded" on the Internet Archives. One That didn´t satisfy me. Why hasn´t that been posted here?

I for one would like to see the press release, and who sent it.

  • 415.
  • At 12:00 PM on 06 Jul 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

After 3 months, I've decided to take a look at this site again. Well--NOTHING has changed--and never will. We can protest as much or as long about the BBC's silence, till we are blue in the face. They---like the government--will only stay silent, as in the US,until we tire of it. Once they start responding, they KNOW they can NEVER provide convincing answers--which compounds their guilt anyway--so it's head's down for the duration. I decided to log onto Ludicrous Diversion--on google. Now that IS scary. I had no idea our freedoms had been eroded THAT much. It deals mainly with 7/7--listing many of the inconsistances, disinformation, and blatant lies. I think 'they' will keep on turning the screw, until we take 'them' more seriously---just as the 'Red Brigade' did in the 1970's. Time to build my bunker.

  • 416.
  • At 06:27 PM on 07 Jul 2007,
  • Shelton F. Lankford wrote:

I must join the chorus and say that receiving advance notice that the building was going down is no crime, necessarily.

Concealing the identity of an insider who told you it was going to happen may or may not be a crime. If it came over the wires, just say so and the source. If it came from an individual, say so. Whatever, the source of your information needs to be public information so that we may track it to where the inside knowledge originated.

Let's see. You have a reporter on the scene, and she has no idea what she is talking about, because the building she is talking about is in the shot. I would think that BBC management would be demanding answers as well. Hmmm.

  • 417.
  • At 07:15 PM on 07 Jul 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Yes! ... The BBC is in this for the long haul. For some reason they do not want to close down this forum.
Perhaps they use it to see if public interest is waning. What IS certain is that MANY posts are discarded.
THE INTEREST IS NEVER EVER GOING TO GO AWAY UNTIL THE SOURCE OF JANE STANDLEY'S REPORT IS REVEALED!

  • 418.
  • At 11:46 PM on 08 Jul 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

If ALL the complaints were posted, everyone would see just how LITTLE the public's interest has waned on this SHOCKING subject!
The BBC stands condemned ... Take note, you who filter these comments!

  • 419.
  • At 05:41 PM on 10 Jul 2007,
  • andy wrote:

Any other sites where questions are being asked?

The most important"non-news" of the millenium?

Is no-one publishing or questioning events of 9/11 in view of the weak official report?

  • 420.
  • At 08:54 PM on 15 Jul 2007,
  • Stephany Roberts wrote:

WOW...Nearly 400 comments and while not unanimous, certainly a plurality.
BBC...you guys are dirt.

  • 421.
  • At 10:38 PM on 16 Jul 2007,
  • greg wrote:

Has Mr porter, or anyone at the BBC, watched the program by former counterintelligence officer David Shayler, called 'the British broadcasting conspiracy' that addresses the recent BBC program '9/11 conspiracy files'.
Google it. The video is right at the top of Google, and is one of the most popular video's online at the moment, with nearly all 5 star ratings.

It is very worrying to me that a single person can create a documentary that absolutely tears apart nearly all the 'facts' portrayed in this program. It is also extremely worrying to me that this is probably the single most important event in the whole of history, so if the BBC gets its facts so wrong about 9/11, it leaves me wondering what can we trust you to report on?

Surely a documentary this damaging, directly criticizing the BBC, about the most important event in history should be worth a debate on TV for the public to see? surely, from your viewpoint, Mr Shayler should be sued for spreading vicious lies?

Or maybe the BBC's scared because a British scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, John A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems), is planning to sue the BBC for mass public deception via their “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” program?
In which he, along with many other physicists, has scientifically and mathematically proved it was controlled demolition.

A lot of very prominent officials from congress, security services and other establishments have added their names to online sites stating that they clearly disagree with the official version.
There are 160 structural engineers and architects that agree the buildings could not have collapsed without explosives also 100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials strongly disagree with the official version of events, 140 top professors from various universities also, and even most the victims and widows of the attacks have now signed up, which is absolutely disgraceful, the victims should be treated with utmost respect.

The thing that I find most amazing about this is the amount of counter terrorism experts that have also now signed up; and they are the very people that should be telling these academics the official line, that it was actually terrorists. Surely this shows there is something very wrong with the official story. Some can be seen at www.patriotsquestion911.com

when you have senior people like Cindy Sheehan openly saying on TV that there is 'a distinct chance of staged terror attack to provide more support for Bush's wars and a pretext for invasion of Iran' surely that should be a top news item?
Even Ron Paul, a presidential candidate in the US, has recently said he suspects 'we're in great danger' of another staged terrorist attack this summer.

Its perfectly obvious that corporately controlled American media, ie Fox news, will not cover any of this story at all, so it really is up to the BBC to inform the public about this situation.

All the alarm bells are going off that we're in for another apparent 'terrorist' attack this summer.

I only hope, for all our sakes, the BBC will cover this story soon before its too late, and we are yet again the innocent victims of yet another false flag operation orchestrated by rogue elements of the American administration.

  • 422.
  • At 02:27 AM on 17 Jul 2007,
  • Luc Chicoine wrote:

I remember, when I was a kid and the teacher asked me "Where is your homework?", and to this I simply answered a "My dog ate it". Every kid in the class laugh; and now we are all doing the same in reaction to your "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage".
The BBC is probably the most respected news broadcaster in the world, and you are giving us these kinds of answers. We are not suggesting that the BBC was part of any kind of conspiracy, which is just a stupid allegation. But what we would like to know is what was the source of this important information.

  • 423.
  • At 07:45 PM on 17 Jul 2007,
  • Loraine Hey wrote:

I see the BBC is about to be sued by John A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)over their misreporting of the facts surrounding 9/11 events (Conspiracy Files Feb 07). This is going to be interesting.

  • 424.
  • At 02:49 AM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • max wrote:

Dear Mr. Porter,

Re-read Greg's comment of 16th July, he has covered material sent by me to Ms Boaden last week. It was not posted with her article concerning the future of news at the BBC. I provided a 'consultant's advice' for the future which was, in effect; be honest and balanced, especially about 9/11. I also referred to Shayler's program and the pending suit referred to by Greg.
Thankyou for posting Greg's comment and perhaps mine.
I suggested that my "consultant's advice" should be charged at the rate of 5 guineas. She may be upset with the charge, but it would be certainly cheaper than bringing in numerous consultants who should advise the BBC to be accurate, unbiased, and competent in ensuring that the appropriate informed people are put forward to submit all the particular views on a story.
So perhaps you could start with fixing up the diabolical Rudin program. Maybe, by interviewing; Mr Meacher. MP, Professor Jones, [on thermate] David Ray Griffin, ["Debunking 9/11 Debunking", covering standowns, holes in the Commission Report etc] Prof Dewdney [on cell phones], Dr David Liefer on the reason for collapse [University of Sydney architecture Department. I suggested to Ms. Boaden that she give him a ring. I did, pretty simple really] and many more as named in the patriotsquestion9/11 site.

I have suggested that all journalists at the BBC be given a copy of Griffin's book to show them how to do an investigative story. Perhaps also, Griffin's book should be provided to the relevant government Ministers, as it appears that their security agencies may not have briefed them with much of the information in Griffin's book. If they had , hundreds of thousands in the Midddle East might be still alive. I have extra copies for some of our ministers in Australia and will be approaching them on the matter.
Cheers
Max.

  • 425.
  • At 10:24 AM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • Bert wrote:

BBC, please investigate! regards from the nederlands.

  • 426.
  • At 03:01 PM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • John wrote:

Most people I know both at work and socialy only watch the BBC to see what new lies they are choosing to put out to the masses.

This latest episode with the car bombs (if you can even call them that) shows exactly the propoganda mouth piece the BBC is, two patio gas canisters and 12 jerry cans worth of fuel does not constitute a car bomb. Even though on that Sunday News 24 had a live interview with an exsplosives expert who insisted these flamable devices would just be for show only and not capable of much damage, the BBC still took it upon itself to suggest they would have caused carnage, with Ian Blair suggesting they would have caused damage on a scale never seen before. Perhaps he should see what most chavs get up to on the weekend burning out cars, as this is all it amounted to.

I was shocked when I watched the ABC news actualy stating that these cars were packed with exsplosives, I just could not believe the blatant lies I was hearing.

  • 427.
  • At 04:59 PM on 18 Jul 2007,
  • Amber wrote:

It was showing signs that it would collapse three hours before it did. It's kinda like when the news reported Al Gore won the election but nothing had made official yet. Read up on it on reliable sources, conspiracy kids.

  • 428.
  • At 02:47 AM on 19 Jul 2007,
  • Ash wrote:

Somebody in one of the above comments said that it would take hours of programming time for the BBC to properly report the events of 911.
I am guessing they mean that it is unrealistic to ask the BBC to do this.
Does that mean that it is ok to grossly mis-report one of the most important events in modern history just because there is too much information to fit into a convenient one hour tv slot?
Surely if the job is too big to be undertaken by the BBC then it shouldn't be done at all rather then making a hash of it and mis-leading its viewers???
As for the statement at the top of the page, well I think the previous comments to mine more than show it flaws.
Although I dont believe the reporting of the collapse of WTC7 is proof that the BBC we're involved in causing the events of 9/11, I do believe that the BBC's refusal to say where it got that information from and the terrible "Conspiracy Files" documentary do show they are involved and prepared to cover up the real facts of what happened that day.
I expect behaviour like that from the Bush administration, not from our very own BBC.

  • 429.
  • At 10:18 AM on 19 Jul 2007,
  • BBC employee wrote:

Time to question editorial judgement corporation wide?

Oh yes I think so....

ANSWER

A for falsifying a quiz?.....

B for misrepresenting the royal family?...or

C for not answering a simple question regarding the pre-emptive reporting of an unforeseeable occurence.

Dial your answer to the BBC safe in the knowledge we'll report our own reality.....at your expense.

  • 430.
  • At 12:47 AM on 21 Jul 2007,
  • john CB wrote:

Greg and max in particular cite a number of sources in their posts. These for the most part are quite amazing in the sheer scale of the lunacies they propose-and this is supposed to be the 9/11 "truth" movement?
The BBC's documentary was actually quite balanced, and did interview prominent 911 truthers; it's conclusions were pretty restrained, yet it is telling that many 911 truthers (not all) need to accuse the BBC of being part of some mammoth conspiracy-just for daring to disagree with their pet theories. This is paranoia-on a grand scale.
The 911 truth movement's weakness of course is that there are so many crackpot theories now that the whole thing has long since become a parody of itself. And you people question the integrity of the BBC!
It is disturbing I suppose that there are people gullible enough to be taken in by the 911 truthers-but then there are plenty of people who believe in creationism and holocaust denial. There always will be people naive enough to be taken in by such things.

  • 431.
  • At 12:37 PM on 22 Jul 2007,
  • Ron Paul wrote:

This does not wash, to say the BBC “constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving”

How hard is it to turn round and look at the building behind you and realise it is STILL actually there?

It’s a pretty massive error to make and one that should be investigated thoroughly, this has not been done

Why not tell licence payers, exactly where the incorrect information came from?

How convenient that the BBC has lost tapes of their own news reports of the most important event in history.

You end with a comment from a totally unknown person off you tube? How profesional?

  • 432.
  • At 10:34 PM on 22 Jul 2007,
  • bobby davro wrote:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)
shame thought you were good at archiving stuff.
just strange how she tried to justify how the building fell, when NIST still have not worked it out?

  • 433.
  • At 07:56 AM on 24 Jul 2007,
  • max wrote:

Mr. Porter,

There are two reports/blogs on this matter, but the BBC chooses to divide the topic into two parts and only show one at the time lately.

I take it that you are doing what the English have done for so long: divide and conquer/misinform.

If you put up one part, how about including the other part, otherwise your visitors may gain a false impression in regard to the full debate and think that this part contains only the relevant comments.

Oh! You are so BBC,[should be 'fobs'] if you do not fix it I might complain to Helen again.

[Can I have a word to you about arranging to win a BBC prize?]

Sorry about the floods.

Max.

  • 434.
  • At 10:35 AM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • Mankind wrote:

If the bbc has lost its footage then explain this page?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/
Lots of footage
Caught in a lie?


  • 435.
  • At 03:27 PM on 25 Jul 2007,
  • frasay wrote:

One good thing, the BBC's 9-11 conspiracy files show did, was show a video clip of WTC building 7 coming down(the solomon bros building). As far as I am aware, this was one of the first times ever, internationally, that a mainstream channel had shown a video clip of building 7 falling, since the actual day it happened. Which raises the obvious question, why?? Why have mainstream media channels suppressed the fact that 3 buildings came down in New York on 9-11?
Even two years ago, most people, including most reporters I questioned from the BBC and Sky, had never heard of Building 7, and certainly didn't believe me when I told them it fell on 9-11.
The building was almost half as tall as the twin towers, and yet somehow it's collapse was not deemed news worthy? Why was it a big secret? Could it be because the video looked so like a demolition that it was thought too risky to air? That seems like a plausible explanation when you watch the footage.
The mainstream media is treating us all like a pack of idiots. But the polls show that the public have done their own research, and are getting wise about 9-11. How long will it take BBC journalists and staff to do the same? It's been 6 years guys. What's happened to your integrity?

  • 436.
  • At 04:33 PM on 26 Jul 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Although you do publish a number of my posts - and I thank you for providing this facility and doing what you can - I'm semi-amused at what DOESN'T make it past the Ed's Blog gatekeepers. Being a sub-editor on apartheid era newspapers in the great press censorship/misinformation age of South Africa, I'm particularly sensitive to the way even tiny 'blockages' in the free flow of information damage democracy and human rights. I've come to the conclusion you don't like the fact that I refer to David Griffin's latest book 'Debunking 911 Debunking', which shines the cold light of day on Guy Smith's Conspiracy doccie?

  • 437.
  • At 09:03 AM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • steve bowles wrote:

Some time ago I declined to write for a newspaper about this whole business. I now feel lucky.
However, to cut a long story short, the BBC really needs to make a decent response to the many questions here.
I doubt any "closure" is possible but at least some spade-is-a-spade response is needed.
BBC : You have your chance to .......

  • 438.
  • At 04:42 PM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • jonah wrote:

i am a bbc loyalist ,and like many other respondants am pained the footage isnt on permant record ,were it so much concern would be aliviated,
i cant go with distrusting the bbc , to be part of a greater conspiricy ,thus are chosing to leave unasked , many of the points of evidence put out by the conspiricy theorists

but note no other steel frame buildings have fallen down in fires that burned longer and hotter as one tape puts forth convinvcingly

also noting the fact of a obsolete white elephant building [with declining rents] but needing 2 billion to remove asbestos from it that no insurer was willing to underwrite for liability]

further i was expecting big news on the day [about a stock market collaps ,things like enron , and other financial news at the time indicating severe trouble to arrive soon, when it was a plane , i thought of the cost insurance would have to bear [unless it could be declared an act of war ] and sure enough next day the war drum was beating
we wont talk about bin lardens family [bush buisness partners being flow out during the no fly time ] ,nor the blaming of it on al quardsa when 15 or 16 of the 'terrorists '' were known to be saudies , american 'god guys'
the invasion on the strernggth of 911 also was a strech ,in light of the rumours of the saudie prince paying acters to make his propaganda press calls ,and him disappearing seems conveniant

the invasion of iraq seems conveniant , as has the with drawel ,of us troops from afganastan, into iraq ,[who hate al quada , but were going to trade thier oil for food in euros

that israel is us little brother and is tthreatening to bomb iran , is conveniant , they would no douct have a free fly zone over us occupied iraq

its just so con veniant that israels biggest supporter has the lobby and poweer to influence govt it has in us , the media being owned by mossad agents is also noted , the press thus is loyal to outside forces ,thus acting treasonous to us intersts ,that cheney has more power than god and woldfowitz and cheeney have other loyalties is also clear
yet i still trust bbc
even though others may say how conveniant , i say i believe things happen ,when israel wants the facts to be unseen
when mossad agents want them to , things just seem to happen ,and still no peace for palistein

  • 439.
  • At 05:03 PM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • Xie_Ming wrote:

The mentality behind these "charges" is essentially ignorant of how news works.

