08MAR23. Paula Schmitt A Fe Nas Versoes Oficiais Atentado Do 11 de Setembro Terceira Torre

https://www.poder360.com.
br/opiniao/o-11-de-setembro-e-a-fe-que-
move-as-versoes-oficiais-por-paula-schmitt/
LOGIN
A A
opinião
publicidade
O 11 de setembro e a fé que
move as versões oficiais, por
Paula Schmitt
Crença leva à cegueira e à mudez
Faz imprensa escolher não ver
E também deixar de perguntar
Pixabay
Pixabay
As torres gêmeas do World Trade Center, alvos de ataque

em 11 de setembro
PAULA SCHMITT
17.set.2020 (quinta-feira) - 6h00
atualizado: 17.set.2020 (quinta-feira) - 7h19
E
m 11 de setembro de 2001, o
mundo congelou num misto de
assombro, tristeza e
incredulidade com o colapso de três
torres comerciais no World Trade Center
em Nova York.
O leitor atento deve ter achado que

O leitor atento deve ter achado que
cometi um erro na frase acima. O leitor
ainda mais atento sabe que não.
Pergunte a quem está ao seu lado
quantas torres foram derrubadas no
ataque ao World Trade Center e a
pessoa provavelmente vai responder
que foram duas. Mas foram 3. A 3ª
torre, a uma distância de mais de 100
metros das outras, vem sendo
religiosamente ignorada pelos
mercadores do consenso e os
estenógrafos das versões oficiais. Isso é
porque ela não combina com a história
sem arestas que nos foi contada. E ela
não combina porque essa torre,
conhecida como Tower 7, nunca foi
atingida por um avião.
publicidade
publicidade
Receba A Newsletter Do Poder360

todos os dias no seu e-mail
seu e-mail
OK
Pela versão oficial, o prédio teria sido
derrubado porque pegou fogo por 7
horas. Segundo a BBC, “se a versão
oficial estiver correta, então a Torre 7,
um prédio de 47 andares, é o 1º e único
arranha-céu sustentado por aço que
desmoronou por causa de um incêndio”.
Interessante, não? Mas veja só que

coisa intrigante. Enquanto você, caro
leitor, provavelmente não sabia da
queda da Torre 7 até 1 minuto atrás, a
BBC e a Reuters já sabiam –antes de a
torre cair. É isso mesmo: a queda dessa
torre foi noticiada em transmissão ao
vivo, pela BBC, 20 minutos antes do seu
colapso. Quem diz isso não sou eu –é a
própria BBC. Agora vejam só que
colapso. Quem diz isso não sou eu –é a
própria BBC. Agora vejam só que
infortúnio: o filme original dessa
reportagem, onde a jornalista Jane
Standley fala da queda do prédio
enquanto ele aparece ereto ao fundo,
desapareceu da empresa junto com
outras filmagens do dia do ataque. Mais
uma vez, quem disse isso foi a BBC. A
razão do desaparecimento teria sido um
“cock-up”, uma expressão que significa
“erro crasso” ou, em bom Português, e
com a ajuda do dicionário de
Cambridge, uma c*gada.
“Nós não temos mais as fitas originais

da nossa cobertura do 11 de setembro
(por razões de erro crasso, não
conspiração)” escreveu Richard Porter,
editor da BBC World.
editor da BBC World.
Um ano depois que Porter escreveu

isso, contudo, depois que gravações das
imagens da BBC vieram à tona, as fitas
originais desaparecidas reapareceram.
Isso foi anunciado pela própria BBC. Eu
traduzo aqui parte do artigo assinado
pelo editor Mike Rudin:
“É certamente verdade que em 11 de

setembro a BBC divulgou que a Torre 7
tinha ruído quando ela ainda estava de
pé. Então a transmissão do satélite
parece ser interrompida
misteriosamente enquanto a repórter
ainda estava falando. Depois disso
Richard Porter admitiu em seu blog ano
passado que a BBC tinha perdido as
fitas da BBC World daquele dia. Isso é
passado que a BBC tinha perdido as
fitas da BBC World daquele dia. Isso é
prova que a BBC é parte de uma
enorme conspiração sinistra, ou existe
uma explicação mais simples? O
mistério das fitas desaparecidas não
durou muito. Um bibliotecário muito
experiente gentilmente aceitou dar
mais uma olhada pra gente uma noite.
Existem mais de um quarto de milhão
de fitas só no porão da nossa Fast Store
no Television Centre. Na manhã
seguinte eu recebo uma ligação pra
dizer que as fitas foram encontradas.
Elas tinham apenas sido colocadas na
prateleira errada –de 2002, e não de
2001. Não é tão sinistro, no final das
contas”.
Para quem não sabe, vale aqui lembrar

Para quem não sabe, vale aqui lembrar
de ao menos uma ajuda inquestionável
que a BBC já deu a uma agência de
espionagem. Reproduzo aqui um trecho
do meu livro Spies sobre a ação da CIA e
do serviço de inteligência britânico MI6
para tirar Mohammad Mossadegh do
cargo de primeiro-ministro iraniano.
De acordo com o fantástico livro de não-

ficção All the Shah’s Men, de Stephen
Kinzer, para persuadir o xá a se render
ao golpe, o agente da CIA Kermit
Roosevelt teve que convencer [o xá
Reza] Pahlavi de que a agência britânica
de espionagem MI6 estava envolvida no
esquema. Com essa finalidade,
Roosevelt disse ao xá que haveria um
sinal discreto mas inconfundível da Grã-
Bretanha para demonstrar sua
sinal discreto mas inconfundível da Grã-
Bretanha para demonstrar sua
participação na derrubada de
Mosaddegh –uma alteração na forma
como a BBC assinava a transmissão do
dia no seu programa de rádio, algo que
seria solicitado pelo próprio Winston
Churchill à BBC. De fato, na noite
designada, em vez de terminar o
programa com “Agora é meia-noite“, o
radialista finalizou com “Agora é
exatamente meia-noite.”
A CIA também subornou a irmã de

Pahlavi com casacos de pele e dinheiro
para que ela convencesse o irmão a
participar do golpe. A CIA organizou
marchas e manifestações contra
Mosaddegh que pareciam espontâneas,
distribuindo panfletos e provocando
Mosaddegh que pareciam espontâneas,
distribuindo panfletos e provocando
tumultos. A imprensa foi comprada ou
forçada a escrever contra o primeiro-
ministro, chamando-o de comunista e
acusando-o de ser secretamente judeu.
Alguns artigos foram assinados por
jornalistas iranianos, mas escritos em
Washington. De acordo com Richard
Cottam, um doutor de Harvard que
trabalhou para o Departamento de
Estado norte-americano no Oriente
Médio, no auge do golpe, de cada 5
jornais iranianos, 4 estavam sob o
controle da CIA. Com todo esse esforço,
a Operação Ajax foi bem-sucedida, e
conseguiu destruir qualquer esperança
de mudança democrática derrubando
Mosaddegh, trazendo o xá de volta e
finalmente favorecendo a vitória da elite
finalmente favorecendo a vitória da elite
religiosa com a entronização de
Ayatollah Khomeini.
Os ataques do 11 de setembro têm

coincidências ainda mais interessantes.
Uma delas é o fato de que o complexo
de prédios foi vendido (leased) pela
autoridade portuária de Nova York 2
meses antes. O arrendamento, por 99
anos, foi feito com uma nova apólice de
seguro que incluía ataque terrorista.
Neste link, um artigo da Forbes fala do
processo judicial contra as seguradoras
do WTC aberto por Larry Silverstein, o
homem que arrendou os prédios. Para
Silverstein e seus sócios, eles deveriam
ter direito a um ressarcimento de US$
7,1 bilhões, o dobro do valor da apólice,
porque o complexo de prédios teria sido
7,1 bilhões, o dobro do valor da apólice,
porque o complexo de prédios teria sido
alvo de 2 ataques, não de apenas um.
Existem outros fatos menos conhecidos

