Well, the BBC has responded… sort of… to their broadcast foretelling of the WTC7 collapse on 9/11. You can read it here.
Can you spot the bald-faced lies?
Lie #1 – Richard Porter of the BBC, says: “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.”
They didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down? Soooo… what? They just make shit up then? They just make up news off the top of their heads and report it on live T.V. during one of the most tragic days in recent history? Come on! OF COURSE someone told them the building was going to fall. If they didn’t, then Richard Porter is admitting that the BBC makes up news to report live on the air.
Lie #2 – Porter says: “We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like ‘apparently’ or ‘it’s reported’ or ‘we’re hearing'”
Sorry Richard, that’s a LIE! The video above is introduced by the anchor thusly: “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!” Do you see any qualifying words in there? Later, the same news anchor says: “Presumably there were very few people in the Salomon Building WHEN IT COLLAPSED.” Again, do you see any “qualifying words” there? What’s more, the news ticker on the screen, at 2:04 on the Google video that I posted in my previous blog entry, clearly states: “The 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.” …nope! Still no “qualifying words.”
The BBC was, at no time in this video, reporting this as an unverified report. They were clearly reporting it as verified fact.
Lie #3 – Porter says: “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.”
Huh? Not only does every major media outlet in the world make multiple, in house copies of every major news story they deliver, they also pay third party agencies to make multiple, off-site recordings of every second of broadcast, on THE MOST MUNDANE OF NEWS DAYS! Not to mention when a story like 9/11 is going down! They do this because their video archives are invaluable to them for further reporting on developing stories. The BBC would HAVE to have had multiple copies of every second of their broadcast over that entire day, stored in multiple facilities.
But, Richard Porter, head of BBC news, expects us to believe that due to a “cock-up” (his words) the BBC no longer has in their possession any copy of any of their broadcasts from that day. Uh, yeah, ooooook fine.
Richard Porter IS A LIAR!
So, in all of recorded history, a grand total of three steel framed skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire, all of them on the same day, and the BBC manages to perfectly predict one of them 20 minutes before it happened. When confronted with the smoking-gun proof of their incredible precognition, they spout a bunch of demonstrable lies, and apparently every single copy of every tape made of their broadcast on that day – one of the most archival days in human history – has, due to a “cock-up”, mysteriously gone missing.
But, of course, you’d have to be crazy to believe it could be anything more than a series of bizarre coincidences!
If the BBC’s got nothing to hide, then why didn’t they name their source for the report, Instead of insulting our intelligence by claiming that there was no source, and that they just make up news stories off the top of their heads? It’s not like they’re protecting Deep Throat or anything. It’s likely just a wire service. So, what was it? AP? Reuters? Agence France? What? Name it so people can get to the bottom of it and answer the questions! If there’s no conspiracy, why do they have to keep covering everything up with lies an evasions so that the conspiracy idea keeps getting perpetuated?
If there’s no conspiracy, then just be forthcoming with some straight-forward fucking answers, and we’ll put this whole damned thing to rest!
Anyway, Richard Porter – you sir, are a liar, a coward, and a fraud. Have a nice day.
2 Comments
From the BBC’s own website comes their own (government enforced no less) policy on archiving BBC broadcasts:
Count them people – that’s FOUR separate copies stored at two separate facilities! – Two broadcast masters (one stored off-site.) One “browse quality” version for review purposes, and one unedited (raw form) reel for re-versioning.
So, Richard Porter of the BBC is claiming that the BBC has lost four copies, held at two separate locations, of every second of footage shot over the entire 24 hour period. His only explanation regarding the how of this? It was due to a “cock-up.”
What’s more… Porter said: “We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.”
Except that the footage from News 24 has now been found, and it shows EXACTLY what the BBC World footage showed. They were reporting the collapse of the building at exactly the same time. So, there’s ANOTHER outright lie from Richard Porter and the BBC!
If the BBC wants to retain ANY of the very little credibility they have left, they MUST release their source for the WTC7 collapse report, and provide a detailed accounting of exactly how they managed to lose 4 separate video copies of their coverage of one of the most notable day’s events of American history.
This MUST be done. They MUST release this information. Any more lies, evasions, or deceptions on the part of the BBC and they will no longer have ANY credibility WHATSOEVER as a news agency.
Their head of news, has apparently already claimed that they make stories up off the top of their head to report to the public. So, maybe I’m being generous… perhaps they’ve already, irrevocably lost all credibility.
This 9/11 BBC World News footage shows the BBC reporting that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed even though WTC-7 is clearly still standing right behind the reporter outside the window. The satellite feed goes dead about five minutes before the WTC-7 building actually collapsed — making it the first steel frame high rise to collapse due to fire in the entire history of the world!
Here is the BBC’s response to this controversy:
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.
So if nobody told told you this was about to happen, how did you correctly predict the collapse of WTC-7 23 minutes before it actually happened? Is Miss Cleo one of your producers?
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.
Sorry, but all of these words are noticeably missing from the report in question.
3. 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.
Does she not remember the building right behind her imploding into rubble just minutes after the anchor told her it had already collapsed?
And why are you blaming poor Jane Standley for this. Wasn’t she simply agreeing with what the anchor told her?
Finally, if you were a reporter who confirmed to the entire world on live TV that the WTC-7 building had already collapsed 23 minutes before it actually collapsed on the most historic day of this century, would you be able to remember the source that steered you wrong?
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.
So the dog ate the BBC’s only copy of its 9/11 video? Do you actually expect us to believe this? Ever heard of http://www.archive.org?
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… “
OK, now you are quoting a commenter on youtube.com? Seriously? That’s your explanation for going with a psychic prediction that the WTC-7 tower was about to collapse while the building itself is still obviously standing right behind you? And if you read the youtube.com comments, how are we supposed to believe your excuse about the dog eating your video? Didn’t you just see it on youtube?
*****
This is some truly bizarre stuff. Who was pushed this story on the BBC such that they went with it without so much as fact checking the obvious fact that the WTC-7 tower was still standing in plain sight on their own camera footage while they were making this very report? Remember that no steel frame high rise has ever collapsed due to fire on any day in human history other than 9/11. So what made the BBC’s source so certain that WTC-7 was going to come down 23 minutes before it actually did such that the BBC went ahead and reported that this had already occurred with the WTC-7 building still standing in plain sight in their own footage?