The woman reporting was obviously and understandably under very great stress.

Someone could have shouted to her "and the S building is on fire and collapsing".

Talking live and without script that could easily come out "has collapsed"-

if the collapse were really only twenty minutes later, I would say it was still good live reporting.

A lot of critics have never had to respond to a news deadline, much less report live.

Now, for a much more suspicious conspiracy, consider the illegal Israeli "moving men" with their roof cameras and high fives.

  • 440.
  • At 06:01 PM on 27 Jul 2007,
  • Bernard wrote:

This, from a man who worked for Bush.

"Everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs."
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.

Morgan Reynolds was the chief economist for the US Department of Labour during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.

Why has the BBC not interveiwed people such as Mr. Reynolds?

  • 441.
  • At 12:46 AM on 28 Jul 2007,
  • cam wrote:

Yes, well we are still here Richard. It would be nice if you could provide us with the source where you received the information that WTC7 had collapsed.
With so many holes in the official version of 911, it is our duty to demand answers, since the 'war on terror' affects everyone around the world - apparently even some Doctors from 'al Qaeda'
We all know that politicians tend to lie, but the amount of mistruths that have been exposed in the last six years is beyond a joke. Innocent people are dying everyday and you don't seem to care (population control?) People are dying while others are profiting from this 'war' which is an absolute disgrace.

How does a 47 story skyscraper fall at freefall speed through itself? How did the South Tower possibly fall in 9 (NIST FAQ q6), or 10 seconds (911 Commission ch 9)?.

Where did all that molten steel as reported by hundreds of people come from? Why was WTC steel ejected up to 600 feet away yet the buildings still fell (according to NIST) essentially at freefall. Where did all the energy come from to pulverize the concrete? ( yet it still fell at freefall speed!). Why were there many reports of multiple explosions and secondary devices? Why was the FBI investigating on the day the possibility that a cars bombs were used underneath the towers to bring them down if they didn't believe explosives were used?
Oh and where was the most sophisticated air defense in the World (NORAD) when it really mattered? Coincidental war games perhaps?
Either change the laws of physics or stop lying.

This is serious. I hope you don't believe in Karma!!!!

  • 442.
  • At 08:39 PM on 28 Jul 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

Is there a BBC reply to some of the main points of these 400+ comments. I am like the others here surprised the BBC has not investigated the anomalies of 11th Sept 2001 more thoroughly - after all it has been the most significant event in US history since Pearl Harbour and its implications are immense: Links between US government and Al Quaeda; who benefited from the attacks; why has the forensic work actually on the sites of the attack seem so poor: no black boxes, timeline problems, physics of the WTC collapse, ets etc. And the BBC is involved too! How did historic recordings (evidence!) get lost! Please BBC, don't disappoint the world.

  • 443.
  • At 09:09 PM on 28 Jul 2007,
  • Mark O' Reilly wrote:

mr. porter

i found your response to be lacking.

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that."

please elaborate, an error in what exactly?, an error in judgement?, in physics?
was it a coincidence?
if so what was the basis of this report? what was the source?
you're a journalist but see this as not requiring investigation?

you say 'if' it was reported early.
you have no way to clarify this?

you have no tapes, nobody along the line of receiving this message can clarify?
not even the guy who types out the teleprompter?
who was the person person who originally brought this information into the bbc, where did they get it?, who authorised it to be shown?
nobody knows the source of this?
it magically appeared on our screems apparently.

sorry about all the question marks.
i wish there were less. i really do.

I'm not a 'conspiracy theorist', as damning as that statement can be.
i have no theory of conspiracy, only questions.
some questions you will not answer some you will not ask.

there's alot of questions. and why arn't journalists asking them?

  • 444.
  • At 03:26 PM on 30 Jul 2007,
  • John R wrote:

Re: #431 - "the BBC really needs to make a decent response to the many questions here."

The problem is that any attempt to answer the few reasonable questions will invoke another s**tstorm of replies along the lines of "Aha - you didn't answer MY question, therefore it proves that you're hiding something!" And the attempts to answer the...less reasonable questions will similarly fail to satisfy those people who seem to believe that Greg Dyke personally set charges on WTC7, that Jeremy Paxman is a secret alien overlord (or perhaps a secret lemonade drinker; I'm not sure which) and that the BBC are staging a massive coverup to avoid revealing that they'd closed the phonelines early on the Breakfast "Win a Date with Eamon Holmes" competition.

As for #429: is it more likely that the BBC is hiding the footage of Building 7 falling, or that compared to the footage of the much taller and much more iconic Towers falling it seems a bit anticlimactic?

  • 445.
  • At 12:11 AM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Sid Walker wrote:

It is not just the BBC that has been caught in the vicious, war-justifying, Islam-bashing (official) lie about the events of 9-11.

The Guardian newspaper is in the same boat!

It's recent report on July 28th 2007 entitled "Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals" manages to report on the decline in the BBC's credibility without even mentioning the WTC-7 fiasco.

It's like telling the story of the Emperor's clothes without mentioning the child who exposed the fiasco!

Due to collusion at the highest levels of the western media, the pathetically compromised and now outed purveyors of deceit cannot even report on their own plummeting credibility with a semblance of accuracy!

  • 446.
  • At 02:34 AM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • J.L. wrote:


Not BBC..? That's what I thought when I saw it.

BBC, the unbiased information source I admired. The one I could trust. How can I believe in anything I hear on the news after this?

And the funny thing is, I came across this stuff by search words..

"911 conspiracy" bbc

..having thought that BBC might have been the one news channel raising questions when stuff doesn't add up, not the one burrying them.

Richar Porter, who is that, I asked myself. Who is this junior they let blog stuff that's this weak? After having read a little further I was more and more sure it had to be some junior.

But no, it is the head of news, BBC World, citing a You Tube comment to rest his case. And frankly, since doing that only proves what is being said about BBC in respect to critical 911 journalism, rest in piece it may.

BBC news, the sceptic watchdog? Hardly. At least I don't trust the muppet in charge. Happy to see I wasn't the only one.

  • 447.
  • At 01:20 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Mark O' Reilly wrote:

hmm,
seems my last comment didn't make it on. racking my brain to think why?,
it was stated in a relaxed manner and asked simple questions.
i can only assume the number of posts here has been limited to some degree.

it reasonaby asked you to clarify some questions and pointed out the basic flaw in logic of your response.

ie. 'if' you reported it early it was an error.

what kind of error?
is this some sort of statement implying that it was a complete coincidence?
if it was then that is acceptable, honestly.
but in order for it to be such, you need to see where this statement came from, how it entered the studio and from whom.
does the guy writing the teleprompter even remember this? who told him to do that?
if you can't find this basic fact out then your entire staff must be suffering from extreme amnesia.

all we want you to do is investigate where this information came from.

i'm not a 'conspiracy theorist', i have no theory of conspiracy.
i just have questions. some that you refuse to answer and some you refuse to ask on my behalf. why is this?

  • 448.
  • At 11:05 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

It's great to read about the tremendous growth in follower's of the 9/11 truth movement. These are Brave people---and at not a little risk to themselves---are of great eminence and ability, and from ALL related fields of expertise. It reminds me of the 'Great March'--gathering support as it goes, and sweeping aside all fools and detracters---May it succeed in it's just and vital aims--for ALL our sakes.

  • 449.
  • At 11:38 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Joseph wrote:

I cannot believe that people are wasting their time and energy, writing about such "utter nonsense," as to the how and why BBC knew of the WTC7 building falling in advance?
During major unforseen catastrophic incidents that occur on a global scale, such as 9/11 in New York and 07/07 in London, it is to be expected that there will be; inaccurate reporting, pandemonium, confusion and delays with accurate detailed information being conveyed to the public on the air.

This confusion, is not limited only to BBC, to suggest that this may have been an elaborate conspiracy is simply ridiculous.

The only known conspiracy, that is worth posting on the blog, and discussing, maybe the circumstances, facts surrounding United Airlines Flight No. 93, that went down in Shanksville, PA. It is quite possible that Flight # 93, had been shot down by fighter jets, during the confusion and the frantic commotion, resulting with inbound commercial airlines targeting key sites in Washington D.C., it is quite possible that Flight # 93 was intentionally shot down.

That is a conspiracy related to 9/11, I don't think anymore energy, insight and time should be spent on the BBC's reporting correspondents knowing in advance about the WTC7 collapsing, it's riduculous to even think about that! Even CNN convey's mis-information during the pandemomium resulting from 9/11.

Richard Porter, I would much rather see time spent on a ongoing world conflicts that need discussion and insight from your viewers.. World conflicts that are worthy of addressing on your blog! Let me think of a suitable example, hmmmm....; Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kosovo, undocumented immigration in Europe.

Thank-you,

Joseph

OK, I've waded through about as much of this bull... rubbish as I can stand. I'm a firefighter. I was in Manhattan on 9/11. From what I've been able to gather, *everyone* in the vicinity of the WTC knew that #7 was going to come down eventually; it was heavily involved in fire which couldn't be fought. They pulled everybody off the piles in the collapse zone and waited and waited and it came down as predicted.

As to the BBC, so they screwed-up - big deal, there was a lot of confusion that day and a lot more screwups than that... news channels were reporting a suspected second wave of four hijacked planes, plus a bunch of other rumours. So what's the point in getting all worked up about it?

  • 451.
  • At 07:47 AM on 01 Aug 2007,
  • James H wrote:

Richard Porter does not understand his subject. He under estimates the opinion of his own bbc public.
400 posts (!!!) when I wrote this, all against Porter's blog.
I dont need to type the points they are all there (as is the missing link to the video).
-Jane Standley brainwashed from London.
- not using qualifiers such as "apparently"
- you are accomplices to this crime
-communist style propaganda piece you pulled!
- What wire service sent this out?
- the BBC cocked-up on 9/11
- total support for Guiliani's talk
-Both CNN and the BBC received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse,
- People are very suspicious of mainstream news because of the sad lack of investigative work on anything of great importance, like 9/11, like the reasons for going to war in Iraq.
- the official story is that the building wasn't "pulled" as stated by Silverstein...
======================
all this is on your site, and no reaction from the BBC. Will have to post this around the blogs.Your silence is worrying.

  • 452.
  • At 08:46 AM on 01 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Here's a thought. Will we reach the point where reading this type of thread - stuffed as it is with '911 was a treasonous inside job' type comments - would land you in the clinker in the US? Some of the views here amount to technically seditious material - because they raise serious doubt about the crucial cornerstone event of the Iraq war - and you and I could now be charged under section 802 of the US Patriot Act if we read this sort of evil Muslim terrorist-supporting stuff on American soil. Think about it.

  • 453.
  • At 02:29 PM on 02 Aug 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

Mike Ross (Aug 1) - my brother lives in Manhatten, on 911 he inadvertently got through the cordon (on a push bike) and was about 2 blocks away from the WTC late afternoon when he heard a very loud rumble - by the time he realised it was not a subway train, he was almost run over by a fleeing firetruck and fighters screaming at him to run for his life. So it's not the case that everyone knew that WTC7 was about to come down (except the BBC of course). But even if its collapse was predicted or not, it does not matter - the collapse was symmetric and in 6.5 seconds, almost free-fall speed. This is just not possible unless it was brought down by controlled demolition, which as this could not have been done on the day of the attack, means that other parties must have been involved in the attack. (Interestingly, this also means that The New York authorities have the right to launch a proper criminal investigation into the attacks - something it would appear, the FBI, for reasons unknown, has failed to do).

Joseph (July 31) - I agree that Darfur, Somalia etc., are all very important, but the truth about what actually happened on 911 is in some ways more important, not just because nearly 3000 people died that day, but because two wars have been launched as a result of it, where at least 500,000 civilians have been killed. The BBC's role (hopefully inadvertent) in this global deception is also of vital significance, as I and many other license payers expect much better of the BBC. Unlike other networks, the BBC is supposed to be above influence from governments and advertisers, and uphold the highest journalistic standards. The BBC should at the very least be asking questions about who misled them about WTC7 and why. The longer the BBC ignores these and other very valid questions regarding the events of 911 the harder it will be for them to restore any credibility when the truth does go mainstream (which I think will be sooner rather than later).

p.s. I think you could be right about Flight 93, it could well have been shot down, indeed, Rumsfeld made this slip later. But the main story (and evidence which proves that the hijackers was only a small part of the 911 operation) is not what happened Shanksville or the Pentagon, it is at Ground Zero. If you think otherwise please answer the questions I posted for you on the Part2 blog earlier today.

  • 454.
  • At 11:15 PM on 05 Aug 2007,
  • Free Vanunu wrote:

It's a shame Jane Standley remains "too busy" to answer questions about WTC-7 ever since this controversy broke.

She certainly used to be less busy.

I just googled "Jane Standley" to learn what other activities she has been up to over the years, on behalf of the British TV licence payer.

Just before 9-11, she found time to report the World Jewish Congress's attack on the Vatican for its alleged indifference to Jewish suffering during World War Two.

In February 2002 she found time to participate in an online BBC forum focusing on the crash of Flight 587 in NYC.

In 2006, she did her bit to whip up angst against the "Islamic" government in Sudan.

Yet these days, she's "too busy to talk" about 9-11.

This is tantamount to cruelty! Why doesn't the BBC lighten Jane's workload so she can once again converse with the great unwashed?

Perhaps the British public should hold a fund-raising concert, to pay for just one day in Jane Standley's busy year in which she can answer simple questions from curious listeners?

  • 455.
  • At 11:52 PM on 06 Aug 2007,
  • Xie_Ming wrote:

Comment #454 makes me even more curious about those six press reports concerning a white van with explosives and two men arrested on the approach to a bridge or tunnel from Jersey to New York.

Who were those men? Were there explosives in the van?

  • 456.
  • At 09:18 AM on 07 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Come on BBC, restore your eroded credibility. In the name of the 'democracy and freedom' Bush and Blair keep going on about, why don't you host a free and democratic 911 panel discussion. Lead the way for world media by demonstrating the proper role of The Fourth Estate in a healthy democracy. On one side of the panel: Jane Standley and Guy Smith of the BBC, X-Files scriptwriter Spotnitz, Philip Zelikow (head of 911 Comission), J Meigs and Ben Chertoff of 'Popular Mechanics' magazine, Patrick Coburn, George Monbiot and Christopher Hitchens for good measure. On the other side: Your choice of DR Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, Paul Craig Roberts, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, Paul Thompson (author of the definitive 'Terror Timeline'), Howard Zinn, Andreas Van Bulow, Bill Christison, Dr Steven Jones, Prof A.K. Dewdney, Kevin Ryan and/or any of the members of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 911 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Pilots for 911 Truth.
BBC credibility would be restored virtually overnight, and the tenets of true democracy will have been served. Who knows, maybe you'll manage to prove to us - for once and for all - that the US and UK governments have not subverted democracy by lying, waging illegal war or propagandizing with the help of the media. Then you'll be shot of all these 'nutjob' 911 blog threads for good.