sobre o 11/9 que forçam a imaginação
até das mentes mais criativas. Um deles
é que o passaporte de Mohammad Atta,
um dos supostos pilotos do ataque, foi
encontrado intacto nos escombros do
WTC dias depois. Em outras palavras, o
fogo foi poderoso o bastante para
derrubar prédios pela 1ª vez na história,
mas o passaporte do sequestrador,
graças a Deus, sobreviveu e passa muito
bem. Este artigo do The Guardian faz
menção a esta e outras curiosidades
com o sarcasmo que se espera sobre
uma sequência tão improvável de
conveniências.
uma sequência tão improvável de
conveniências.
E por falar em sequestradores, depois

que o FBI publicou a lista dos 19
homens, 4 deles apareceram vivinhos
da silva. Mais um cock-up, claro.
Mas por que eu estou contando tudo

isso, quando o meu objetivo aqui é
questionar os absurdos lógicos
defendidos por muitos seguidores da
teoria conspiratória Q-Anon? Por que eu
estaria ajudando a aumentar a suspeita
desses “anons” acerca das versões
oficiais? Estou contando isso
exatamente para que esse preâmbulo
sirva como minha credencial em futuros
argumentos que pretendo ter sobre o
Q-Anon. Quero deixar estabelecido que
eu não sou apenas mais um daqueles
Q-Anon. Quero deixar estabelecido que
eu não sou apenas mais um daqueles
ignorantes que acham que nada é uma
conspiração (só igualados em singeleza
intelectual por aqueles que acham que
tudo é). Não, essa não sou eu. Versões
oficiais são, muitas vezes, mais
estapafúrdias e improváveis do que
teorias plausíveis que supostos
intelectuais e imprensa desmerecem
como besteira, meramente por não
serem a versão oficial. E às vezes essas
versões são desmerecidas por pura
covardia. Muitos jornalistas têm o
hábito de repetir o que já foi dito por
outros colegas para se proteger de errar
sozinho. Eu mesma, para não sofrer
mais incredulidade, sinto a necessidade
de sedimentar minhas teses com fontes
que meus colegas respeitem.
de sedimentar minhas teses com fontes
que meus colegas respeitem.
Estamos em um momento em que a

verdade e o pensamento crítico estão
sob uma ameaça nova, nunca
imaginada. Temos agora o
conhecimento na ponta dos dedos,
acesso a todo tipo de informação, mas
não sabemos o que fazer com isso. E
jornalista que quer propagar a verdade
entre quem desacredita na imprensa vai
ter mais dificuldade se ignorar fatos
básicos, inclusive e principalmente
sobre o maior ataque internacional já
sofrido por uma grande potência –no
mínimo porque dificilmente vai ter
eloquência intelectual para dissuadir
conspiracionista. Fique à vontade, claro,
para zombar o quanto quiser das
conspiracionista. Fique à vontade, claro,
para zombar o quanto quiser das
besteiras do Q-Anon, mas quando se
confunde terra plana com teorias
alternativas do 11/9, por exemplo, o
argumento se destrói antes de ser
erguido, e a altivez de quem fala é
rebaixada pelo peso dos fatos.
Todos têm o direito, obviamente, de

acreditar no que quiserem, inclusive que
a maior potência bélica do mundo, com
o maior gasto em inteligência e
espionagem, não conseguiu prever,
evitar nem interceptar os aviões que
saíram de suas rotas e atacaram o
centro do mundo, tudo planejado e
executado com perfeição por 14
muçulmanos que aprenderam a pilotar
aviões ali mesmo, nos EUA, repetindo
um modo de ataque previsto até em
aviões ali mesmo, nos EUA, repetindo
um modo de ataque previsto até em
filme de ficção. Aliás, detalhe que deixei
passar, como o fiz com uma outra
centena de fatos curiosos: adivinha que
escritórios funcionavam na Torre 7?
Segundo a BBC, o prédio abrigava
“empresas financeiras importantes,
assim como alguns inquilinos incomuns:
o Serviço Secreto, a CIA, o
Departamento de Defesa, e o Escritório
de Administração de Emergência, o
qual iria coordenar toda resposta ao
desastre advindo do ataque terrorista”.
Segundo um dos entrevistados pela
BBC, a ideia foi destruir exatamente o
lugar onde o plano foi arquitetado.
Pode ser? Pode.

Pode ser? Pode.
Pode não ser? Pode também.
Este artigo é a 4ª parte de uma série

sobre teorias da conspiração. Leia as
anteriores aqui, aqui e aqui.
o Poder360 integra o
saiba mais
autores
Paula Schmitt
Paula Schmitt
Paula Schmitt é jornalista, escritora e tem
mestrado em Ciências Políticas e Estudos do
Oriente Médio pela Universidade Americana de
Beirute. É autora do livro de ficção
"Eudemonia" e do de não-ficção "Spies".
Venceu o Prêmio Bandeirantes de
Radiojornalismo, foi correspondente no Oriente
Médio para o SBT e Radio France e foi
colunista de política dos jornais Folha de
S.Paulo e Estado de S. Paulo. Publicou
reportagens e artigos na Rolling Stone, Vogue
Homem e 971mag, entre outros veículos.
Escreve semanalmente para o Poder360,
sempre às quintas-feiras.
nota do editor: os textos, fotos, vídeos, tabelas e

outros materiais iconográficos publicados no espaço
“opinião” não refletem necessariamente o
pensamento do Poder360, sendo de total
responsabilidade do(s) autor(es) as informações,
juízos de valor e conceitos divulgados.
juízos de valor e conceitos divulgados.
curtiu a reportagem? Compartilhe sua

opinião
apontar erros neste texto
leia mais sobre
11 DE SETEMBRO BBC PAULA SCHMITT
PENSAMENTO CRÍTICO Q-ANON
WORLD TRADE CENTER
recomendadas
Negociadora dos EUA discute

reindustrialização com Alckmin
Brasil cobrará visto de cidadãos dos EUA,

Canadá, Austrália e Japão
Argentina cria nova taxa de câmbio para

mercado de vinhos
8 de março é marcado por protestos ao redor

do mundo
8 de março é marcado por protestos ao redor
do mundo
EUA tentam impedir fusão das aéreas JetBlue

e Spirit Airlines
publicidade
PODER360 todos os dias no

seu e-mail
Seu e-mail
concordo com os termos da LGPD.
concordo com os termos da LGPD.
ASSINAR
NOTÍCIAS
Governo Tecnologia
Congresso Mídia
Economia Nieman
Justiça Pesquisas
Brasil à Frente Agregador de

Pesquisas
Poder
Empreendedor Políticos do Brasil
PoderData Eleições 2022

resultados
Infográficos
Eleições 2022
Eleições notícias
Internacional
OPINIÃO E ANÁLISE
Opinião Futuro Indicativo
OPINIÃO E ANÁLISE
Opinião Futuro Indicativo
Análise
VÍDEOS E PODCASTS
Vídeos PodSonhar
Comerciais Boleiros de
eleitorais 2022 Humanas
Agenda da Poder Explica

Semana
Poder Reage
Fatos da Semana
Lives do
Volta ao Mundo Prerrogativas
PARCERIAS E PROJETOS ESPECIAIS

Poder em Foco O custo do
contrabando
Fronteiras do publicidade
Pensamento A indústria e o
futuro do Brasil
23:39
1 de 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm
Home News Sport Radio TV Weather Languages
Low Graphics version | Accessibility help Help
BBC NEWS Page last updated at 21:07 GMT, Friday, 4 July 2008 22:07 UK
Conspiracy Files E-mail this to a friend Printable version
RELATED BBC SITES

Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
H2G2 Conspiracy
Theories THE CONSPIRACY FILES
The official version, the conspiracy theories and Conspiracy test
MORE PROGRAMMES
File on 4 the evidence surrounding the collapse of World Find out how
conspiratorial you are
Horizon Trade Centre 7 on September 11.
by taking our test
Newsnight
Panorama Is Tower 7 the first skyscraper to collapse INVESTIGATION UPDATE
The Power Of due to fire? Preview: 9/11 - The
Nighmares
Truth Behind The Third
This World Was there anything suspicious about Tower Tower
Timewatch 7?
What is the official explanation? The Conspiracy Files blog
How much fire was there in Tower 7? PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES
Why has the final report into Tower 7 still 7/7 bombing
not been published? Diana

9/11
Was Tower 7 deliberately destroyed by
David Kelly
explosives? Oklahoma bomb
Was an incendiary used to demolish Tower 9/11 - The Third Tower
7?
MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW
Was the owner part of a conspiracy? MOST SHARED MOST READ
Was the media part of a conspiracy? BBC News
Did anyone die in the collapse of Tower 7? BBC News
BBC News
Is Tower 7 the first skyscraper in the world to
BBC News
collapse due to fire?
BBC News
If the official account is right then the 47 storey BBC News
World Trade Centre 7 building is the first and only BBC News
steel framed skyscraper in the world to have BBC News
collapsed because of fire. BBC News

BBC News
Most popular now, in detail
Watch the collapse of Tower 7
In 1991 a fire in the One Meridian Plaza skyscraper

Watch the collapse of Tower 7
In 1991 a fire in the One Meridian Plaza skyscraper

in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours and did not
collapse.
In 2005, a 32 storey building in Madrid burned for a

whole day, there was a partial collapse, but the
building remained standing.
WTC7 burned for seven hours and suffered a total

collapse.
Fire protection engineers point out that the fires in

Philadelphia and Madrid were fought, whereas in
WTC 7 the fires burned without being fought, and the
key sprinklers on the lower floors did not have any
water because the mains had been cut by the
collapse of the Twin Towers.
Return to the top of the page
Was there anything suspicious about Tower 7?
Tower 7 was one of seven buildings at the World

Trade Centre complex in New York. The skyscraper
was 610ft (186m) tall and just 350ft (107m) away
from the Twin Towers.
As well as housing offices

of leading financial
companies, Tower 7 also
had some unusual
tenants: the Secret
Service, the CIA, the
Department of Defence
and the Office of
Emergency Management,
which would coordinate
any response to a disaster
or a terrorist attack.
Dylan Avery, the writer and director of the internet

film Loose Change, thinks the building was
suspicious:
"You have to look at what was inside Building 7. You

had the largest CIA field office ... you had a number
of government agencies inside the building.
"So automatically, for a number of people, myself

included, that is enough to at least raise an
eyebrow."
Some people argue that the US government had to

demolish Tower 7 because it is where plans were
hatched for a massive conspiracy on 9/11 and even
that the hijacked planes were guided to their targets
from Tower 7. Others believe the government also
wanted to destroy key files held there about
Some people argue that the US government had to
demolish Tower 7 because it is where plans were
hatched for a massive conspiracy on 9/11 and even
that the hijacked planes were guided to their targets
from Tower 7. Others believe the government also
wanted to destroy key files held there about
corporate fraud.
After its collapse a CIA

team is reported to have
scoured the rubble looking
for secret documents. Sunday, 6 July, 2008
9pm, BBC Two
Associated Press 9/11: The Third Tower
report, 5 Nov 2001 Timeline: World Trade Center 7
The Conspiracy Files blog
However, the chief counter- Programme preview
terrorism adviser to Catch up on iPlayer
President Bush on 9/11,
Richard Clarke, does not think there is anything
mysterious about Tower 7. He told The Conspiracy
Files:
"I was in the World Trade Centre 7 on a number of

occasions. This was a commercial office building in
downtown New York. The fact that there were some
government agencies in there, is certainly true, but
there were lots of other people in there too and you
could have rented an office or floor anybody could
have."
AP report, 5 Nov 2001: "The official, speaking on

condition of anonymity, said that immediately after
the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in
search of secret documents and intelligence reports
stored in the station, either on paper or in
computers. It was not known whether the efforts
were successful.
"A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the

existence of the office, which was first reported in
Sunday's editions of The New York Times. The New
York station was behind the false front of another
federal organization, which the Times did not
identify.
"The station was a base of operations to spy on and

recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United
Nations, while debriefing selected American business
executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after
returning from overseas. The agency's officers in
New York often work undercover, posing as
diplomats and business executives, among other
things. They have been deeply involved in counter-
terrorism efforts in the New York area, working
jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
other agencies."
What is the official explanation?

other agencies."
What is the official explanation?
Official investigators for the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (Nist) in Washington DC,
say that what happened on 9/11 to World Trade
Centre 7 was unique.
Tower 7 was built over a subway and an electricity

substation. There were only a few places where
foundations could be put down and long beams were
needed to take the weight of the building on the east
side. The building had to be reinforced on the fifth to
seventh floors, and also between the 22nd and 24th
floors.
Fires were ignited on many different floors at the

same time. Crucially fire fighters could not fight the
fires in Tower 7. They did not have enough water and
focused instead on saving people caught up in the
aftermath of the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The lead investigator for Nist, Dr Shyam Sunder, told

The Conspiracy Files:
"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that

it was normal building fires that were growing and
spreading throughout the multiple floors that may
have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."
Nist investigators have focused on the east side

where the long floor spans were under most stress.
They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and
break many of the connections that held the steel
structure together.
Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams that

required less fireproofing and the connections
between the beams and the columns. As they heated
up the connections failed and the beams sagged and
failed also. Dr Shyam Sunder says:
"It turns out that when you have connections that

essentially don't have strength for the loads that
they are being subjected to. And you have this
massive failure of a column it does not take time.
The structure has lost all integrity at that point in
time."
Investigators think that eventually enough

connections were weakened or failed that when a
collapse started the whole building fell rapidly.
How much fire was there in Tower 7?
According to the official account, when the North

Tower collapsed at 10.28, WTC 7 was hit by some
huge sections of steel from the collapsing Tower and
How much fire was there in Tower 7?
According to the official account, when the North

Tower collapsed at 10.28, WTC 7 was hit by some
huge sections of steel from the collapsing Tower and
this starts a chain of events that will ultimately lead
to the collapse of Tower 7.
However, critics argue that the

evidence they have seen
suggests there was very little fire
in Tower 7 and certainly not
enough to cause it to collapse. A
fire protection engineer, Scott
Grainger, who has joined
Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, told the BBC:
"The fires weren't burning on all

the floors simultaneously. They
were scattered about on the floors.
"And as they burn they're going to move through the

building so they'll certainly heat up some of the steel
in an area. But then as it moves on when it
consumes the combustibles there, the chairs, desks,
the tables, whatever papers were there. Then there's
no longer any source of heat."
In the National Institute of NIST INTERIM REPORT

Standards and Technology Read Nist interim report
(2004) [5MB]
(Nist) interim report issued
Most computers will open this
in 2004 investigators
document automatically, but you
explain that they used may need Adobe Reader
photographs and video Download the reader here
evidence to determine fire
locations and movement within WTC 7.
Nist determined that there were fires on floors six

through to 13 - except floor 10. And also on floors
19, 21, 22, 29 and 30.
Critics of the official report have concentrated on the

west, north and east sides of the building, where the
fires did not seem severe. However, new testimony
and pictures show how the south side was engulfed
in smoke.
Members of the New York Fire Department who were

on the scene at the time told The Conspiracy Files
that the building was heavily involved in fire.
Lt Frank Papalia of the New York Fire Department

told the programme:
"We looked at it and said there's so much fire in this

building, nobody's going to put this fire out".
Photographer Steve Spak, who took some of the

clearest images of the damage to Tower 7, told the
BBC there was smoke on a lot of floors on the south
side of the building and numerous floors had fires.
Photographer Steve Spak, who took some of the
clearest images of the damage to Tower 7, told the
BBC there was smoke on a lot of floors on the south
side of the building and numerous floors had fires.
"Through my experience of taking fire photography

for the last 30 years, to me that's an indication of
extremely heavy fire condition and a dangerous fire
condition."
Why has the final report into Tower 7 still not

been published?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(Nist) investigation into the collapse of the World
Trade Centre buildings began on 21 August, 2002.
The final report on the collapses of the Twin Towers
was issued on 26 October, 2005.
Nist say the investigation into the collapse of Tower 7

will be completed in 2008. Nist's draft report is due
to be published in July and the final report is due to
be released in August.
However, critics say the report has been too long

coming. Some have even suggested the way official
bodies have investigated Tower 7's collapse makes it
looks like they are hiding something.
The first inquiry into Tower FEMA'S FIRST INQUIRY