  • 457.
  • At 02:17 PM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • Peter Hindley wrote:

Yet another load of lies from the BBC (The Biased Broadcasting Corporation) you will really have to do better than this to justify your exhorbitant licence fee funding

  • 458.
  • At 04:33 PM on 09 Aug 2007,
  • John Thomas wrote:

All this would be amusing were it not for the fact that so many people died as a direct result of the 9-11 atrocities on the day, so many first responders are currently dying horribly from dust inhalation and the multitudes who are either dead or living in Middle Eastern Hell because of it.

Richard Porter, you have a responsibility to deliver accurate news to us. This is what you paid for. What you are saying about the announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed 20 or so minutes before the actual fact being "an error" is, to say the least, not good enough.

The BBC is held in odium at the moment due to rigged phone-ins. This is nothing compared to 9-11. I urge you to come clean about the whole matter. 9-11 truth activism is exponentially increasing and the truth will out, with or without your co-operation.

Please come to your senses now. This will not go away - it will get much louder and far more strident.

  • 459.
  • At 06:19 PM on 10 Aug 2007,
  • francisco wrote:

hello richard.
it's not the first time that i've read this, and it still amuses me a lot.
i'm glad for this, and sad by having time to write this.

First of all i am a 14 year old boy. i only got into 9/11 during the documentray of 'inside the twin towers'. then i looked at some footage and i astonished. nothing looked right. let me tell you what i think and what most people no think happend.

the world trade center towers were the tallest buildings in the world,110 stories to be excatct. until 1974 when the sears tower was completed.
so are we supposed to belive that these massive structures completly collapsed to the ground in under 10 seconds? most people would tell themselves a lie and say it was jet fuel that bought the towers down. but that couldnt possibly of happend because the jet fuel was oxygen starved which you could tell by pure blackness of the smoke. this is means the fires were burning around 520 degresse. but steel melts at 1510 degrees C (2750°F). but again the fires were not even near that tempreature so what bought them down? conttroled demolition brought the towers down. the type of explosive that is normally used in demoltion is c4. this detornator is can bring down buildings and will if used and place, correctly. so why not on 9/11? now you need to ask yourself if you belive fire brought down the wtc, how dose to 110 storeis buildings collapse in under ten seconds ? some idiots might say it was a pancake collapse. ok if it was a pancake collapse how dose steel get twisted like it was a playdo ? then how dose a pancake collapse at nearly free fall speed ? wtc = 110 stories. jump of the top it would take approximentaly 10 seconds. even if each collapsed a second, it would still take 110 seconds. (1 sec x 110 floors= 1 second per each floor. or 110 seconds. im i right.)

i would like to have a debate with someone on here or on bbc news tv .

  • 461.
  • At 10:38 AM on 15 Aug 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Dear Abraham (14 year old boy)
I would love to debate you, sweetie, on two conditions: (1) Promise to switch on your Spell Check because misspelt infrmayshun us terrrbly? distracting, im i right? and (2) Promise to read at least two of the following works on your book list: (a) Nafeez Ahmed - The War On Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked September 11th, 2001 (Tree of Life Publications); (b) The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute, by Paul Thompson (HarperCollins); (c) 911: Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA, by Webster Tarpley (Progressive Press); (d) DR Griffin - The 911 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions (Olive Branch Press).

  • 462.
  • At 01:27 AM on 16 Aug 2007,
  • Max wrote:

Dear Abraham,(and Merle).
The esential book to read which should be briefed to all Government Ministers and journalists (except 'Foxes', it would be a bit tough for them) is Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". In Australia, it takes three months to get. They are so amazingly slow, I wonder why? Best not to get to bogged down with Griffins's exposure of the NORAD standown, fighter jets being delayed and wandering around the sky wondering what to do and lies to the Commision. Start with the 'hot' buildings and the atttempted cover up by the mass media, implicit in some publications, especially by "Popular Mechanics" in the US. Which attempted cover up is continuing by the MSM and their lackeys.
Good luck Graham and tell all your friends.
max.

  • 463.
  • At 08:34 PM on 16 Aug 2007,
  • EarlyBird wrote:


To post 451 (James H?)

"Your silence is worrying"

Worrying to whom James?

  • 464.
  • At 09:48 PM on 21 Aug 2007,
  • ray westfall wrote:

BBCs' 9-11-2001 broadcast showing the Solomon brothers building in the background, while the reporter said it had already collapsed, is enough for reasoned people to logically conclude that for whatever reason the BBC broadcast was falsifying the facts. BBC may have been an unknowing conspiritor in hiding the truth, but that doesn't relieve BBCs' duty of seeking the truth. Freedom of the press gives power to the media to expose events that would harm the public from criminal government activites. The BBCs' rresponsibility to investigate what happened on 9-11-2001 is paramount. BBCs' decision to undermine the publics interest by continuing to deny that its' broadcast was more than a simple error, without any investigation, is the real story here. Its so obvious that BBC has determined it is more advantagious to protect the powers-that-be, than to uphold its' commitment to report the truth to the people. I only wish that the BBC news organization had the intergrity and professionalism it claims in its' reports. I know that I, or anyone with an ounce of intergrity could never work for, nor support such a "NEWS" organization.

dear max.
first of all spell check i would use but its the 21 st centuray and im a 14 year old kid. which means i use quite alot of slang .mispelled words taken in to my consideration. i probably missed spelt that.

but on the 9/11 subject which is why we are hear isnt it ? i dont see your side on that days events. i mean come on like i said before buildings made of steel do NOT collapse from fires of that statue. 9/11 commision report is simply in my mind LIES. you dont need a report written by some goverment agents who was probabyly paid to do it anyway. its clear from that day those 'attacks are wounds inflicted by the us goverment or more of the bush administration.

secondly i think its clear to say that if indeed 9/11 was an act of terror , the american goverment faild people of the fourth coming attacks. thirdly bush states '' we had no idea or intellengance of these attacks.'' What is he on crack ? the possibility of hijacked airliners flown into buildings came into mind since april 1995. and on the fema report back in 1999 it had the world trade center toweers in crosshairson thier front cover. so since you didnt really explain yourself on which debate your going for ??

  • 466.
  • At 11:14 AM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • TS wrote:

Are people still banging on about this?

Look, here's the sort of thing that happens in the real work:

Engineer says -- we think the building might collapse. His manager mentions it to a press officer, press officer tells a couple of agencies, agencies fire out some wire copy, hard pressed producer on the biggest news story ever tells the desk, desk write something which goes on air.

Somewhere along the line, the word "might" gets missed out.

Add a bit of ignorence about which building is which, and the obvious confusion and heigtened emotions.

You've got cock up not conspiriacy.

  • 467.
  • At 01:18 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

TS (Aug 22) - Your explanation is quite feasible, but it does explain the many other key problems with the events of that day. Without going into the anomalies at the Pentagon and Shanksville, the WTC twin towers and building 7 all fell far too quickly for the cause to have been structural weakening and subsequent gravitatonal collapse. The only way these buildings could have collapsed at free-fall speed (as video evidence shows they did) would be if the support columns were cut at the basement level, and other explosives were used to break welds and bolts. If you think otherwise then please answer the 10 questions I posted on http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html (post #499, August 2nd).

p.s. It is nearly 3 weeks now since I posted these questions, and still no-one can answer them. So I repeat my request for a response and explanation from Peter Barron and Peter Horrocks as to why no BBC journalists are investigating the obvious flaws in the official story.

  • 468.
  • At 02:48 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • frasay wrote:

TS,
The only reason we're all still banging on about this, is because we've been waiting 6 years for the mainstream media to tell the truth about 9-11.
Like Ray says, it's about integrity. The BBC prefers to use emotive, condescending, and manipulative language when writing about 9-11.
In fact, Guy Smith's piece about why some people are interested in conspiracy is bordering on defamation, for all who consider themselves seekers of truth.
All I want is for the BBC to do some research into 9-11, and then print the facts. Is this too much to ask?
TS, please watch "9-11 Mysteries" and "Press for Truth" available free, on Google Video, and then come back and talk to me.

  • 469.
  • At 07:57 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • kim morris wrote:

I stumbled on the world trade center attack videos on youtube, and was amazed at the whole conspiracy culture surrounding this terrible event. I tried, and failed miserably to get anyone to see that there could be a rational explanation to what happened. Eventually I gave up after I was accused of being a government spy who was spreading disinformation, and apparently my email client had been traced to whitehall which proved everything.My point obviously is that no matter what explanation is given by the bbc it will be just a cover up. So, and stay with me here, the American government destroys thier financial base and thousands of thier own people, to blame an arab so they can invade Afganistan blah blah blah...and they tell the bbc all this and explain that one of the other buildings will fall, but dont tell anyone......and the beeb, being a right wing American administration loving organization blah blah blah....remember the old sign 'you dont have to be crazy to work here'
the truth is that when you talk about conspiracy theories, you actually really do have to be crazy

  • 470.
  • At 09:24 PM on 22 Aug 2007,
  • Mbutfo wrote:

to kim morris (469)
Just as you rightly mention there do exist "conspiracy theorists" who talk all manner of accusation and speculation without fact, tell me then exactly what have you just done.
The majority of crazy conspiracists of which you speak are actually very normal other than the fact that they know more about 9/11 than you do. And what about the people that merely request that the undisputable facts about 9/11 actually be put into mainstream view? are they crazy? are they accusing anyone of anything?
You say you "failed miserably to get anyone to see that there could be a rational explanation to what happened"
Tell me your rational explanation for the collapse of WTC7, and your rational explanation for the premature reporting of its collapse, which also happened to include a detailed account of HOW it collapsed.
the deformation of the words "might collapse" into "has collapsed" is plausible,but when that comes with an unqualified and detailed account of the reason for the collapse as well, then what is the most rational explanation? is it still chinese whispers?

  • 471.
  • At 12:01 AM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

This is a reply to Kim Morris: I would be very interested in rational explanation to the events on 9/11. Unfortunately the official 9/11 Commission report, has many omissions and unprovable assertions and theories. These have been well documented by David Ray Griffin and others. Yet still there is no official response that actually fit the facts that we know about. Kim, if you do have a rational explanation for THREE skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) falling down in one day due to fire (when this has never happened before or since) rather than what looks like Controlled Demolition, then I would be Very Pleased to hear it. I would certainly feel much safer whenever I go into tall buildings... Leaving aside the implications on the wars we have got ourselves into ever since.

  • 472.
  • At 09:34 AM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • RIP Bill Cooper wrote:

Bill Cooper (RIP) warned us on the 28th June 2001, that a terrorist strike in the US would occur and that it would be blamed on bin Laden and not to believe a word of it. See what he said on youtube "Bill Cooper on 911"

Bill was to be arrested on the 11th Sept 2001, but managed to avoid 'arrest' for a number of weeks before he was fatally shot by the Apache County Sherriff’s Department.

In the 1990's Clinton described Cooper via a White House memo as the most dangerous man on US radio (Cooper had been exposing many false flag attacks such as WTC '93 and the Oklahoma Bombing in 1995.)
Cooper's response to the White House Memo was that it was the biggest compliment he had ever received.
Touché Mr Cooper. You will never be forgotten.

Initially a UFO buff (as he saw many convincing documents when in the Dept of Navy Intel) Cooper distanced himself from this research and ended up exposing more 'believable' areas of research such as the Illuminati and their quest for a New World Order. He exposed many individuals, companies and secret societies.
Please research this man as he made the ultimate sacrifice for us all and please never forget that he warned us about a pending attack in the US that would NOT be carried out specifically by bin Laden.
Thanks

  • 473.
  • At 10:52 AM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • frasay wrote:

Kim (#469)

I would love a rational explanation for how WTC building 7 (Solomon Bros) fell down.
According to the US governments own FEMA report:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
Hmmm, so fire had a low probability of bringing 7 down, according the the US government investigation. What did bring it down...hey, they can't tell us? Maybe it was explosives? That's surely what a sane person would think, looking at the footage, isn't it? What do you think Kim?
Can you honestly say, looking at WTC7 coming down, that it doesn't look like a controlled demoliton? Have you seen the video footage of building 7 falling?
I want the same thing as you...a rational explanation.
We've been waiting 6 years.
Instead of labelling people who want the truth as "crazy", why not just debate with facts, and shoot down arguments you disagree with?

  • 474.
  • At 11:53 AM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • greg wrote:

to kim #469, well thats not a very nice post is it? As your post implies that anyone who has unanswered questions about 9/11 is 'crazy', surely it would be more polite to just articulate your opinion on what happened that day, so we can have an open debate about it? Instead of insulting all the victims and families of the attacks, that are still campaigning for this information to be released, calling them crazy is surely quite insulting.

I also find it quite hard to comprehend how people such as Raymond L. McGovern (Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA) and William Christison (Former National Intelligence Chairman and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.) could be categorized as 'crazy'.

I await your revised response with great anticipation, but i fear that as the other posts have shown, you will either not respond at all, or you will just hurl some more personal insults at people who question the official account.

  • 475.
  • At 12:20 PM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

i just thought it might be interesting to know that just last week there was a fire in one of the other WTC buildings, yet no collapse.

And i thought the minute any building caught fire what would be expected would be a few hours of burning followed by a collapse at almost freefall speed into its own imprint.

just thought it would interesting to mention

  • 476.
  • At 02:34 PM on 23 Aug 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

i just thought it might be interesting to know that just last week there was a fire in one of the other WTC buildings, yet no collapse.

And i thought the minute any building caught fire what would be expected would be a few hours of burning followed by a collapse at almost freefall speed into its own imprint.

just thought it would interesting to mention

  • 477.
  • At 10:37 AM on 24 Aug 2007,
  • Les wrote:

Gregor - was that another commercial airplane that caused the fire ? Because thats a bit different from say, an electrical fault isnt it.

You can try that in your own home and see which causes the most structural damage.

Cant believe there is so much hysteria over this. A conspiracy that involves countless reporters and so many agencies ? That just wouldnt work.

IF it was a conspiracy, then its done with amazing technique for no-one involved to come forward and blow the whistle. But if it was so amazing - would they really have cocked up and announced something that wasnt scheduled to have happened ? Get real guys.

Sadly real life isnt as interesting as some of these conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

  • 478.
  • At 04:17 PM on 24 Aug 2007,
  • Ianian wrote:

It is funny how this is still going. People will happily gloss over the missing facts and questions, as long as it doesn't get in the way of feeling like they are in-the-know on a conspiracy. Plus they somehow gain expert knowledge in structural engineering (if the buildings shouldn't have fallen at freefall speeds, then what speed should they have fallen? None of them can answer that)

I bet that fewer than 1% of the people posting on here even knew what WTC7 looked like before they read about the conspiracy, so I don't know why they assume that everyone at the BBC knew which building was which.

It would be nice to see footage of the whole day so we can tell how many other things the BBC (and the other newscasters) got wrong. Plus, everyone is relying on the footage poster telling us what the time of the announcement was rather than there being an independent way of knowing.

The oddest thing is that everyone seems to think it is perfectly normal for the BBC to be forewarned that a building is going to be demolished on purpose as part of the conspiracy and accidentally tell everyone 20 minutes early. That kind of cock-up is perfectly acceptable, but any other kind of cock-up (such as people mishearing that a building has collapsed rather than to collapse) is part of a cover-up conspiracy.

Why would the conspirators let everyone know in advance? That just makes it obvious that there was a plan in the first place. It isn't as if the journalists wouldn't notice the building collapsing when it actually did. The building wasn't surrounded by the cameras of forewarned news channels. In fact, the feed was lost 5 minutes before it actually happened (and that proves to some people that there was a conspiracy), so having an advance warning was completely pointless.

The biggest question remains: What did anyone have to gain from destroying THAT building at THAT time? If you've already knocked down the twin towers and hit the Pentagon, why would you knock down a relatively insignificant building, especially if one like it had fallen due to fire alone? "Let's do something that looks really suspicious, tell the BBC about it beforehand. We won't gain any advantages from it, but it will be fun."

The conspiracy theory around WTC7 just doesn't make sense - there is no reason for it!
The events leading up to 9/11 are where the real meat is.

  • 479.
  • At 10:42 PM on 24 Aug 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

A reply to 478. Hi Ianian. Well I imagine that there are very few people that believe the BBC knowingly took part of in any conspiracy behind 9/11. However, it is strange that the media are failing to cover 9/11 very well. I guess it is not interesting enough or significant: fortnightly refuse collections are probably what people are really worried about, right? ;-)

The point about WTC7 is that it was a substantial building which fell over within 7 seconds during a brief cut in live TV coverage. 7 seconds is Freefall speed for 48 story building. Just like it had been part of controlled demolition. Buildings knocked over by earthquake, for instance, do not fall over neatly. A building with a bulge would not fall straight down. And steel buildings do not melt in open fires and fall. Some of the few buildings standing after Horishma were steel framed buildings! They are very strong. NY has plenty of steel framed buildings and they catch on fire but do not, except on 9/11, fall down.

WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were immediately under the towers, all covered in masses of debris. They didn't fall down.

So at the very least we should be seriously worried about skyscraper safety. How could a relatively small fire and minor debris damage cause WTC7 to fall? How could people know in advance that the building would fall? The BBC say they were told there was a "Bulge" - wow - that sounds serious. Where is the photo evidence? People were hanging around all day - surely someone who have photographed this bulge? But I doubt that the bulge ever existed...

One theory is that all you have to do is look at the tenants of the building: Secret Service / CIA, Mayor's Emergency Bunker, Securities Investigation Bureau (the Fraud Squad). Er, so not as you say "relatively insignificant". Actually highly significant and very, very under-reported. This is rich pickings for conspiracy theorists!

So with no adequate answers, the 911 commission failing to even discuss WTC7, no adequate TV documentary to cover and explain all the facts, then conspiracy theories are bound to pop up. 6 years with no reasonable discussion. Gzoinks! At the very least, we should be worried about skyscraper safety! Especially since WTC7, being an emergency shelter for the Mayor and Secret Service was probably one of toughest, strongest buildings in NY.

Comment #450, Mike Ross wrote:
“OK, I've waded through about as much of this bull... rubbish as I can stand. I'm a firefighter. I was in Manhattan on 9/11.”

I visited your website sir and I think your statement is very misleading. You were in the IT business up to 2003 when you left to become a full-time dad.

It looks like you subsequently may have taken a firefighting qualification, but you cleverly wrote “I’m a firefighter” and “I was in Manhattan on 9/11” as two sentences.

I think you have far fewer qualifications to comment on this subject than the likes of myself and most of the others who have contributed to this discussion who have spent long and weary hours studying and thinking about this.

Most of us don’t want there to be a conspiracy. It makes our lives more dangerous if our governments are involved, but if it quacks like a duck it usually is a duck.

Will you lay your fears to the side and override your programming that came from the media and some aspects of your Scottish education (I had one as well) and study the evidence?

  • 481.
  • At 08:03 PM on 25 Aug 2007,
  • Susan Kipping wrote:

Ianian, you wrote "The biggest question remains: What did anyone have to gain from destroying THAT building at THAT time?"

You need to look up what was in that building. This was a $13 million dollar security "bunker" set up on 23rd floor by Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Building 7 contained the headquarters of The Department of Defense, The CIA, FBI, FEMA, U.S. Secret Service, The Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's command bunker. The command bunker was used to run the attacks. Building 7 also contained all incriminating records of Enron and Worldcom, and the building was destroyed to cover up the evidence. Building 7 was overengineered so that it could withstand many times more damage than what it sustained.

And there is footage of much of the day of Building 7 you just need to google and look it up. You have to do the work if you have questions. The answers are there. Do not expect the corporate media to investigate or tell the truth. This is a black flag operation.

  • 482.
  • At 09:03 PM on 25 Aug 2007,
  • Lopakhin wrote:

Cam #441: 'Oh and where was the most sophisticated air defense in the World (NORAD) when it really mattered?'

Doing what it had always been trained to do: looking out for attacks by a foreign air force, or missiles fired from overseas, at the US. They'd made lots of successful intercepts in previous years, but almost all of them were offshore - that should tell you something. A failure of imagination, perhaps, to foresee the use of hijacked airliners to attack the country. Nothing more than that, I would suggest.

  • 483.
  • At 04:31 PM on 26 Aug 2007,
  • MrGav wrote:

The conspiracy theory around WTC7 just doesn't make sense - there is no reason for it!

A while ago now I saw a documentary about these collapses. I'm not sure whose documentary it was but they stated that WTC7 housed various government agencies, some of them carrying out investigations into government corruption (I think? - as I said it was a while ago!) conveniently all the records held on these investigations were lost in the collapse.

I would imagine that these sort of facts are part of the public record (the fact that the investigations were on going) so I can't see any reason to make them up. Of course the conspiracy part starts with the interpretations of these facts (i.e. the records were conviently lost) - which I assume are correct.

If this whole thing wasn't so sad the quantity of 'smoking guns' would make this whole thing highly entertaining - as it is it just feels like one massive sick joke - or
(and what seems more likely to me at least) that the conspiracy theorists are closer to the truth than the official version is.

Anyway until someone can show me a building collapsing in a way that exactly mimics a controlled demolition when in fact it wasn't then I might start to believe that these collapses were not controlled. As it is all I have seen is footage of controlled demolitions looking exactly like the collapses of 9/11 and footage of buildings burning for hours and hours that also didn't collapse.

I find all the conspiracy stuff just a smoke screen. I just look at the evidence, and when I do it screams to me that these were controlled demolitions...


  • 484.
  • At 07:58 PM on 26 Aug 2007,
  • greg wrote:

Ianian (#478), while i'm sure you do sincerely believe that there was not any sort of conspiracy, i would ask you to give a brief account of what you think happened on that day, to show us clearly why you don't think there was conspiracy and why your account is right.
most of your questions are easily answered;

-if the buildings shouldn't have fallen at freefall speeds, then what speed should they have fallen?
-They should not have fallen at all. Steel buildings have never collapsed due to fire, and they certainly don't accelerate symmetrically downwards and violate the law of conservation of momentum and thermodynamics.

-Why would the conspirators let everyone know in advance?
- the problem here is your use of the word 'everyone'. No-one has ever said that someone told everyone. There were just a select few people around ground zero that, somehow, knew it would collapse, and when you look at the tiny fires on just a few floors, it is impossible to say that would cause a complete freefall speed collapse.

-What did anyone have to gain from destroying THAT building at THAT time?
-Building seven housed offices for the CIA and other intelligence agencies, there may have been tons evidence to get rid of, and materials used for the preparation of the main buildings. Also the building was covered under a multi billion dollar insurance deal which made a lot of people lots of money. Also many corporate scandals were lost, some involving trillions of dollars.

-The conspiracy theory around WTC7 just doesn't make sense - there is no reason for it!
- I would say that a steel structured building that collapses at free fall speed due to fires on three floors is not physically possible. How did the floors above the fires collapse? the energy to compress steel is huge and the only energy input here is the gravitational potential, which is no where near enough to account for the consequent tiny pile of rubble.

No-one's accusing the BBC of covering up anything. It very well could have been co-incidence that they were warned of the collapse, but its the fact that no-one would have been able to tell that WT7 would collapse, unless there was advanced knowledge of the demolition. The other buildings, WT1,2,3,4,5,6 were damaged MUCH more by the falling towers, yet no media outlet reported that any of them may soon collapse.
The fact that someone had the information there ready to give to the media, before anyone could have know the building would collapse, is the main incriminating fact in this debate.

  • 485.
  • At 11:27 AM on 27 Aug 2007,
  • david g wrote:

do all these nuts believe in alien abduction as well ?

  • 486.
  • At 04:27 PM on 31 Aug 2007,
  • bill wrote:

david g (#485)

what has alien abduction got to do with the WTC7 collapse?

and who are 'nuts' the people who accept the official story or the ones who don't? either way attacking the messenger rather than the message is i think widely accepted as being borne out of a position of known weakness.

so please tell, do you believe fire on a few lower to mid floors cause the top floor of WTC7 to collapse first - very quickly followed by all the lower floors, in sequence. or do you believe this was a controlled demolition?

  • 487.
  • At 12:58 AM on 01 Sep 2007,
  • Jeremy Hower wrote:

david g, have you read even one post in this thread? Your attempt to slur people seeking truth by asking whether they 'believe in alien abduction' fools no one.

People who maintain that the official version of events is untrue come up with facts and those whose minds are still washed by the BBC retort with comments such as 'your a nut' The BBC appears to predict the future and we're the nuts for believing that they cannot do this.

I suppose that you still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we are fighting for democracy? Please do some research and discover the number of coups the US & UK have been involved with against foreign democratic governments.

How do you explain how the BBC knew WTC 7 collapsed before it had actually done so?

  • 488.
  • At 07:24 AM on 01 Sep 2007,
  • thorn wrote:

uh- yeah.
and SURE , they were skilled enough to put together this massive conspiracy and then let it all leak out in a newscast??
get a grip folks.

  • 489.
  • At 11:17 AM on 01 Sep 2007,
  • mark wrote:

1. The BBC reported that WTC7 came down 20 minutes before it did.

2. The BBC did not know WTC7 was going to come down.

Only ONE of these statements can be a fact, end of story.

Now, as there is nothing to argue about, the only thing left to do is decide wether you accept what you see with your own eyes, or allow some illogical, non-sense arguments to become your reality. Good luck.

  • 490.
  • At 12:49 PM on 01 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

"Do all thse nuts believe in alien abduction" - Hmm what a welcome addition to the debate! (Not). Although what people as a whole believe is an interesting question...

Ten days before the 6th year anniversary of 9/11 and I expect REPEATED scenes of aircraft flying into the towers. Will TV show the tower collapses (or WTC7 collapse) to the same degree (or at all)? I am betting not. Or if they do the media will repeat the standard phrases and nothing like "Looks just like controlled demolition", "Just one hour of fire before they fell" or "Lots of reports of explosions which still haven't been officially explained" or "Strange how WTC1, 2 and 7 are the only steel framed skyscrapers to have down due to fire. And all in one day. Makes you think, huh?" or "I wonder whether they had anything to burn in WTC7 - where did those fires come from?" or "I wonder where all the molten steel came from?" or "I bet whoever was in charge of security feels a bit sick. What... Marvin Bush? The president's brother?" or "Amazingly few people died considering the scale of the carnage..."

  • 491.
  • At 03:03 PM on 01 Sep 2007,
  • Dunk wrote:

#485 ( david g )
Do you oft use such rational "arguments"? You're such a shining light of rational thought, I'm in awe...NOT

Of course it was an inside job dude, just look at the physical evidence...it's there...just because you've not taken the time to examine it, or you have too many barriers in your mind that prevent you from accepting physical and verifiable facts, does not actually stop it from being factual. When you're willing to engage in conversation about reality, then I'd suggest you can post to your hearts content. Otherwise, you're just embarrassing yourself in front of these good people...Check out the websites, do the research and stop being so complacent in face of the overwhelming evidence that exists now... :) Either that, or just wallow in your delusions...whatever will make you most happy :)

Peace,
Dunk

  • 492.
  • At 06:53 AM on 02 Sep 2007,
  • me wrote:

Don't turn the claim around - the tape of your reporter standing in front of WTC7 whilst reporting on it's collapse had nothing to do with accusations of the BBC being actively part of any conspiracy.

It is simply the fact that it happened; that your reporter was standing in front of WTC7, live from NYC, mystically 'pre-reporting' on it's collapse.

Give us a real explanation, don't dodge the topic.

If you can't find the tape (which I believe you are straight out lying to us about), look harder. It clearly shows WTC7, upright, 25 minutes before it collapsed. But chances are that you, that reporter and the rest of the BBC network already know all about it.

  • 493.
  • At 07:21 PM on 03 Sep 2007,
  • greg wrote:

david, #485, your irrelivant question does nothing but make your side of the argument look utterly stupid.


How, then, can the mainstream media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer has been given by Dr. Griffin himself, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

’The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version.


well, which is it? are you not covering this because, as bush said, its 'vicious terrorist propeganda', or do you know there was a conspiracy, but feel the implications of informing the public are too dangerous?
i have a feeling that, now, its the latter.


  • 494.
  • At 05:09 PM on 04 Sep 2007,
  • Sanderson wrote:

This is ridiculous... and you quote a guy on YouTube to prove your point? Hello, do you really think the public is that stupid??! Show us some REAL evidence then maybe we'll listen!

Many people out there are being deceived but not everyone. The group of people who are questioning the 9/11 "official" accounts are growing - we will not stand for the lies!

I for one do not trust any mainstream media anymore. You guys are a sick joke.

  • 495.
  • At 02:34 AM on 05 Sep 2007,
  • Mitch wrote:

Is it possible that 7 looked like another number (in the case of WTC7) on the auto queue if there was one present?

  • 496.
  • At 11:36 AM on 05 Sep 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

This story is INCREDIBLE!
After all these MONTHS, we still do not know the SOURCE of Jane Standley's 'news'!
... And this forum is still up and running asking the same question!! ... WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

  • 497.
  • At 09:24 PM on 05 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Greg, 488, I think you're right. Who will actually call the US on this? If the US admits that, hey, this was just a dirty trick to invade the Middle East, just think of the reparation costs they would have to shell out? It could bankrupt the US and consequently destroy the world economy. If there is actually any danger of the truth getting out... surely, the US administration will just turn even nastier: martial law. Rather than er... "informal" media management it will be completely totalitarian!

I reminded of: "You want the truth? You can't handle the Truth!" If 911 was an inside job then what would be the impact. Probably an even worse world than we have now! How do we get around that?

  • 498.
  • At 06:43 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • Tricia Christensen wrote:

I am from the United States and am very impressed about the news I hear broadcasted from the BBC. I haven't heard about the BBC broadcasting erroneous information about 9/11. It sounds like someone has a few screws loose.

  • 499.
  • At 08:47 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • bill wrote:

Well if you're going to take the 'confusion on the day, whoops we lost the recordings' approach then how's this...some people claimed to have known the building was collapsing just prior. Perhaps one of these people fed the bbc information during the confusion, which would explain how the bbc knew 20 minutes before the unpresidented collapse, after wtc7 had already been on fire for over SIX HOURS...that at the very least would explain this with out tampering/intervention...still though....