7 by the Federal Read the Fema inquiry into the
collapse of WTC 7 [3.3MB]
Emergency Management
Agency, or Fema, said the
building collapsed because may need Adobe Reader
intense fires burned for Download the reader here
hours, fed by thousands of
gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it also
said this had "only a low probability of occurrence"
and more work was needed. Critics point out that
was six years ago.
The lead investigator on Nist's World Trade Centre

investigation, Dr Shyam Sunder told the Conspiracy
Files their investigation into Tower 7 was near
completion:
"We've been at this for a little over two years and

doing a two or two and a half year investigation is
not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time
frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash
investigations, it takes a few years."

explosives?

(Nist) has stated:
explosives?

(Nist) has stated:
"Nist has seen no evidence NIST RESPONSE TO WTC

COLLAPSE
that the collapse of WTC 7
Read the Nist Response to the
was caused by bombs, World Trade Center collapse
missiles, or controlled [2.9MB]
demolition." Most computers will open this
However, critics of the may need Adobe Reader
official account claim the Download the reader here
collapse of World Trade Centre 7 was a controlled

demolition.
According to Richard Gage, an American architect

who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, the skyscraper was destroyed by a controlled
demolition:
"Building 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. It is the most

obvious example of controlled demolition with
explosives."
Watch WTC 7 collapsing and a controlled demolition
Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham

Young University for two decades until 2006, thinks it
looks suspicious:
"I saw this building which had never been hit by a

plane come crashing straight down. I must admit I
was taken aback as a physicist looking at this. We've
all seen controlled demolitions I think. They proceed
rapidly and straight down. But that's with
explosives."
They point to Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolition

expert who has been in the business for 28 years,
and who when shown footage of Tower 7's collapse
said:
"That is a controlled demolition... absolutely. It's

been imploded. It's a hired job done by a team of
experts."
But most controlled experts disagree.

"That is a controlled demolition... absolutely. It's
been imploded. It's a hired job done by a team of
experts."
But most controlled experts disagree.
Mark Loizeaux who runs one of the world's leading

demolition companies, Controlled Demolition
Incorporated, and who holds the world record for
bringing down the largest steel structure, the J L
Hudson building in Detroit, says it is simply not
possible to bring down a building like Tower 7 which
was fully occupied and without anybody seeing or
hearing something.
The operation would take months to design and

months to prepare the structure for the placement of
charges:
"It's noisy. There's just no way to get around it. You

go in, you knock out usually all the walls on the
floors where you place explosives, gut them."
Mr Loizeaux also told the BBC that you would need

to place hundreds of explosive charges along with
miles of initiating cable and miles more detonating
cord. And you would find evidence left behind of all
these explosive charges, blasting caps and tubes.
Furthermore says Loizeaux, when you are dealing

with charges big enough to bring down a building like
Tower 7: "The amount of air that's displaced will
break windows easily.
"There were a lot of broken windows mainly through

impact debris. But I didn't see windows broken on
the backs of building, only where debris falling from
the Towers struck it.
"But come round the back side, no windows were

broken there.
"They were shielded from debris falling. If explosives

of the magnitude necessary to cut the columns in a
big building, were detonated the windows all the way
round would have been shattered. No way round it."
Dr Gene Corley, the lead investigator for the first

inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (Fema) told the BBC: "We looked at
everything.
"Controlled demolition was ruled out because there

was no evidence of controlled demolition ... we
looked for it, yes, and we found no evidence of
controlled demolition."
A number of people from FEMA INVESTIGATION 2004
the Fema investigation Read Fema's investigation.

Chapter 1 [3.6MB]
helped out immediately
after the attacks, and
shortly afterwards other may need Adobe Reader
team members began Download the reader here
the Fema investigation Read Fema's investigation.
Chapter 1 [3.6MB]
helped out immediately
after the attacks, and
shortly afterwards other may need Adobe Reader
team members began Download the reader here
arriving to begin their
investigation.
Every inch of the site was picked over by hundreds of

people. No one reported any signs of explosives.
Was an incendiary used to demolish Tower 7?
Critics of the official account believe they have found

evidence of the unconventional demolition of Tower 7
using a substance called thermite.
Thermite is a substance that can literally melt steel

and is made up of iron oxide and aluminium.
Sceptics base their claims for this on an analysis of

the dust from the World Trade Centre site after the
attacks. In this dust they have found tiny iron rich
spheres. These spheres can only be formed in very
high temperatures - temperatures higher than those
reached in the fires in the towers before their
collapse.
The former professor of physics, Steven Jones,

believes the spheres he has found in the dust from
the World Trade Centre site match the spheres you
get in a thermite reaction. He argues that thermite is
the explanation for the presence of iron and
aluminium in the spheres.
However, other scientists say there are other

explanations for presence of these tiny iron rich
spheres.
They could have come from the cutting torches used

after 9/11 to clear the site, from any building work
on the site before the attacks or even from the
collapse of the Towers themselves.
The demolition contractor, Mark Loizeaux says the

timing of when the explosions on the columns are
set off is critical. He cannot see how thermite or any
derivative of thermite could have been used to
deliberately demolish Tower 7.
"I've never seen anyone use a material, which melts

steel for demolition purposes. I don't see how you
could possibly get all of the columns to melt through
at the same time."
People who think thermite was used to demolish

Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of
steel from the building that was kept reveals that it
was melted by some strange substance. The half
inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved
in parts.
People who think thermite was used to demolish
Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of
steel from the building that was kept reveals that it
was melted by some strange substance. The half
inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved
in parts.
The New York Times described this as "perhaps the

deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
In New England the claims of the mysterious melted

steel from Tower Seven has been unravelled at the
Worcester Polytechnic Institute near Boston.
Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it

eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the
debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and
weeks.
Professor Sisson determined that the steel was

attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron,
sulphur and oxygen.
However, rather than coming from thermite, the

metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur
came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was
pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:
"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have

steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere
that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the
kind of result I would expect."
Was the owner part of a conspiracy?
The allegation is that the owner of Tower 7, Larry

Silverstein, was part of a conspiracy to demolish his
own building.
It stems from a documentary broadcast in

September 2002 called America Rebuilds which
documented the post 9/11 World Trade Centre site
clean up. In an interview Larry Silverstein said: "I
remember getting a call from the fire department
commander, telling me that they were not sure they
were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said,
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that
decision to pull and we watched the building
collapse."
Critics say that by using the phrase "pull it" Larry

Silverstein let slip the fact that he was involved in a
decision to bring the building down. They point out
that Silverstein took out a $3.5bn (£1.75bn)
insurance policy on the Twin Towers just two months
before the attacks. A policy that was to pay out in
the event of a terrorist attack.
However, without this policy Larry Silverstein would

not have been able to buy the buildings, and the
insurance was not just for terrorism. This policy did
not include Tower 7. The insurance on Tower 7 dated
the event of a terrorist attack.
However, without this policy Larry Silverstein would

not have been able to buy the buildings, and the
insurance was not just for terrorism. This policy did
not include Tower 7. The insurance on Tower 7 dated
from 1987, when it was built.
Because of the furore over the use of the words "pull

it" in the interview, on 9, September 2005, Mr Dara
McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties,
issued the following statement on the issue:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr Silverstein

spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at
Seven World Trade Centre.
"The Commander told Mr Silverstein that there were

several fire fighters in the building working to contain
the fires.
"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most

important thing was to protect the safety of those
fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them
withdraw from the building.
"Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his

fire fighters out of the building and at 5:20pm the
building collapsed. No lives were lost at 7 World
Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
"As noted above, when Mr Silverstein was recounting

these events for a television documentary he stated,
'I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life.
Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.' Mr
McQuillan has stated that by 'it', Mr Silverstein
meant the contingent of fire fighters remaining in the
building."
Chief of the New York Fire Department on the day