  • 500.
  • At 11:14 AM on 08 Sep 2007,
  • mark wrote:

"Is it possible that 7 looked like another number (in the case of WTC7) on the auto queue if there was one present?"

Hey Mitch, do us a favour and go back to sleep. "The 47 floor Solomon Brothers building" can be only one building - WTC7. Have you even seen the video?

A tremendous slip by the BBC, and I join those in asking for the source of Jane Standley's report.

The number of people who believe in the alternative conspiracy theory, i.e. demolition, is growing at an enormous rate, backed by scientific evidence that far outweighs that for the story fed to us by the mass media.

This video will haunt the BBC for years to come if not decades.

  • 502.
  • At 01:51 PM on 11 Sep 2007,
  • Indiana wrote:

It is September 11 2007 today. I went to the opening of building 7 last year.
Why is George Bush and now the BBC trying to destroy the world.
Go away. You make Saadam Hussein look like an angel.

  • 503.
  • At 02:18 AM on 12 Sep 2007,
  • Charley wrote:

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

Wow. Chancellor Obvious is on the scene here guys, doing damage control. Aside from pointing out an obvious error, HOW did it happen? Someone HAD to report it and unless the BBC reports on halfassed random information, its just too suspect.

  • 504.
  • At 12:34 PM on 12 Sep 2007,
  • kloster wrote:

I believe the BBC is part of the conspiracy.

It sounds like the BBC is pumping out stories and "scientific studies" that are one sided and agree with the government.

I am a right wing free market business man and I now mostly believe the conspiracy theory completely after looking carefully at this matter.

Despite the attempts of the BBC to bolster untruths such as the silly 'pancake' untruth, I now consider the conspiracy to be a fact.

It is sad that the BBC has sunk so low.

  • 505.
  • At 01:46 PM on 12 Sep 2007,
  • truth wrote:

lies..lies..lies..

  • 506.
  • At 05:21 PM on 12 Sep 2007,
  • Mark Page wrote:

It is now almost 7 months since Richard Porter offered his explanation and there have been over 500 responses, mostly asking the same question.

Mr Porter has totally failed to answer any questions either in his original post or in any follow-up.

When will the BBC state where this story originated from? They have had seven months to investigate.

A fundamental tenant of journalism is to check your facts and sources.

It beggars belief that a global news organisation like BBC News cannot establish that simple fact, or should we take it that BBC News is totally unfit for purpose?

  • 507.
  • At 11:39 PM on 12 Sep 2007,
  • Kevin wrote:

Hundreds of talking heads take to the airwaves every day all over the world. I want for once, just once, for one of them who has moral integrity to suddenly break out of their script about millionaire poodles and and just scream "We are all lieing to you! Lieing through our teeth!" That would make my day.

  • 508.
  • At 02:16 PM on 13 Sep 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

kevin.

It turns out 'Network' was more a documentary than a fictional film.

The BBC's continual refusal to even approach the subject has left me with the conclusion that they know the issues but dont report them. I have even gone down to the BBC and asked the editor of newsnight personally why these issues are not reported, can you believe he pointed me in the direction of the 'conspiracy files' programme. This was the Editor of newsnight, he gave me time to speak to him which was good, but his advice was to make some 'citizen journalism' about it. Not only was his lack of knowledge on the subject frightening but i couldn't get my head round the lack of journalistic curiosity.

I dont know if they avoid the truth through orders or fear ut either way we have pretty much lost both the BBC and the Media on whole.

In simple words Kevin, they will never tell the truth on this one, instead we move towards a polarised society made up of official state truths and the truth as best the people can assemble it for themselves.

We live in 1984 just as orwell predicted. It's frightening and where is it all going to end.

My guess is with the likes of you and me kevin will see more of out liberties erode whilst the bbc and co will see there loyalty rewarded.

  • 509.
  • At 02:52 PM on 13 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Kostor,#500, I, too, thought it was interesting that the BBC put out a study that claimed that, mathematically, the towers could fall down. (Hmm). However no link to the actual research: it is buried away in a journal somewhere. No mention of WTC7 either. Rather less mention of the other people saying that the likelihood of the 3 skyscrapers (not just the twin towers) falling down exactly like they had been knocked down by controlled demolition (when an accident would present itself in a more haphazard and random fashion) is statistically untenable. And once you add in all the other well documented craziness of the official story, then it all becomes rather suspect. 911 has countless loose ends... just try looking for a few!

I would like to draw the analogy of the Bush Administration's rubbishing of Global Warming science with media management and suitably paid "experts" to the way they have handled the 911 Commission inquiry where they have done exactly the same.

Connect the dots, Guys. The BBC, I believe, cannot or will not report anything too radical. However, I feel the BBC by running the story is moderately helpful in alerting people to the fact that they is something still to be adequately explained.

  • 510.
  • At 10:29 AM on 14 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

The evidence that the Bush Administration actually knew that 9/11 was going to happen is overwhelming: records of other countries secret services alerting the government, SF mayor reported that he was told not to fly that Tuesday, some employees being told (by text no less) to not come in that day; the extraordinary empty 4 aircraft that were destroyed that day (each aircraft was less than 40% loaded while the average aircraft occupancy that day was 80-90%), FEMA turning up "for a conference" in NY on 10th Sept, the extremely low number of casualties considering the scale of the damage: only 27 people killed (mainly civilians) in the pentagon! strange trading actually on the day of 9/11 etc etc.

Shouldn't the BBC at least look into the claims that the Bush Administration Let It Happen On Purpose?

  • 511.
  • At 11:45 AM on 14 Sep 2007,
  • franklin wrote:

so the BBC "lost" its tapes of their coverage of 9/11? nobody makes duplicates? only one of the most impacting days in recent history and oops where'd those tapes go?

i dont believe you

  • 512.
  • At 05:59 PM on 14 Sep 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Richard Porter - re your 'cock-up'/incompetence theory: The Guardian's Seamus Milne writes: 'There's something slightly desperate about the tendency of neo-liberal apologists to cry "conspiracy theory" whenever anyone lifts the curtain on the political and corporate forces driving their devastating crusade to remake the world. It's long been a tendency of Anglo-Saxon culture to sign up to the "cock-up" rather than the "conspiracy" view of history, of course, but the refusal to accept that powerful interests and ideologies have shaped the post-1991 world - rather than simply random events - is just bizarre'. Thanks Seamus Milne.

  • 513.
  • At 01:51 PM on 15 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

If 9/11 is too sensitive a subject for the BBC to handle with a proper reasoned documentary or debate, then surely this proves the conspiracy theorists right?

I thought it was a perfectly valid explanation. Seems like most people here won't take anything less than a "Yes, we did it! We admit everything!" confession, since that's what they want to hear. News flash, people: what you want to be true isn't necessarily what is true.

  • 515.
  • At 10:21 PM on 16 Sep 2007,
  • murchadh wrote:

Hasn't anyone seen the new iPhone? It could take your minds off this.... it has in the US!

  • 516.
  • At 01:21 AM on 17 Sep 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Yes Richard, we are still here. Actually we are still waiting after six year as to how the 174m, 47 story building, WTC7 fell down in under seven seconds even though it was not hit by a plane. Sure, it may have been damaged by the collapse of the twin towers but other buildings in the immediate vicinity which were much more severely damaged, still remained standing. It seems everyone knew WTC7 was coming down, yet no-one can explain why. Over six years without any adequate explanation, and you wonder why people are being so skeptical?
If you are not interested in pursuing this since it is merely a conspiracy theory then consider this. According to Norman Mineta, Dick Cheney was informed by a young man that Flight 77 was 50 (then 30, 20, 10) miles from the Pentagon. Why did Dick Cheney NOT have the Pentagon immediately evacuated after hearing this news? Conspiracy or no conspiracy, Cheney's negligent actions by not having the Pentagon evacuated caused more lives to be lost than necessary. This is absolutely unforgivable and Cheney (and any others who knew) needs to be dealt by the full force of the law. No excuses. Why isn't the BBC following this up?

  • 517.
  • At 09:53 PM on 17 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Clp013, #503, you thought the BBC's answer valid? Well the BBC could claim that it was honest mistake. And generally I would believe the BBC too. However the BBC's total lack of follow-up on 911 is rather suspicious - as if they have been gagged! Stories of the tape being lost (as if the tape was not an important historical document), would be ok, except for:
a) stories of "How the Twin Towers collapsed" and the BBC did not ask a single searching question,
b) dismissive stories of "conspiracy theories" which in fact explain the evidence better than the official theories (indeed the official story is taken as fact)
c) stories of mathematicians who can explain the twin tower collapses (but ignore WTC7 falling over) or the many other stories to the contrary.

I guess neither the BBC or the Bush Administration will change their tune... I would much prefer to believe the BBC but cannot since the "science" and the facts behind what they report has to have some logic rather better than presented at the moment. If steel framed building do fall down so easily, shouldn't the BBC at least have a campaign for skyscraper safety? (Since WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all supposed to be "over-engineered" - other tall buildings are not as strong).

  • 518.
  • At 11:40 PM on 17 Sep 2007,
  • Alan Hanson wrote:

John Blacker presents a fact based analysis, requesting clarity from the BBC. Your opinion above is akin to a discussion with a mate in the pub. The integrity the BBC believes it has needs to be proven once in a while; unfortunately all too often we only hear the government line via the BBC. Absolute shame we have to trawl the internet in order to get a balanced picture.

  • 519.
  • At 04:26 PM on 18 Sep 2007,
  • Brtuce Rerek wrote:

After hearing so much about what people knew or how the events of 9-11 actually transpired, the one thing that is clear is that a horrific crime occurred. Short of a complicated conspiracy several though lines are also apparent, that human of stupidity, carelessness, and gross indifference for human life.
Faced with the most ordinary answers to almost incomprehensible events, many choose to find connections to the most obtuse threads of evidence. The conspiracy was among the perpetrators and their abettors. They attacked swiftly and with precision. Confusion was rampant among emergency workers and the media. As such it almost mocks the suffering that so many endured and are those who are still trying to cope.

Regardless of what you believe, unanswered questions are not being answered. Crucial points are being ignored. Huge effort is going into dismissing evidence with fake, bought and paid for lame-stream media goons and useful idiots who believe space aliens did it. And now, more and more professionals and experts, police and fire-fighters, former Government officials and intelligence agents, pilots and military are coming forward with their valuable data that proves there's something fishy going on. The idiots who call everyone childish names for believing it was an inside job really need to grow up.

  • 521.
  • At 09:35 PM on 19 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I guess nobody is going to ask any questions in the US if they are tasared just for asking an annoying, but pertinent, question to John Kerry. Or locked up because they are wearing t-shirts with anti-bush slogans. This is the country which represents Freedom and Free Speech. Sorry that last sentence should end with a question mark!

In fact the term "liberal" is treated like a swear word in the US. So if you don't have a "liberal democracy" then what do you have... er... let's not go there.

Perhaps if you can't have placards or t-shirt slogans, protestors should just wear Orange (vive the orange revolution!) and see whether the message gets across?

  • 522.
  • At 06:36 AM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Edward Chewtoy wrote:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."


Bwuahahahaha!!

Best joke I heard in along time.


But now the truth please.

  • 523.
  • At 02:03 PM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Mayer Amschel Bauer wrote:

Leaving aside all the other questions (and there are thousands), it would be interesting to see the BBC's "fair and unbiased" coverage of one crucial issue: that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been friends and business associates for many years. How coincidental is THAT? That the family of the President of the United States and the family of the supposed chief suspect have worked and socialised together for 30 years. And no-one finds this suspicious in the slightest???

Incidentally, it was recently admitted by the FBI that they had no evidence to link Osama to 9/11 - and if you look on the Osama's FBI "most wanted" page, you'll see that 9/11 is not listed among the crimes for which he is wanted.

So. "No evidence to link him to 9/11", and 2 wars based on his involvement. A slight disconnect???

  • 524.
  • At 11:32 PM on 20 Sep 2007,
  • Becky wrote:

The BBC only lost interest in serving the public after Bird was ousted by the governement and replaced by a Blair-puppet.

Now the BBC is under control of Labour i've lost all faith in it, but as of Sep 11th it was an honest organisation trying to do it's public service.

Only since the right honourable Labour supporting Hutton Inquiry has the BBC turned into the puppet regime of a totalitarian regime.

Bring back Democracy: No more postal votes for dead people please.

  • 525.
  • At 04:51 PM on 21 Sep 2007,
  • brian wrote:

well i just watched "911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy" for the other side of the story!
I for one am shocked that the bbc did not do more research on this before making such a one sided documentary. I thought the bbc was better then this. I hope they make another documentary asking for witness accounts and show more about the WTC7 building.

  • 526.
  • At 10:48 PM on 22 Sep 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)

Can you do the same with my licence fee?

BBC is just a government propaganda machine. Google "BBC propaganda" for other misleading BBC reports.

like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; "what she was being told;"

Who told her, the demolition company?

  • 527.
  • At 07:44 PM on 23 Sep 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

So we STILL do not know the source of Jane Standley's news story!
The BBC condemns itself ever more vehemently as every day passes while this question is not answered!
- This very forum bearing witness to the condemnation!

  • 528.
  • At 09:47 AM on 27 Sep 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

If the BBC is not part of the conspiracy then why is there no adequate follow up from this blog and other BBC 9/11 blogs? Too busy worrying about the impact on their reputation of the phone-in competition scandal? Now does that really have any impact on world politics or history? (I think not. Say sorry, move on). As for 9/11, the biggest news story of the decade: The New Pearl Harbour! (To quote Bush), what about the BBC's reputation there for future generations?

Strangely enough, A New Pearl Harbour is just what the US administration wanted in the mid-1990s. And on the day, people knew, indeed seem to want WTC7 to fall down. The BBC even reported its falling down 20 minutes before it did. Silverstien (the new owner of the WTC complex) and John Kerry (its on You-tube) are both on record for saying the building was deliberately knocked down. The official story: WTC7 fell over due to fire and debris damage (oh and there was supposedly oil tanks there for the emergency generators). Is official story really plausible? Only 3 skyscrapers have fallen down due to fire and debris in history. All on the same day? WTC 4 5 6 were covered in rubble from the towers collapse. They didn't fall down. Surrounding building didn't catch fire or fall down. Why WTC7? Was it something to do with the fact there was something to burn in there (CIA, FBI, SEC files perhaps), indeed, that had to be destroyed? The answer to the last questions is: we will never know, I guess. But the answer to why the building fell can be answered: independent researchers state it was controlled demolition. Mr Porter, do 15 minutes research, do some interviews, broadcast the truth!

I in no way feel that the BBC is in some sort of conspiracy with the americans, I feel that you had misleading information in regards to that even though it does look ever so suspicious.

However this blog was started over half a year ago and still the BBC has no response, why?

This is not a dig but you should really get your act together and create a new documentary stating the facts from where you information is published, I work in Media and know exactly how hectic and how misleading information can be, however loosing your log tapes from that day, doesn't OFCOM state you need to keep them for 45 days after?

If you had have even kept log tapes for 7 days and not discraded them after a day you would still have them now, you wouldn't just throw them away... surely?

You have log tapes from every form of platform ranging from BBC Radio 1 to BBC TV 4 from when the stations first launched.

All we want is facts and not silly excuses, as I say I work in media and as some people which may be easily fooled I am not because I know exactly how media works!

Thanks for reading...

  • 530.
  • At 10:02 PM on 02 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

... And the SOURCE of this bizarre news story Jane Standley presented was from whom, did you say, Mr Porter?

  • 531.
  • At 10:47 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

How about if the BBC just screens "9/11 Press for the Truth"? This is a professionally made documentary which features and supported by relatives of 9/11 victims. It is available from amazon, available for rent etc.

  • 532.
  • At 11:41 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
  • jonathan spratt wrote:

Richard

I have official BBC level 1 & 2 responses from complaints dept & the editorial complaints unit saying that the BBC will not investigate the premature reporting of the WTC 7 implosion as I didn't lodge a complaint within 3 months of 911. Astonishing. However, Director of Complaints has asked me to lodge an independent BBC complaint into this matter due to unsatisfactory response from level 2.

Again, please, what is your source for this clairvoyant reporting?

  • 533.
  • At 05:08 PM on 04 Oct 2007,
  • kevin fulton wrote:

how else could they have known the building was about to collapse when no other office building in history has collapsed like this unless it was with controlled demolition!

  • 534.
  • At 02:34 PM on 05 Oct 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

I work in a newsroom, I can tell you that it's not journalism anymore, It's a rating business. Internationnal news comes from news wires like Associated Press, Reuter, APTN and others. The news flashs appears in the news software, usually INews or Avid News with all the basic information on the event. The "journalist" take this flash and reworks it a little and is sent on-air. Most journalist doesn't do research anymore, it takes too much time, and time is money. They sell a story based on a news flash sent to them by a third party. Journalist are expert story tellers, that it... Trust me, TV news is "most ot the time" BS...

  • 535.
  • At 03:02 PM on 05 Oct 2007,
  • golfer` wrote:

Maybe the BBC just weren't actually using live footage. If they can't work out how to organise a phone-in competition...

  • 536.
  • At 07:16 PM on 07 Oct 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

The mystery now is THIS VERY FORUM!
Does the BBC think it will all end up like limp crisps?
... This story is NEVER going to go away ... Get used to that idea Mr Porter!

  • 537.
  • At 10:35 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Alan, #535, I agree. 9/11 is a big story and it will not go away. It will be studied by historians from now until history ends. Hmmm... well assuming life goes on, how will future historians look back and view the events of 9/11? There's no evidence to the official story, no science, no debate in the media: Just the Bush administration view of the world (which includes the 9/11 Commission report). Since the official story makes so little sense perhaps there will be a footnote saying that they were some nuts saying "er... can 3000 deaths, 4 aircraft crashes, 3 skyscraper collapses and billions of dollars of stolen bullion and dodgey insurance pay-outs be investigated a little, please?"

Perhaps Historians will get confused between the story of 9/11 and Orwell's 1984?

  • 538.
  • At 09:44 AM on 10 Oct 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Thanks for the information Bill. John Pilger (a real journalist) has some good documentaries on video.google exposing how the media was sold out years ago under the guise of 'professional' journalism which must rely on offical resources for information rather than conducting any adequate independent research as journalist used to do.
Any word on how WTC7 came down or who the source was yet Richard? No, didn't think so. This is a total disgrace.

  • 539.
  • At 05:42 AM on 11 Oct 2007,
  • Criptin wrote:

Its obvious that they were well aware that this event was going to happen before it actually did. I think they got their hard hitting "news breaks" slightly ahead of the reality the media sets for the common man to see..Even worse that this isnt the first time.

  • 540.
  • At 11:53 PM on 12 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I just heard someone on Radio 4 (10.30pm Friday 12th Oct) saying that 9/11 is the reason for the War on Terror. And because the US is "at War" then that justifies the Bush Administration's totalitarian policies; powers of extraordinary rendition, telephone tapping and much more: affecting anyone in the world not just US citizens. Apparently one of the major checks and balances for these powers is a free press. If there is a free press then why aren't the claims into 9/11 (everyone agrees that there are un-investigated loose ends) talked about and debated?

  • 541.
  • At 11:43 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Luke wrote:

My perspective of the BBC as being a progressive, informative and valid news source on local and global events died over 5 years ago now.

I recently had a chance to watch the BBC's 'Conspiracy files'. How can any one argue with such a authoritative expert such as the editor of popular mechanics? Thank you BBC for closing the issue in such an exhaustive manner.

What a joke.

  • 542.
  • At 02:10 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Mark Oller wrote:

Les wrote: "IF it was a conspiracy, then it was done with amazing technique for no-on involved to come forward and blow the whistle." Someone did blow the whistle: the unknown hero who wired the BBC and CNN the news that WTC7 collapsed, more than 26 minutes before it happened. The geniuses who orchestrated this conspiracy could not have been stupid enough to announce the collapse of WTC7 in advance. If only the press and mass media paid attention.

  • 543.
  • At 10:52 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Mark Oller # 540, you wish the press and mass media "paid attention". I'm guessing they're starting to wake up behind the scenes but finding their hands tied by (i) the higher-ups and (ii) military secrecy and security clauses that do not allow for the truth of the matter to be baldly revealed. Too dangerous for Western society/white man's burden/etcetera. But many journalists are waking up to find themselves with egg all over their faces, having swallowed and regurgitated the pap they were fed post-911. Truth - factual, verifiable truth - is going to rise in value as people realise what a rare gem it is. The John Pilgers, Seymour Herch's and Uri Avnerys will be lauded for sticking to it. The rest of the media has been badly burnt. That's my opinion, anyway, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

  • 544.
  • At 04:44 AM on 18 Oct 2007,
  • Mark Oller wrote:

You underestimate the tenacity of lies. Suppose cockroaches were immortal, and could only be controlled by catching each cockroach and carrying it outside. It would still be easier to deal with cockroach infestations than lies.

As an American I also suspect that you overestimate the American press. Every time I read a newspaper or turn on a television, I feel like Winston Smith in 1984.

All the reporters and camera crews, at the World Trade Center, saw and heard the explosions. Even the blind and deaf would have felt the concussions. How does one not notice an estimated 14 tons of high explosives going off?

  • 545.
  • At 01:14 PM on 18 Oct 2007,
  • Peter Heger wrote:

BBC = best burglars comentaries

  • 546.
  • At 07:52 PM on 18 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I wondered what happened to $2.3 trillion overspend at the DoD that was announced on 10th september 2001? I wonder if the bbc could investigate that? Surely not related to 9/11 - it would be real investigative journalism! (I guess someone will say that US gov is none of uk's bbc's business... surely an interesting story though)

(A trillion is 1000 billion. The US DoD budget was only $2 trillion and somehow they overspent by more than double...)

  • 547.
  • At 11:53 PM on 18 Oct 2007,
  • Miguel wrote:

The integrity of BBC gone forever!

How lame to see the answers from BBC editor Richard Porter about their own involvement in the WTC7 demolition planning and execution with Larry Silverstein behind the red button. Apparently he didn't follow the script too well and waited another 30 minutes before yelling "PULL" to tear WTC7 down. BTW - you can watch both clips on YouTube if you're lucky! Same goes for the London tube bombing - Inside job! Bring the truth to the surface.
The people are tired of deceit! We're not stupid no-brained puppets. And you're not puppeteers telling us what to think and do. We have had enough tyranny. Who are you protecting?! It's time for a revolution NOW!

  • 548.
  • At 06:54 PM on 19 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Can the bbc investigate the Britons that were killed in 9/11? There must have been dozens - Tony Blair said that 9/11 was probably the worst terrorist event for the UK. Cannot it be investigated from that angle? Where were these Britons? On the planes, in the twin towers (probably not the pentagon, I guess) What companies did they work for? What was the impact on the families? Did they get compensation quickly and easily? Are there any stories of British survivors of the WTC? What have they done since? (Do any of them still enter skyscrapers?!)

  • 549.
  • At 09:45 AM on 26 Oct 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

I have seen many conspiracy documentry clips and watched countless footage over the last month on the 9/11 attacks and there are many things that dont add up, really there are. They are all on the net to see.

I think the day the 9/11 saga is looked into, without it being chaired by the BA the truth will come out.

How do you air that a building has collapsed when it is right behind you in the shot? Thats so funny. Its like the guy asking a witness did u see the mi ..... plane hit. mi? missile.

9/11 was fead to us by corrupt footage and media reports which were meant to fool us into thinking it was terroist actions.

  • 550.
  • At 11:45 PM on 29 Oct 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi, can the BBC tell me whether the collapse of WTC7 ever been shown on BBC one TV?

  • 551.
  • At 11:24 PM on 04 Nov 2007,
  • Jon wrote:

I really have to concur with most of the posts here. I only recently started to look at some of material on the 911 tragedy, and I conclude that the BBC is not doing its job. There are so many holes in the offical story that it at least warrants serious coverage and investigation. The BBC needs to stand for truth once again if its not already too late.

  • 552.
  • At 10:01 PM on 05 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Jon,

unofficially the growing consensus on the blogs is that the BBC is already standing for truth: Orwell's "Ministry of Truth"...

News reporting=wise, the BBC started off well enough with the premonition of WTC7 falling down; And then they had a news piece on the list of hijackers, questioning the FBI story; Sometime after that there was the questions of the Iraqi WMD intelligence... (oops)

But on the downside, there was the Twin Towers documentary which peddled uncritically the official story; the rather biased "Conspiracy Files" series; the new story on how the twin towers could have fallen down "mathematically" just this September; And unfortunately no real follow up to the hijacker identity story and no follow up to the WTC7 premonition (except this blog). ("The tapes were lost" apparently).

Good luck with your own truth finding and let us and your friends what you find. There is serious disinformation out there: it is difficult to even find basic facts!

One thing is certain: the official story does not stack up and the media is reluctant to report. Lack of trust in the BBC is now being blamed onto phone-in scandals and the naming of the Blue Peter cat, rather than the BBC's failure to challenge UK or US politicians on serious subjects. Perhaps you cannot immediately go and say to Bush and say "9/11 was an Inside Job" but there is PLENTY of evidence that the BA knew it was going to happen and they Let It Happen On Purpose. Just some questions there, should, and maybe could, save democracy, justice and a rational approach to the world's problems.

  • 553.
  • At 04:33 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Shocked wrote:

I am Shocked.

'Does anyone have footage?'
Are u 4 real?

"Like ‘someone’ on youtube said..."???
Saywhat?

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so...it would have been an error - no more than that."
Err,
can u explain why u (as a journalist) are not craving the answer to how that 'error' occurred?
U said u always source reports. Hello?
Why not investigate it?
Isn't that what you kind-of do?

  • 554.
  • At 11:19 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi can the bbc tell me whether the article published on 11/9/2007 about the WTC tower collapses will be updated in the light that the supposed scientific paper it presents has not been published in the journal stated, nor has even been peered reviewed, and no-one can get any comments from the supposed author!?

  • 555.
  • At 11:18 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Maurice Harron wrote:

It;s hilarious! I've just watched 911 Ripple Effect and saw the BBC News item where the news announcer declares that World Trade Centre building no. 7 has just fallen. He cuts to the female reporter in New York and asks her for a comment about the event. She is clearly embarrassed, realising that her London counterpart has just read from the pre-prepared script but has has got the time lapse all wrong. As he asks her about the collapse we can see WTC building 7, still standing, clearly over her shoulder. A classic golden moment for the BBC News archives!

  • 556.
  • At 03:33 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Hank wrote:

John Lennon had The Beeb sussed years ago!

"Like The FBI!
and The CIA!
and The BBC!
BB King and Doris Day!
Matt Busby!
Dig it!"

"Dig It" The Beatles 1969

Give Peace A Chance,
All You Need is Love

  • 557.
  • At 12:40 AM on 16 Nov 2007,
  • pedro lara wrote:

As in this case, if you report a crime ( a murder , for example ) BEFORE it happens, don't you thing you should, as a journalist, try to find out WHO were the source of such information, and WHY and HOW can this trespass the "double check" you were supposed to apply to your information ? If you not do so, dont you feel responsible for covering up a story that was not true? If you dont try to find the true : Is not then then BBC, consciously or not, contributing to make up a false account of the events ?

  • 558.
  • At 05:44 PM on 16 Nov 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Pedro - "Is not then the BBC, consciously or not, contributing to make up a false account of the events?"
Like the BBC giving Keith Seffen lots of elbow room for his yet-to-be-published article on the Twin Towers' collapse. Is this shoddy journalism or (consciously or subconsciously) overt support for the Bush-Cheney version of events?
I can't help feeling the BBC should at least balance the Seffen's piece by giving equal space to, say, Dr David Griscom's 'Hand Waving the Physics of 911'.

  • 559.
  • At 10:07 PM on 16 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I don't approve of people telephoning Jane Standley and putting her on the spot re 9/11 and recording it as what has recently happened (according to an "alternative" news site recently) - however it is strange that she, and indeed the BBC, has appeared so reluctant to follow up on this reporting anomaly. The bbc's response is in this, and one subsequent, blog.

Remember this will be going into the history books.

Eventually the facts will emerge:
- The stock market knew it was going to happen,
- Many people were advised not to fly on 9/11
- Rudi knew the buildings were going to collapse
- Intelligence agencies around the world were warning of the attack

Therefore the BA must have known (and Let It Happen On Purpose)

And without an adequate explanation of their premonition of WTC7 falling down, the BBC will be tarred with the same brush: They must have been in on it too...

  • 560.
  • At 05:34 PM on 17 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Don't you think there is something to investigate?

The relatives of the victims are unhappy with the official story (See 9/11 Press for Truth movie)... No criminal investigation, no FAA investigation, no science, no answers to pass down to history except what the politicians said on the day? (And probably knew in advance?) Thousands of people killed, trillions of dollars wasted,lost (or stolen), changes to civil liberties (worldwide), a million dead in Iraq... all because of 9/11?

It is Not being debated, questions Not being answered, Nobody brought to justice, Basic facts Disputed, Disinformation everywhere...

Why can't we get a few simple answers?

  • 561.
  • At 06:46 AM on 18 Nov 2007,
  • Billy wrote:

If most of you can remember back to that day and the news reports. There were several stations reporting that there could have been a collapse of WTC7 at any moment. It is my belief that someone at the BBC misunderstood the information for a total collapse and this is the result. It was known probably a few hours before it collapsed that it would collapse soon (hours or maybe longer). It was fact that they knew it would fall and engineers investigated the structure who made that clear. I know it is hard for most of you to accept that lots of bad reporting took place on 9/11 but that is the truth. I think even when I first heard of the status of building 7 I initially believed it collapsed. Only to learn later that it was still standing. Comeon people. I know you want a reason to hate or believe it was staged but it wasnt. This whole BBC thing is a mistake not a cover-up.

  • 562.
  • At 05:45 AM on 19 Nov 2007,
  • Mallee wrote:

Mr. Porter,

Interesting, that about three of my misives have not gone past the editor.
Have a problem do we?
When can we learn of Dr.Seffen's published paper reference, after all the BBC put him over as an expert in their program.
How about a report on any action against the BBC by a John A Blacker concerning the deceptiveness of the Februray Smith/Rudin Conspiracy File broadcast?
Dear Oh dear, heads in sand have we?
Mallee.