Daniel Nigro told The Conspiracy Files that the fire
service does not need to ask the permission of the
owner when making decisions relating to buildings
that are on fire: "We are in charge and the decision
will be the fire chiefs and his alone," he said.
Are the media part of a conspiracy?
It is alleged that it was not just the government, the

police and the fire department that conspired to
destroy Tower 7. People have also pointed the finger
at the media.
Both CNN and the BBC reported that Tower 7 was

about to collapse or had collapsed when in fact it was
still standing. Some have even suggested this shows
the media were handed scripts by the conspirators.
still standing. Some have even suggested this shows
the media were handed scripts by the conspirators.
BBC finds missing 9/11 tapes
The BBC says this was simply an honest mistake on

what was probably the fastest moving, most chaotic
and most confusing story they had ever covered.
After an investigation the head of BBC World News,
Richard Porter, told The Conspiracy Files:
"The investigations we've carried out suggest very

strongly that we were working on the basis of an
incorrect news agency report."
The news agency Reuters have given this statement

to the BBC:
"On September 11, 2001, Reuters incorrectly

reported that one of the buildings at the New York
World Trade Centre, 7WTC, had collapsed before it
actually did. The report was picked up from a local
news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged
that the building had not fallen."
The BBC correspondent at the centre of the

controversy, Jane Standley, has never talked about
this before.
She told The Conspiracy Files that she had just

arrived in New York. She had never heard of Tower
7, and did not recognise it in the New York skyline.
On the day she had precious little information
available.
"It's very unfortunate," she said "that this whole

conspiracy kind of I think rather ridiculous situation
has grown out of what's really a very small and very
honest mistake."
Did anyone die in the collapse of Tower 7?
There is no evidence that anyone died in Tower 7 on

9/11. However, conspiracy talk shows and websites
seized on a recent interview for Loose Change with
the crucial eyewitness Barry Jennings.
The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan

There is no evidence that anyone died in Tower 7 on
9/11. However, conspiracy talk shows and websites
seized on a recent interview for Loose Change with
the crucial eyewitness Barry Jennings.
The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan

Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of
detail that Barry gave us in this interview was
unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in
the lobby."
Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their

interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the
BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was
portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies.
I never saw dead bodies"
Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything

out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a
recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter
who took us down kept saying do not look down. And
I kept saying why.
"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over

people and you know you could feel when you're
stepping over people."
However, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I said it felt

like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.
"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and

I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my
interview."
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

was broadcast on Sunday 6 July, 2008 at 2100
BST on BBC Two. It will be repeated on
Tuesday, 8 July at 2320 BST on BBC Two and
on Wednesday, 9 July at 0130 BST on BBC One.
You can watch a preview clip by clicking here.
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Bookmark with: What are these?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
This page has been archived and is no longer updated.

Find out more about page archiving.
« Previous | Main | Next » Jump to more content from this blog
Part of the conspiracy? About this blog
Richard Porter | 17:12 UK time, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 Comments

Welcome to The Editors, a site where we,
editors from across BBC News, will share
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them our dilemmas and issues. Here are tips on
earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK. taking part, but to join in, all you need do
is add a comment.
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the
conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from For the latest updates across BBC blogs,
BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively visit the Blogs homepage.
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
You can find details of the BBC’s Editorial
position. So here goes:
Guidelines here.
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. Subscribe to The Editors
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to You can stay up to date with The Editors
be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We via these feeds.
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 The Editors Feed (RSS)
information we were receiving. The Editors Feed (ATOM)
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find
of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
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
Elsewhere at the BBC
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 Newswatch: Click here to watch and take
conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We part in the Newswatch programme
do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one
BBC Internet Blog
way or another.
About the BBC blog
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an Radio 4 blog
error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in 5 live blog
the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... " TV Blog
Comments
1.
At 06:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Other news blogs
miss daw wrote:
News Editors
No other building fell around the time of the report (approx 1657hrs)and the solomon
Sport Editors
brothers building did not fall for approx another 30mins (1720hrs).
Journalism Labs
What source told the bbc that the 47 storey solomon building (wtc7) had collapsed? BBC Internet Blog
Radio 4 Blog
2. Peston's Picks
At 06:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Nick Robinson's Newslog
gregor aitken wrote:
Stephanomics
explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then
Mark Easton's UK
seriously what was that about Mark Mardell's America

Nick Bryant's Australia
it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it Andrew Harding on Africa
leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists. Gavin Hewitt's Europe
Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate no a Soutik Biswas' India
propoganda machine for the state. dot.Rory
Science: Jonathan Amos
3. Richard Black on environment
At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Today: Tom Feilden
Tom wrote:
Fergus Walsh's medical files
Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this
Newsnight: Paul Mason
further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop
Newsnight: Mark Urban
incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.
Torin Douglas
4. Will Gompertz's arts
At 06:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Phil Coomes on photojournalism
Nick Hatton wrote: Magazine Monitor
Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee. Mark D'Arcy in Westminster
NI: Mark Devenport
SERVE THE PUBLIC !!! Scotland: Brian Taylor
Scotland: Douglas Fraser
5.
Wales: Betsan Powys
At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Martin Rosenbaum on FOI
Justin Ross wrote:
5 Live Breakfast
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 Newsnight
before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed. PM programme (iPM)
World Tonight: Robin Lustig
6.
At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
justin wrote:
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".
14.
At 06:35 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
justin wrote:
BBC BUSTED AGAIN HAHAHA :D
15.
At 06:38 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Laz wrote:
"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
18.
At 06:43 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Laz wrote:
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!!!
19.
At 06:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Stewart Cowan wrote:
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
https://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?
20.
At 06:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
comeon wrote:
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:
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!
28.
At 07:51 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Laz wrote:
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.
https://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.
https://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.
https://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:
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.
59.
At 08:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
UnderTow wrote:
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!
69.
At 08:55 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
SmellTheTyranny wrote:
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.
74.
At 08:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
-V- wrote:
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:
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.
76.
At 09:01 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Kat wrote:
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.
80.
At 09:05 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Matthew wrote:
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:
https://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"
https://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.
82.
At 09:06 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
adian deann wrote:
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 . . .
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;
https://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: https://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
and then talk to these people:

https://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.
https://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.
105.
At 09:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Hawk-o wrote:
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.
https://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.
110.
At 09:36 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Doug Brown 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.
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:
Are these the videos you are looking for?
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
or
https://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
114.
At 09:37 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Doug Brown 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.
116.
At 09:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
vimanaboy wrote:
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:
https://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."
https://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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm
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.
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:
https://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.
https://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
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3994399691500840360&q=building+7+bbc
137.
At 09:56 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
vimanaboy wrote:
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:
https://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.
144.
At 10:02 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Christopher Brooks wrote:
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.
148.
At 10:04 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Doug Wagner wrote:
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
152.
At 10:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Sean cortazar wrote:
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: https://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!!
157.
At 10:15 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Dave wrote:
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'.
159.
At 10:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
Dave wrote:
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.
164.
At 10:21 PM on 27 Feb 2007,
George Washington wrote:
Whether or not the BBC had prior notice of the collapse of the building, many people
apparently did:
https://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"
https://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?
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.
187.
At 04:50 AM on 28 Feb 2007,
Anthony Kincaid wrote:
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
208.
At 01:18 PM on 28 Feb 2007,
Angela Mcbride wrote:
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.
250.
At 10:18 PM on 15 Mar 2007,
Buy Hoodia wrote:
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
252.
At 03:26 AM on 16 Mar 2007,
Wretched Refuse wrote:
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.