  • 563.
  • At 10:34 AM on 19 Nov 2007,
  • Nick Ille wrote:

Danny Jowenko - a Dutch demolition expert has stated that WTC7 could ONLY have been brought down the way it did by a controlled demolition. There are clear CNN news feeds of several people including NYC firemen and police officers saying "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." and "the building is about to blow up, move it back". It does not take an expert to realise that the chances of 24 huge steel support columns inside, and 57 columns around the perimeter of WTC7, all failing at exactly the same time because of fire and damage from failing debris from the towers is impossible. All that being said the BBC chose to use the opinion of David Coburn from Popular Mechanics who stated that “the idea that it was a controlled demolition holds no water.”

Mr. Porter 9-11 was a "false flag" attack and 7-7 in London was no different. ITV interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants whose company Visor Consultants were running a training exercise that very day. Power states "the most peculiar thing was it was based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station". The ITV interviewer replies "Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario? Power then replies "Almost precisely". Peculiar indeed, just as on 9-11 training exercises being run on the same day dealing with terrorist attack and hijacked planes.

Just think about this Mr Porter, once we have all lost civil liberties and end up living in a police state, you will be no different than anyone else. The evil people who want to run the world have no feelings for you either. You are just being used as a puppet for them to peddle their lies.

  • 564.
  • At 01:05 PM on 19 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Billy,

Yes I do think the BBC made a mistake. But strangely: they cannot prove it. Yet it should be easy to prove one way or another: just look through their archives and notes made on the day: surely an important historical record. Er... no. Lost. Shame. Now the BBC is tarred with murky going-ons (which makes adding baby sounds to news stories or fooling the public about the name of the Blue Peter cat seem, hmm, a bit shallow).

I would expect a news agency of the bbc's calibre to be somewhat more substantial in the way it captures and reports news even on a day like 9/11. Hey, ESPECIALLY like a day like 9/11.

Then you have to factor in: the hijacker identity news story that the bbc ran. The web page is still available. That investigation ground to a sudden halt with the FBI's assertion that they had it right and the bbc had it wrong. Despite lots of evidence to the contrary (including from the BBC's own research!) Even my own research (from official sources) demonstrates that the official story of hijackers is extremely suspect. And the BBC know that too.

I think there are reasons why the full details are not being revealed. Richard Porter's assertion "We are not part of the conspiracy": I believe. Why should they be. Reading between lines though: they could be part of the cover-up: why the missing information on the day? why no follow-up to hijacker identitites story? why the documentaries presenting only the official view? why the "mathematical model of the towers collapse" story this september (where the science hasn't even been published)? And why the lack of follow up from all the valid and legitimate comments in this (and other) blogs? It seems like the BBC is behaving entirely without bias.

  • 565.
  • At 08:48 PM on 19 Nov 2007,
  • Bernard wrote:

I see the BBC is being sued over the 911 conspiracy files documentary.

Rock on John Blacker, go get em mate.


  • 566.
  • At 03:53 PM on 20 Nov 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

Where is Richard Porter?

So your still avoiding comment Mr. Porter.

Just so i can get this right, the head of BBC World News is unable to respond to over 500 comments regarding one of his programmes.

If this was a Government minister the BBC would be in outcry, In fact, as i remember Newsnight just loves to show that clip of Paxman asking Michael Howard the same question over and over and Howard never answering.

I am sure it is still on their website ( if only i could access it, how long is it going to be down or is it just me who gets the error 403 forbidden page)

Mr. Porter has been asked for the source many more times, yet shows even more gall than Howard in his refusal to even acknowledge the comments, at least Howard had his shame in public for all to see. Mr Porter instead carrys on making news and giving views, even though he is being massivly challenged on the validity and truth of the news that is output.

Silence can become betrayal, and you will have to respond at somepoint.

It was about 3 or 4 years ago when i first became aware of alternatives to the official commission Report, At first i thought it would be impossible, then you as you learn more you realise its actually probable. In those 3 or 4 years i have noticed not only how reactions to me challenging the truth have changed, from absolute ridicule, which i still get from many sides, through to the increasingly common,
' yeah i know, but i got my own life to live, what can you do about', which i am hearing more and more.

I have also witnessed as the truth movement has grown in both numbers and credibility aswell as increasing the amout of evidence and study into what might of actually happenedthat day ion september.

4 years ago there were just a few websites questioning the official account, now we have a situation where talk shows hosts in the states are being fired because they question the official account.

Now heres the trouble Richard, you guys at the BBC seem to be weighing in on the side of the 'official truth', i say this beacause you made essentially a 'debunking documentary' and you now wont respond to anyone who comments on it, add to this the new Dr Seffen stramash and the media blackout on Sibel Edmonds and it seems you are backing the official truth.

Fair enough, you guys exist in a world of politics and you are part of the establishment, not the check upon it.

There are problems, the truth movement is not going anywhere, and the perpetrators i would imagine will stop at nothing to prevent themselves getting caught.

This seems to me to be one of those immovable object verses unstoppable force equations and as more people realise what this whole last 8 years of foreign policy has been all about the greater that moving force will become and the greater that force demands the truth the harder the perpetrators will fight to keep it hidden.

Without the help of the mass media i worry this is going to get messy and this is the other problem.

The more you stick to the official story the more complicit you are, not in the crime but the cover-up.

Now i know you have one legal case pending, and when Edmonds eventually speaks ( those who have heard her evidence say it makes the pentagon papers look insignificant) and gives her testimony the amount of questions it will throw up and the amount you will be expected to answer will be massive.

So what are you planning over there, outright denial and then if the public perception changes you too will change the editorial policy on this one.

Whats going on, how do you see this ending Richard?
Why will you not talk to us?

We are not crazy, mad loons, we are a massive body of people with legitimate concerns and we want answers not just about your early reporting but to a thousand other questions

So please Richard, enter the dialogue there is nothing to be scared of is there, we are all just interested in truth are we not

  • 567.
  • At 07:34 PM on 20 Nov 2007,
  • sam wrote:

There are some interesting contradictions in your explanation. Firstly you say you had no press releases or scripts prior to the solomon building colapse, yet you say the news reporter was trying to make sense of what she had been told. WHO TOLD HER? Does the information she was gioven and then reported on count as a script or press release.
Secondly you say, you may well have said things that were 'inaccurate or untrue.' THIS IS NOT THE POINT, THE POINT IS YOU SAID THINGS THAT ACCURATELY PREDICTED THE FUTURE!
This is incredible as the colapse of the solomon building was entirely unpredictable, never before in the history of engineering has a steel framed skyscraper colapsed into it's own footprint for no reason other than being on fire a bit.
A mistake or untruth is acceptable, this remarkable clairvoyance is evidence of something much more sinister.

  • 568.
  • At 12:51 PM on 21 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

I must say this blog system is not terribly interactive. Here we are: Sam, Merle, Greg, Cam, Jonathan and dozens of others, Shouting: "er.. this is mildly interesting..."

I think we have proof that our political servants really are our dictators.

We point to the weaknesses of the official story put out by the Bush Administration; The fore-knowledge of events; The science that contradict the 911 Commission Report; The unhappy relatives of the victims; The amazing coincidences that the world is forced to swallow; The historical legacy that this is leaving behind; The impact on world politics, to individual freedom, of ignoring this event!

And what...? "Ho hum. Just some nutters..."

How do we get dialogue?

How do we get answers?

How can we stimulate interest?

What do we have to do? March in the streets? (Already happening, not reported) Get TV programmes made? (Several excellent programmes already made) Discuss the science (already done!). Wake up the BBC? Or some other news organisation? (They seem like they are paid to ignore and not to investigate).

What do you suggest?

Anyone?

  • 569.
  • At 09:20 AM on 22 Nov 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Ynda @ 567 - not much chance for dialogue here - either with fellow posters or Beeb journalists themselves. Maybe that's the way the BBC likes it: control the monologue in a turgid, closed circuit system with minimum outside input.
Yet, it's strange that mainstream media seem to feel they can control or contain the message in some way. Facts don't cease to exist just because they're ignored. Journalists - of all people - should know that.
Is it possible that the BBC and other media were played like violins after 911 (witness Jane Standley) and have ended up painting themselves into a rancid yellow corner just when democracy most needs a Fourth Estate?

  • 570.
  • At 10:50 AM on 22 Nov 2007,
  • phil thomson wrote:

I always get back to building 7; hardly ever touched on by the mainstream press and totally ignored in the official investigation. Firstly, how can this be ignored? A 47 story building which in most cities would be the largest, suffers a total instantaneous collapse of 85 of it's support columns and ends up in total rubble on its footprint.
The third steel building ever to collapse due to fires and structural damage. You have Larry Silverstein the owner telling PBS that he gave the order to "Pull it". You have multiple witnesses on the scene telling of a fire chief telling everyone to run as he listened to a count down.. This building wasn't hit by a plane remember. Then to top it all you have the bbc reporting the total collapse of it 23 minutes before it actually happens. If that's not a story for investigation, I don't know what is.

BBC, this is not going away, it's getting bigger by the day. Scared? You should be.

  • 571.
  • At 12:03 PM on 22 Nov 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

Ynda,

I think we can both agree that we have lost the BBC as an inependant/objective/impartial provider of News (if we ever actually had a BBC like this). I agree with many in this blog that the hutton inq. was a turning point.

If this is accepted then we have to accept that our media and government are essentially singing from the same songbook. So what can we Do?


We can keep doing what we are doing, we listen and we read and we watch and we learn and we educate and carry on hasseling the BBC/Ministry of Info. and calling then to task.

The movement of people who realise 911 and 7/7 were not what they seem and that we are being lied to is increasing every day. In the US increasing amounts of people are protesting at Establishment media Outlets. Truthers are being thrown from audiences for shouting down the hosts, and the venom with which truthers are treated is increasing, which i see as good.

We have moved from the ridicule stage of truth, to the angry denial, we just have to now watch as the next few years turns views towards self evident.

So Ynda, dont think we are doing badly, we are doing well, very well indeed. If The Head of BBC World is too scared to respond to us then we must be doing something right or he must know that the Official truth is just too hard to bend anymore.


The truth will out Ynda, we just have to keep representing it and hopefully a time will come when we can have a 4rth estate again and people like us can get on with our lives.

I would like to end by offering my best wishes to the BBC and their missing Journalist, Richard Porter. He was last heard of on the 27th of February and is location has been unkonwn since then.

My thoughts are with you BBC

  • 572.
  • At 01:03 PM on 22 Nov 2007,
  • Dave Robertson wrote:

I am not sure why the Beeb is not allowing any responses to these conspiracists. I have submitted a number and not had any responses - yet the conspiracists seem to be having as field day.

As far as I can see we all have access to the same information source and for me the case is closed.

In the early conspiracy days - we had all sorts of crackpot theories on planes flown by remote control - holographic projections - secret flying military dog biscuits - now all that seen discredited it all hinges on a building that collapsed. I mean if the Empire state building had collapsed I would not have been surprised. Everything has a rational explanation. Fanatical terrorists hijack planes and kill innocent men, women and children.

Case Closed

  • 573.
  • At 04:45 AM on 23 Nov 2007,
  • Mallee wrote:

Mr Missing Porter,

By the time you do not post this message with my other comments, we in Aussie will have had an election.

The first viewing of 'Loose Change Final Cut' will have ben played in the UK. I suppose you have seen the press conference?

At that press conference, besides noting that the prior Loose Change (2nd Ed) was the most viewed internet program ever worlwide, it also was reported that the prior; "Loose Change 2nd Ed" had 1 million hits when it had Korean subtitles. The interviewee commented that; just imagine if the BBC had that sort of response.

Well Mr BBC, you can have a greater response, if you broadcast the latest verion of Loose Cahnge (final cut). Now how about it? Perhaps you could get Jane Standley to introduce or present it? Then that pesky Mr John A Blacker might feel consoled at the same time and go away.

How about it BBC? You are going to have to face this thing eventuallly.

Always willing to be of assistance to the BBC.

Mallee.

  • 574.
  • At 07:48 AM on 23 Nov 2007,
  • Nick Ille wrote:

Danny Jowenko - a Dutch demolition expert has stated that WTC7 could ONLY have been brought down the way it did by a controlled demolition. There are clear CNN news feeds of several people including NYC firemen and police officers saying "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." and "the building is about to blow up, move it back". It does not take an expert to realise that the chances of 24 huge steel support columns inside, and 57 columns around the perimeter of WTC7, all failing at exactly the same time because of fire and damage from failing debris from the towers is impossible. All that being said the BBC chose to use the opinion of David Coburn from Popular Mechanics who stated that “the idea that it was a controlled demolition holds no water.”

Mr. Porter 9-11 was a "false flag" attack and 7-7 in London was no different. ITV interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants whose company Visor Consultants were running a training exercise that very day. Power states "the most peculiar thing was it was based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station". The ITV interviewer replies "Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario? Power then replies "Almost precisely". Peculiar indeed, just as on 9-11 training exercises being run on the same day dealing with terrorist attack and hijacked planes.

Just think about this Mr Porter, once we have all lost civil liberties and end up living in a police state, you will be no different than anyone else. The evil people who want to run the world have no feelings for you either. You are just being used as a puppet for them to peddle their lies.

  • 575.
  • At 09:18 AM on 25 Nov 2007,
  • RhetoRich wrote:

Your explanation is unacceptable and insults your audience. Shame on you.

  • 576.
  • At 01:47 PM on 25 Nov 2007,
  • Anyta wrote:


Commiserations BBC !
I think your news is probably the most unbiased amongst the western media. Keep it up!

The only conspiracy here is a massive public disbelief that this event happened, unorchastrated, unaided and unedited. If you conspiracy twits would spend as much time on things that really mattered, perhaps we'd all be in a better place. IT HAPPENED - OKAY? SO MOVE ON ALREADY.

  • 578.
  • At 11:41 AM on 26 Nov 2007,
  • Dave Robertson wrote:

Why should the FBI not get the names of the hijackers ? It must have been quite easy to pick out the names. Even I could do that and I'm not in the FBI or anything like that.

If fundamentally you believe the world is run by Mossad or shadowy government figures then even the most innocuous of events would seem strange. For example, George Bush choking on a pretzel would have a deeply sinister meaning. To Ynda it would be a cynical attempt at trying to woo public opinion in the direction of having to invade Iran or Cuba. to the rest of us it would simply mean the Pres got popped up, fell of his big sofa and choked on a pretzel... That pretty much sums up his abilty to plan and execute a conspiracy that even Himmler would have admired.

I think the BBC is a top organisation and when you compare it to anything in Russia, China or anywhere in the Middle East - there really is no comparison - so dont make it - its an insult. To suggest it capable of covering up information or not investigating - have we forgotton The dodgy dossier Gilligan, Kelly, Dyke ?

9/11 - Case Closed

  • 579.
  • At 01:00 PM on 26 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Cliff,

Not really too sure what you are saying? I presume you are refering to me, when you say "conspiracy twit". I do feel a bit of a twit, not understanding things, and all that. That's why I ask questions. It is very tedious. I guess 9/11 isn't that important (despite it being mentioned by politicans on a frequent basis for the removal of rights and justifications of wars). Shit happens. I guess it is unrealistic for me (or anyone to get any sensible answers from the BBC, politicians or scientists). Fours legs good, Two legs better etc.

Perhaps since you are so wise and knowledgeable you could explain how the Twin Towers fell down the way they did. And how WTC7 fall down too. The NIST mathematical models are not available and frankly the scientists don't have any real explanation for the Twin Towers falling. No mention at all for WTC7. No FBI investigation. No FAA crash investigations. So, please cite the sources for this confidence of yours?