254.
At 03:48 PM on 16 Mar 2007,
Hurray For Hendrix wrote:
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 ?
258.
At 10:38 PM on 18 Mar 2007,
M.D.Beech wrote:
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.
260.
At 09:04 PM on 19 Mar 2007,
Dave K wrote:
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?
275.
At 02:09 PM on 28 Mar 2007,
noar wrote:
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!

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:
https://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.

309.
At 02:12 AM on 08 Apr 2007,
Pat Brien wrote:
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.
317.
At 11:28 AM on 10 Apr 2007,
lou parker wrote:
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.
324.
At 12:41 AM on 12 Apr 2007,
Robert wrote:
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!
325.
At 02:54 AM on 12 Apr 2007,
richardhoward wrote:
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!!!
340.
At 12:00 AM on 01 May 2007,
Otto wrote:
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.
https://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/
355.
At 04:59 PM on 09 May 2007,
Bunc wrote:
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.
360.
At 12:54 AM on 15 May 2007,
Larry McElhinney wrote:
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,
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,
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:
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?
https://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.
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
450.
At 03:38 AM on 01 Aug 2007,
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. 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.
460.
At 12:51 AM on 14 Aug 2007,
abraham wrote:
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.
465.
At 05:38 AM on 22 Aug 2007,
abraham wrote:
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 https://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,
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,
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.
480.
At 05:09 PM on 25 Aug 2007,
Stewart Cowan wrote:
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,
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?
501.
At 12:32 PM on 08 Sep 2007,
Nick Ramsay wrote:
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:
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,
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?
514.
At 09:48 PM on 16 Sep 2007,
clpo13 wrote:
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.
520.
At 06:40 PM on 18 Sep 2007,
MrJ wrote:
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:
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:
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!
529.
At 03:07 AM on 30 Sep 2007,
Wayne Cubitt wrote:
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
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,
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,
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!
577.
At 04:49 AM on 26 Nov 2007,
Cliff Vegas wrote:
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,
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.
More from this blog...
Topical posts on this blog Archives Categories Latest contributors
The Great British class Past twelve months These are some of the popular Host
calculator (14) April 2013 (3) topics this blog covers. Steve Herrmann
iPhone and iPad app March 2013 (1) Richard Porter
update (42) February 2013 (1) bbc
1xtra asian network Kevin Bakhurst
School Report News Day 2013 January 2013 (1) news bbc news channel Peter Rippon
(7) December 2012 (3) Peter Horrocks
bbc news website bbc
BBC Arabic and the November 2012 (3) Alistair Burnett
complexities of the Arab October 2012 (5)
parliament bbc world Jon Williams
world (18) September 2012 (2) news breakfast Helen Shreeve
BBC World News moves to August 2012 (3) broadcasting house click Andrew Roy
Broadcasting House (33) July 2012 (5) college of journalism credit
BBC News comes to Burma (9) June 2012 (7) crunch daily politics ipm
Expanded distribution in the May 2012 (4) nations and regions news
US for BBC World News (17)
Mozilla Festival and the
complete archive editors newsnight
fellowship announcement (11) newsnight scotland newsround
Election stats - new mobile one o'clock news panorama
record (8) pm politics show question
Election night (39) time radio 1 radio five
live radio scotland six o'clock
news storyfix ten o'clock
news the andrew marr show
the world at one the world
this weekend today weather
working lunch world service
world tonight young
voters' question time
Mobile site Terms of Use About the BBC

Privacy Accessibility Help
Cookies Contact the BBC
BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the Parental Guidance
content of external sites. Read more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html
This page has been archived and is no longer updated.

Find out more about page archiving.
« Previous | Main | Next » Jump to more content from this blog
Controversy and conspiracies III About this blog
Comments
Welcome to The Editors, a site where we,
editors from across BBC News, will share
Mike Rudin | 09:00 UK time, Wednesday, 2 July 2008
our dilemmas and issues. Here are tips on
taking part, but to join in, all you need do
After the huge response to Richard Porter's blogs last year about 9/11 Part of the is add a comment.
conspiracy? I was very keen to get to the bottom of what exactly happened.
For the latest updates across BBC blogs,
For the latest Conspiracy Files programme, on 9/11 - The Third Tower (Sunday 6 July at visit the Blogs homepage.
2100 BST on BBC Two), I've been looking in detail at allegations that there was a
conspiracy to deliberately demolish a third tower at the World Trade Center.
You can find details of the BBC’s Editorial
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Guidelines here.
installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
This third skyscraper was never hit by an aeroplane. There is little photographic evidence of Subscribe to The Editors
extensive damage. Yet seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, this 47-storey building
collapsed in a few seconds. You can stay up to date with The Editors
via these feeds.
Afterwards the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be
melted down in the Far East. The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the The Editors Feed (RSS)
World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and The Editors Feed (ATOM)
only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Nearly seven years on the
final official report on the building has still not been published. The report is now promised If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find
this month. our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
World Trade Center Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host of
conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition. And some
people suggest it was not just the government and foreign intelligence, but the police, the Elsewhere at the BBC
fire service, first responders and even the media that were involved.
It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was
still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the
correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the Newswatch: Click here to watch and take
BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day. part in the Newswatch programme
So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a BBC Internet Blog
simpler explanation? About the BBC blog
Radio 4 blog
The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian 5 live blog
kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a TV Blog
million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a
call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002
rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
Other news blogs
What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key
eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, News Editors
the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters Sport Editors
on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media. Journalism Labs
BBC Internet Blog
The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people Radio 4 Blog
according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN
Peston's Picks
and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing
Nick Robinson's Newslog
directly behind their reporters?"
Stephanomics
It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and Mark Easton's UK
passed it on. They have issued this statement: Mark Mardell's America
Nick Bryant's Australia
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New Andrew Harding on Africa
York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked Gavin Hewitt's Europe
up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had Soutik Biswas' India
not fallen." dot.Rory
Science: Jonathan Amos
I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he Richard Black on environment
believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about Today: Tom Feilden
the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would
Fergus Walsh's medical files
the BBC be part of it?"
Newsnight: Paul Mason
He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie." Newsnight: Mark Urban
Torin Douglas
And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so Will Gompertz's arts
abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly. Phil Coomes on photojournalism
Magazine Monitor
We've done our best to tackle many of the other questions raised about Tower 7. I
Mark D'Arcy in Westminster
interviewed the lead official investigators, scientists and eyewitnesses who support the
NI: Mark Devenport
official explanation; but also architects, engineers and others who now question that
Scotland: Brian Taylor
account.
Scotland: Douglas Fraser
The final report on 9/11 should be with us soon. The official investigators are confident they Wales: Betsan Powys
will be able to solve the final mystery of 9/11. But I doubt they will ever convince their Martin Rosenbaum on FOI
harshest critics, who believe there was a home-grown conspiracy at work that day. 5 Live Breakfast
Newsnight
PM programme (iPM)
Comments
World Tonight: Robin Lustig
Sign in or register to comment.
Page 1 of 7 First 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last
1. At 09:37 2nd Jul 2008, Giggidy wrote:
Mr. Rudin,
Last night's program (9/11: Conspiracy Files) states as fact that WTC7 was engulfed in
"raging flames" for "several hours" which then facilitated its collapse - THIS IS
FACTUALLY UNTRUE.
There were several small fires visible through the unbroken windows of the structurally
undamaged building. For this program to say otherwise is to be clearly complicit in
misrepresenting the TRUTH.
I can't wait to see how next weeks' program continues to expand this falsehood - i know
one thing for sure, it will not include any footage of "raging fires" that "burned for
several hours" nor will it show any actual damage to WTC7 that would account for its
collapse.
According to the show's online intro, "The Conspiracy Files travels across the United
States to investigate, speaking to eye witnesses and tries to separate fact from fiction."
The show's attempt to separate FACT from FICTION is, thus far, a dismal and
inexplicable failure.
If the upcoming show concerning WTC7 is to have ANY credibility, it had better feature
the infamous admission by Larry Silverstein that the building was "PULLED."
See it for yourself if you haven't already:
"Mr. Pull-It" Larry Silverstein and WTC 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZRnyAIMFWo
complain about this comment
2. At 10:10 2nd Jul 2008, Anglophone wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
3. At 10:18 2nd Jul 2008, alexswanson wrote:

"They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister
after all."
Oh come on. For ordinary tapes this might be understandable, but film of the worst
atrocity of the 20th century, which led directly to the Afghan War . . . .
. . . I'm not a conspiracy theorist about 9/11, but I do know of another topic I have an
interest in where BBC staff routinely suppress the truth . . .
. . . you can see why people people wonder, can't you.
4. At 10:22 2nd Jul 2008, JohnnyFACEHEAD wrote:
"I was very keen to get to the bottom of what exactly happened."
Well done, you feel a slight pang of curiosity 7 years after the wool was pulled over your
eyes.
What happened on 9/11 is extremely clear for all to see, but it will never be said out
loud for anyone to hear, obviously. People are less likely to trust you if they find out you
have been using their fear as a political tool.
"who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past"
5. At 12:33 2nd Jul 2008, seeurchin wrote:
Dear Mr Rudin .
You say.
The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed
because of ordinary fires -
Can you please supply the source of this "official" explanation. I have looked extensively
in the 9/11 Commission report, and no explanation to the collapse of WTC 7 is offered.
#3 I meant worst terrorist atrocity, obviously. Sorry about that.
Mind you since I'm posting again anyway, can I extend the "you can see why people
wonder" comment to the satellite feed cutting off? How often does that happen to the
BBC? But it happened this time? The same obscure event that you mislaid the tapes for?
The same event that you had a misreporting problem with?
You really did have a bad day, didn't you.
7. At 12:38 2nd Jul 2008, steve5312 wrote:
The two most basic commonsense question that the conspiracy theorists have never
provided an answer to are:
1) If this really was a government plot, then why has NOBODY involved (of which there
would be hundreds) come forward and said anything? And how on earth would all these
people have been persuaded to be part of mass slaughter of their own people in the first
place?
2) If, as people claim, the whole point was to justify Bush's desire for war, then why not
just knock ONE tower down? It would've had the same effect on public opinion
It really frustrates me that my fellow man could be so incredibly blinkered in their desire
to believe in something.
8. At 12:53 2nd Jul 2008, starNancyL wrote:
Oh for heaven's sake. I lived 6 blocks from the WTC and first of all, building 7 was a 47
story building, less than half the height of the towers. Second, it's face had been heavily
damaged up to the 18th floor by falling debris from the towers; fires had started all over
the lower floors, but there was no water pressure, and the firefighters couldn't control
the fire, as they could not control the enormous amount of fires burning all over the
remains of the WTC complex. Creaking had been heard coming from the building and it
came down around 5:20 P.M. or so, meaning the fires had been burning all day. There's
no mystery here.
9. At 12:56 2nd Jul 2008, Alex wrote:
@alexwanson
"You really did have a bad day, didn't you."
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. [ref]
To be honest I would expect 9/11 to be the day most likely to cut corners, loose tapes or
forget details on satellite feeds. I suspect most of the news room had been running
around for the majority of the day in controlled panic to report on the biggest event of
the year. Tired and overworked people make mistakes, it's only human.
10. At 13:21 2nd Jul 2008, spivver wrote:
Well Mr Rudin, I, for one, am certainly looking forward to your new ‘Conspiracy Files’
regarding WTC7. I hope it is far more searching, questioning and balanced than last
year’s ridiculous ‘look’ at the many questions which are being asked by millions of
ordinary people around the world. As the BBC lost all credibility for reporting impartially
after the whitewash of the Hutton enquiry though, I’m not holding my breath.
I hope that you mention the findings of Professor Jones of particles of un-ignited
thermate (as used by the military to cut steel) found in the debris from the three WTC
buildings, including WTC7. I also hope you mention the microscopic iron spheres also
found in the debris and the significance of that. Furthermore I hope you mention the
molten metal which existed under the wreckage for weeks after the collapse. I hope that
you can explain these oddities, and also just how the building collapsed at freefall
speeds (note the word freefall here, this is significant when one takes into account the
physics, which I hope you have done).
I hope that you include the testimony of many firefighters who heard a countdown
seconds before the building collapsed, and also the testimony of the explosions heard in
the building and reports of the dead bodies which lay in WTC7.
I have no answers to these questions, I have no ‘conspiracy theory’, but I do have many
questions. Perhaps your programme will be brave enough to answer them, but I rather
think it won’t.
11. At 13:21 2nd Jul 2008, Mark wrote:
The trouble with conspiracy theorists is they'll never be satisfied by any explanation
unless it confirms their conspiracy theory. Even then, if the official explanation supported
the conspiracy theory, the theorists would be convinced a worse conspiricy is being
covered up.
12. At 13:21 2nd Jul 2008, anon611 wrote:
There was a lot of confusion that day. Of the top of my head I can remember reports of
car bombs in Washington DC and 4 other missing planes. When people are scared like
speculation become rife, even normally reliable news sources are not immune.
To the conspiracy theorists, think of any interaction that you have with the government
(any goverment). They simply aren’t smart or organised enough to pull off something
that complicated.
13. At 13:22 2nd Jul 2008, peterdough wrote:
"..7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did."
Still doesn't shed any more light. If Reuters "picked up from a local news story" that,
then why not explain which local news story was referenced and how that got from "the
fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse."?
Why did the story go out without confirmation?
In any case the key point is as you so eloquently put it, how did it come to be the first
and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire.
14. At 13:22 2nd Jul 2008, Mark wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
15. At 13:22 2nd Jul 2008, odysseus wrote:
"You really did have a bad day, didn't you."
If there was to be any day where several things go wrong at once, then that would be
the day. The single biggest live news story ever, contimuous TV coverage for 3-4 days,
every film crew and reporter you have deployed on the ground providing coverage and
filing stories, producers madly scrambling around the newsroom trying to make sense of
it all and pull all the threads together, all the while everyone trying to take in the
emotional impact of it all? No, I wouldn't expect there to be a few snafus on such a
day...
16. At 13:24 2nd Jul 2008, bionicbadger wrote:
This WTC7 "conspiracy" is pretty weak by "conspiracy" standards. There's nothing at

stake here. Even if something was proved, so what? Let's assume the building was
"pulled" (controlled demolition) as the owner Larry Silverstein put it in an interview.
Probably the most "sinister" reason for this was to recoup insurance money on an
otherwise damaged building, and to not need to pay for all the additional costs of
securing the building, repairing it, or having to manually demolish it. Wow, what an evil
plot to subvert the American public.
This is probably the most mundane footnote to the 9/11 attacks there is. Can you
imagine there being a press conference and they admitted to demolishing WTC7? Some
teary-eyed Silverstein "coming clean"? Don't expect that to make headlines.
I find it amazing how much time people invest (waste?) into conspiracies--not even good
conspiracies--such like these. If people spent even half that effort in more tangible
issues we might actually see some useful social change.
"If this really was a government plot, then why has NOBODY involved (of which there
would be hundreds) come forward and said anything?"
Code-breaking at Bletchley Park during World War Two involved thousands of people, all
of whom kept totally silent until the work was officially revealed during the 1970's.
"If, as people claim, the whole point was to justify Bush's desire for war, then why not
just knock ONE tower down? "
If I were to invade Russia I wouldn't do it in June, but Operation Barbarossa was.
"And how on earth would all these people have been persuaded to be part of mass
slaughter of their own people in the first place?"
I don't understand why anyone watches soccer matches, but millions do. There really is
no accounting for how some people think.
"I suspect most of the news room had been running around for the majority of the day
in controlled panic"
But the BBC is supposed to be the world's premier news organisation, more than capable
of handling something like this, which after after all happened in accessible areas in the
most favourable country possible apart from the UK itself.
I don't actually subscribe to the conspiracy theory myself, but let's face it, if feeble
arguments like this are all that's offered against it I can see why people do.
18. At 13:53 2nd Jul 2008, pault107 wrote:
I've just had a thought - there wouldn't have been anything on the 2002 shelf in 2001, if
indeed, a 2002 shelf even existed.
19. At 14:01 2nd Jul 2008, Magic-Moose wrote:
Here are the facts about WTC7
1. It was hit by falling debris and burning material.