I would certainly feel somewhat less of a twit if you could.

  • 580.
  • At 04:04 PM on 26 Nov 2007,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

Dave,

The dodgy dossier, gilligan, dyke etc etc is one of the fundamental reasons why some think the bbc has failed us. They capitulated, gave in and bowed to the will of the government

Also i love how you end with 9-11 case closed like you actually made a case for such a thing.

I note you have used standard way of attacking anyone who dares suggest that 9/11 was not as it seemed.

Don't ever address the questions just say this must mean we believe in jewish zionists, that George W Bush is responsible, that moon landings were faked and that J. Edgar Hoover killed Kennedy.

It's a shame you cant actually refute any of the evidence put forward for the 9/11 truth movement or i am sure you would have.

Still David I guess it is Better you dont enter the debate just mock those that try to have it.

So go on Dave explain the molten metal at the base of the three collapsed buildings that was still there months later. It should be easuy for you it will be in the NIST report no doubt

  • 581.
  • At 05:51 PM on 26 Nov 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply and personal message. Case closed. Yes, please. I would like it closed. Really, I do. I would like it written into the history books with none of the annoying loose ends that are futtering around. But of course there will always be something that is unexplained and unexplainable. Unfortunately, for 9/11 there are just so many...

>Why should the FBI not get the >names of the hijackers ? ...Even I >could do that and I'm not in the >FBI or anything like that.

Indeed why. Have you done any research here? Have you looked at the airlines official passenger lists? Surely this is the easiest of all tasks. (The names are not there). The airlines got it wrong and I should just trust the FBI? Ok, I will. Let's move on.

>If fundamentally you believe the >world is run by Mossad...
No. You jumping to conclusions. Just keep to the facts.

>Bush...choked on a pretzel... That >pretty much sums up his abilty to >plan and execute a conspiracy that >even Himmler would have admired.

I think you are "misunderestimating" Bush, his administration and his advisors.

>I think the BBC is a top >organisation and when you compare >it to anything in Russia, China or >anywhere in the Middle East - there >really is no comparison - so dont >make it - its an insult.

You're probably right. It is better than anything in those countries. I guess I am being idealistic thinking the BBC should be better than that.

>To suggest it capable of covering >up information or not >investigating - have we forgotton >The dodgy dossier Gilligan, Kelly, >Dyke ?

Gilligan and Dyke were sacked and Kelly is dead. I'm not too sure what your point is.

>9/11 - Case Closed

Then explain:
a) Twin Towers collapse. No science here. NIST report does not explain.
b) WTC7 collapse. NIST report does not even mention.
c) Aircraft crashes. No FAA report
d) Justice for the Hijackers and accomplices. No FBI criminal investigation.
e) No military aircraft intercepting the hijacked aircraft
f) Relatives of victims and many other senior officials calling for a new 9/11 report to explain the apparent foreknowledge and countless coincidences of the day.

I would settle for 3 out of the 6. Please close the case.

Dave, sorry if any of my comments seem abrupt or hostile. I like the dialogue. I don't feel I am asking for much: just a few answers that make sense.


  • 582.
  • At 03:14 PM on 27 Nov 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

Well, my conclusion is that YES BBC, you are now part of the conspiracy since any worthy journalist would at least have looked into some of the more obvious flaws with the official story about 9/11. For example Cheney not having the Pentagon evacuated (when the plane was 50 miles out), or the military and terrosit drills conducted that simulated planes flying into the WTC that was apparently never envisioned by anyone (according to Rice) or the poor investigation into the put options or the numerous warnings that were given by Intel agencies or why NORAD could not intercept a single plane even over prohibited airspace such as the Pentagon when the US was clearly under attack or perhaps why NYers were told the air was safe to breath when it clearly was not.
There is no need to even mention WTC7 which fell at near freefall speed through the path of most resitance at 5:20 pm after not being hit by a plane because not even FEMA, NIST nor the Commission can answer that one. Not that you seem to care anyway.
Perhaps you should also have investigated the fact the plans for invading Iraq, Afghanistan and the concept for the Patriot act were all devised before 9/11. A little too coincidental don't you think?
Anyway, your globalist buddies will stab you in the back anyway because after all - you cannot be trusted.

  • 583.
  • At 05:36 AM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • mallee wrote:

Mr. Porter,
Why are you not posting comments.
Mallee

  • 584.
  • At 07:14 AM on 02 Dec 2007,
  • Scott Vines wrote:

"As one of the comments on You Tube says today 'so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy...'"

It neither proves nor disproves a particular conspiracy. It does, however, raise several questions. One question I have is how could anyone have known WTC7 was going to collapse beforehand? There were other buildings closer to ground zero that were more heavily damaged, and the fires in WTC7 were not widespread enough nor hot enough to cause an implosion of the entire building into its own footprint at nearly free fall speed. I suspect the building had long been wired for demolition by the CIA, which had its second largest station there, as a contingency in the event of a terrorist attack, of the false flag sort or otherwise.

Sincerely,
An American who loves his country but hates his government.

  • 585.
  • At 06:30 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • Alan Sparrow wrote:

Merry Christmas to everyone out there!
I have the feeling we MUST celebrate while we can ... This very story proves that "something is rotten in Denmark" ... And VERY rotten!

  • 586.
  • At 10:28 PM on 03 Dec 2007,
  • justin wrote:

as a native new yorker conspiracy "people" make me sick

the bbc might have misunderstood (at the time) that wtc7 was in severe danger of collapsing and a perimeter was set up just in case it did
(if your staff is british in new york they may have had a tough time understanding what Joe from Brooklyn was saying over the radio if they were monitoring fire dept transmissions [i would imagine they had a police/fire scanner] like when my family from england visit they have a tough time understanding me lol)

the fire dept had set up a collapse zone 3 hours prior to wtc 7's collapse

firemen reported many times over that the building was leaning towards the south and they could not continue and had to abandon all search and rescue operations in wtc7 until after its imminent collapse

also seismic readings show that the building started to collapse internally 30 seconds b4 the penthouses drop in the ceiling

if you start counting at the time the east penthouse dropped it takes about 15 seconds

aside from #7 i guess conspiracy "persons" (theorist would imply 1 who comes to unbiased and fact driven conclusions) have not flown in the last 15 years
from what i have come to understand many of the calls to family from the hijacked planes were placed on "GTE seatback AIRPHONES" but i dont understand why this is constantly overlooked when the "cell phone and faked calls" debate come up

  • 587.
  • At 01:23 AM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • mallee wrote:

Scott (583)I suppose the two towers were wired previouslly by your hated Government too.
Problem with your theory; there was
no need to demolish building No 7 and why did they not just say so if that was the case. (the insurance assessors would have understood!)Would have saved us all a lot of time.
On saving time; If your hated government produced the Pentagon security footage we may know what hit the Pentagon and made that nice little round hole in the exit to ring 'C'.
Come to think of it, a hell of time could have been saved if your hated government just honestly disclosed all the information; then, if okdori, we can all save time not to mention, suspicion and angst.
I look fowrard to the BBC setting up a petition to demand that the US government do everyhting necessary to save our time and return; credibility to a hated government worlwide and some respect to it's citizens.
Will not happen will it?
For our Italians: It seems that rancesco Cossiga (former Italian President)has been reported in Corriere Dell Ser.(my Italian is zero)it stating that 9/11 was an inside job.
9/11 is snowballing by the day.
You going to also ignore this comment BBC or do we have to rely on the Italian Media and press for our news?
Mallee.

  • 588.
  • At 01:53 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • greg wrote:

Seeing as the controlled demolition aspect of this seems the most hard for people to accept, i'll try to explain in lamens terms why the collapse of the twin towers is physically impossible.


The best case for a direct mathematical proof of this is that one of the towers that starts to collapse you can clearly see starts to topple sideways (before it is engulfed in the cloud of dust). If this part of the building was experienceing any resistance from the building below, it should have kept on pivoting about its centre of gravity, so the side which is above the building is being pushed up, whereas the side overhanging the building is pushing down. This should create a rotational force (torque) pushing the top section outside of the building. That is a very basic law, called the conservation of momentum.

However, the top section did not topple sideways. You can see it start to topple sideways, and then miraculously, it starts to ignore some very basic laws of physics and starts to straighten up and fall straight down through the building. Not only that, but the section of the building below it, that should have been providing resistance and causing it to topple over, seems to completely vanish from the rubble afterwards. Even if the top section did crush the building below (which i can assure you is impossible anyway, the buildings held up five times that amount of weight everyday) the chances that it would fall straight down is truly miraculous. That would mean that all forces on it were in equilibrium for the entire collapse. That is near impossible. The only way that would happen is if there was no resistance, and the resultant force on the falling building was exclusively due to gravity.

There are at least ten other mathematical proofs using momentum, thermodynamics, newtons laws, and conservation of energy, that show how impossible the collapses are. The trouble is most people dont know physics, and so they will probably not believe it.

For anyone that does care about the science behind this, the best material on this is by Gordon Ross, who has done some good papers that are available to see online from the journal of 9/11 studies on momentum trasfer in the world trade centre. I would very much like to see if the paper soon to be published by Dr Seffen address's the issues that Gordon raises.

  • 589.
  • At 02:08 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • frasay wrote:

Justin,

Conpiracy people make you sick?
Do they make you as sick as the poor workers currently dying from being near ground zero, and breathing in the deadly dust after the government told them it was safe to go back to work?
Do they make you as sick and the hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded, and tortured Iraqis? Dead because of a war based on known lies.
I can't see why people demanding the truth from their government and media makes you so sick?

Can you let us know your source for the fireman/officials saying WTC7 was leaning and looked in danger of collapse?

I guess until NIST can tell us how the building collapsed, you can say you think it was fire and debris damage, and I (and hundreds of demolition experts, engineers, physicists, architects, and academics) can say it looks like a controlled demoliton, but this amounts to specualtion, until we get the scientific analysis complete.
That should surely be what all of us on both sides want, the truth.
I'm going to put some eggs in my, (weaker than steel) aluminium frypan now and have lunch. I wonder if the pan will disintegrate? I wonder if the oven will collapse? After 9-11, apparently it's possible.

  • 590.
  • At 04:00 PM on 04 Dec 2007,
  • Ynda wrote:

Justin,

I'm sorry that conspiracy people make you sick. George Bush with his conspiracy theory (after, all his conspiracy theory has never been proven either) must be included in that list too. Why aren't you annoyed at the Bush Administration which changed the warning from the FDA "Don't breathe in the dust" to "Everything is ok, keep woorking down there"... with the result of a high proportion of the 15,000 ground zero workers suffering with respiratory problems...

You state some interesting details about WTC7. Could you reveal the source of your information about WTC7 leaning? (What could have caused that!?) Do you know of any video footage of the bulge or the leaning. The tower was standing there for 7 hours after the twin towers came down, I would have thought someone must have caught this remarkable event with some video footage? All pictures I've seen show WTC7 looking ok (despite the small fires) after the towers collapsed... I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

(I really don't want to talk about the calls made from the aircraft. There is so much disinformation out there that the mobile phone aspect may never be satisfactorily explained except to say it is just (yet) another anomaly in a very strange day. Let's just keep to the stuff which is filmed and verifiable)...

  • 591.
  • At 07:28 PM on 08 Dec 2007,
  • Jamie wrote:

Mr.Porter perhaps you would condescend to explain the following to a lowly British Taxpayer.

"The BBC wants to be open & accountable, and so this site is a public space where you can engage with us as much as the medium allows. We’re happy for you to criticize the BBC in your e-mails and comments and to ask serious, probing questions of us – we’ll do our best to respond to them".

Is this your best? What does your refusal to comply with your own words say about the BBC's disdain for the British people? There are now hundreds of comments spread over several blogs(thousands even not counting the many that have failed to get posted)to which neither you nor your staff have responded to regarding the events of 9/11 .

  • 592.
  • At 12:37 PM on 17 Dec 2007,
  • Aris wrote:

This is a VERY SERIOUS situation, and i see that you are pulling some kinder garden responses.. na na na i don't know what happened, na na na i don't have the tapes. The MOST important tapes of your life and in BBC history, and you actually say that you don't have it. What do you expect to be peoples reaction to these responses?!?!?! ok, you are right. let's forget the whole thing... Are you calling yourself a reporter??? i would have risked my life to tell what really happened, and there are many more who would have done the same. Name the resources, find who stole the video. You know it's 2007, NOT 1940, where pigeons were delivering the messages and "lost" then on the way. The original video is EVERYWHERE. If you don't have a computer send me your address to bring it to you in person. I hope you have a DVD player...
The FACT is that you reported an early collapse of building 7. Have you seen the edges of the buildings at the right and left of building 7??? They are sharp and intact after the whole aftermath. You expect me to believe that buildings fall like paper castles?? That one airplane made a whole buildings fall down and the same type of aircraft made a small hole in the pentagon??? Be serious. There is no magic in the world, only a sequence of events, and they have a lot of "magic tricks" in the whole process.
You cock-up...

  • 593.
  • At 04:34 AM on 23 Dec 2007,
  • Henry wrote:

Are you commenters freaking morons? Chief Daniel Nigro of FDNY expect the building to collapse and issued orders pulling people away from WTC 7 at 3:00 in the afternoon. Aaron Brown of CNN announced the building had or was collapsing, then like a minute later announced it was about to collapse. Reporters live misspeak on occasion, using it as proof of a conspiracy shows how lacking your critical thinking skills are.

  • 594.
  • At 02:47 AM on 24 Dec 2007,
  • Kurt wrote:

Dear Mr. Porter,

Please explain how your reporter learned about the building's collapse before it happened. Is she a fortune teller? Clairvoyant? Did she just make it up?

If not, then logically someone told her that the building had collapsed before it collapsed. Who would have known this? How did your reporter acquire such faulty information?

Yours is the lamest explanation you could have published about the collapse of Building 7. It defies both logic and journalistic integrity. You raised far more questions and doubt than you answered. I can't believe you are paid to write.

  • 595.
  • At 07:31 AM on 28 Jan 2008,
  • Dale wrote:

Well, how could such accurate misinformation be guessed a half hour before hand? That building wasn't hit but only had small fires. Who would think it would collapse? You can tell by the look on the reporter's face when he first mentions it that she is taken aback and does not know how to respond. She decides to go with it but does not directly address Bld. 7 herself. No one accuses BBC of being in on it. We just think some info was given to BBC erroniously ahead of the time that it was suppose to go out.

  • 596.
  • At 02:21 PM on 29 Jan 2008,
  • shahid khattak wrote:

BBC BUSTED AGAIN!!!!


How could a reporter predict that building 7 would collapse before it avtually did. this clearly means that the bbc and the british gov were the plyers for the 9/11 attacks. also how could you loose such important tape. it all seems like the bbc bribed by the white house

  • 597.
  • At 04:19 PM on 08 Feb 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

Folks the BBC is not a part of a conspiracy.
This video clearly shows a reporter standing in front of a green screen that is playing a previously recorded video tape on it. To prove this fact you merely have to look towards the left side of the video and you will clearly see the white edge of the display screen. To the left of that edge you will catch a clear view of a gray building with smoke going over the top of it that does not match the video being played behind the reporter. This building is the actual live shot of New York at this point in time.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.