2. It was heavily damaged down one site with a huge gouge carving for some 20 floors
on one side.
3. It house an electrical substation and a number of generators.
4. Fires started on multiple floors, probably because fuel lines to the generators
ruptured. Smoke was pouring out of one side all day.
5. It burnt out of control all day. Firefighters didn't even bother trying to contain the fire,
concluding the building was a write off and there was no one inside to even rescue.
6. Weakened by fire and structural damage, the building finally collapsed. Collapse
appears to have started internally because the penthouse fell in considerably before the
outside fell, suggesting the inner collapse took out the remaining supports and cause the
outer shell to fall.
7. Numerous firefighters are on record saying they knew it was going to collapse. There
is even tape footage of firefighters saying it before collapse stating.
There is no mystery to why it fell down. People have managed to construct an entire
conspiracy out of nothing.
As for the "missing tape" and why a reporter might report the building collapsed before
it had... Does anyone seriously think a BBC reporter has a clue what the non-descript
WTC7 building looked like. I doubt many people who worked or lived a few blocks away
even knew what it looked like.
20. At 14:08 2nd Jul 2008, frasay wrote:
Thanks for having a closer look at the collapse of building 7.

It's good to note the change of tone from the last time BBC aired a programme about 9-
11, with pretty condescending web links about conspiracy theorists, like this one...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6368341.stm
Agreed, there are a lot of tunnel visioned nuts, who only believe information that
supports their views (within the media, and the public, on both sides), but there are also
a lot of rational, logical thinking people who want answers to the serious unanswered
questions surrounding 9-11.
As someone who works in the metal/mining industry, the traces of molybdenum at the
World Trade Centre site is something I would like an explanation for. The molten metal at
ground zero is another. And the disappearance of the Twin Towers 47 massive central
column supports is another mystery that has not been explained to me.
It's a shame it's take nearly 7 years for journalists to start investigating an event with
such world altering repercussions, but hopefully the BBC will do a better job now than it
did last time.
21. At 14:31 2nd Jul 2008, DCHeretic wrote:
These conspiracy theories are ridiculous and simply a credit to the wild imagination of
mankind. Hundreds of horrified motorists on the adjoining freeway watched the airplane
hit the Pentagon on 9/11, yet some folks who were never there claim that a missle hit
the building as part of a Bush administration conspiracy. Tens of thousands of people
personally witnessed two airplanes full of jet fuel slam into the Twin Towers, yet there
are some claim that these people are deluded or lying.
A controlled demolition of the Towers would require the complacency of hundreds, if not
thousands, of people in a monstrous crime. Security guards, maintence crews, janitors,
and building engineers would all have to unite to turn a blind eye to the precision
placement of explosives. I live in a 500 unit apartment building that has four full-time
building engineers and two security guards. You can imagine how many support
personnel worked round the clock to sustain two 110 story towers. In a city as diverse
and assertive as NYC, you would be hard pressed to find even a dozen people who could
agree on a common lunch entree, let alone mass murder.
The Bush administration did not need to engage in domestic mass slaughter and imperil
the economy in order to build the case against Iraq for war. The 9/11 conspiracy theory
is an insult to the victims of the tragedy.
22. At 14:45 2nd Jul 2008, Darren Jones wrote:
alexswanson,
The codebreakers at Bletchley Park were part of a concerted national effort to overcome
a common enemy. They were a lot more motivated to keep silent than fireman and
police officers would be if they were forced to slaughter thousands of their fellow citizens
in peacetime for the political convenience of an unpopular president. As for comparing a
passion for football with a willingness to commit mass murder, well I'm no football fan
either but pheeuww!
23. At 14:55 2nd Jul 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:
Mike
In haste.
I do not wish to be unkind, but reading your contribution at the start of this blog, I was
left with the impression that you were more concerned about dismissing the possibility
that the BBC was part of a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 than you were about
whether there WAS a conspiracy to bring down that building. There is a suggestion of
"he who doth protest too loudly", is there not? But, I for one do not believe that the BBC
was part of the conspiracy, if conspiracy there was.
More seriously, you write that Reuters wrongly reported a "local news story" and
withdrew the report as soon as it became clear that the WTC 7 had not collapsed. Now,
this piece of information surely leads to more questions than it answers?
1) At precisely what time did Reuters pick up that story?
2) What was the original source of the "local news story", and at what time precisely did
that local news outlet become aware of the report of the collapse?
3) At precisely what time did the BBC pick up the Reuters story?
4) At precisely what time did Reuters withdraw the story?
5) At precisely what time did the BBC become aware that the Reuters story was false
(though of course it turned out to be true!)?
6) At precisely what time did the BBC inform its listeners/viewers that the televised
report of WTC 7's collapse (before it had collapsed, with the building still standing and
clearly visible in the background) was wrong?
24. At 14:57 2nd Jul 2008, Bumblefrollop wrote:
Is there no process in law to bring to account those deluded obsessives who insist on
peddling their bizarre 911 fantasies? They are profoundly disrespectful to the bodies and
authorities who toiled to deal with the aftermath, and to the countless individuals
touched by the tragedy. Libel laws are frequently wielded to redress far lesser insults.
Why not here?
That this tiresome claptrap be so rampant in the US is perhaps no big surprise given the
propensity of Americans to believe in fairy-tales (Roswell aliens, Kennedy plots, faked
moon landings, God....). But where are the famous litigation lawyers? Let them step
forward to protect the reputations of those who deserve it, for a change.
25. At 14:58 2nd Jul 2008, pakuba wrote:
but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because
of fire
well third actually as the official report and independent studies have verified that the
twin towers were brought down by the steel eventually yielding due to heat.
on the finding of molybdenum well no great mystery there check the International
Molybdenum Association web site it is a coating for architectural stainless steel, which
was the principal cladding material of the two towers (also used on canary wharf One
Canada square building) so it would be expected that some molten metal would have
remained.
26. At 15:00 2nd Jul 2008, lydgrace wrote:
Read Tim Weiner's book The History of the CIA - Legacy of Ashes and you will appreciate
that however abhorrent it may be to even contemplate such a conspiracy it is certainly
not beyond the realms of possibility given the extremes that the CIA have gone to in the
last 60 years with the knowledge of the President in may cases.
Also consider the size of the "hole' in the Pentagon building caused by the 3rd aircraft.
Objective scientific opinion from individuals far more qualified than us indicates that if a
plane really did crash into the building , the hole should have been exponentially larger
than it was.
I was in the old Bankers Trust / Deutsche Bank building across the street on 9/11. I dont
want to believe it but my human intstinct is that something, and I don't know what it is,
is not quite right . Maybe we will never know but constructive debate should take place.
27. At 15:03 2nd Jul 2008, NPAWC910 wrote:
First of all, everybody should understand that the official explanation for 9/11 is itself a
conspiracy theory - 19 middle eastern men conspired to fly planes into the twin towers,
Pentagon etc. The question is whether the official version of the conspiracy theory is
correct. I have my doubts - there are too many open questions. I suggest that all
interested parties read David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor" for background.
If you're interest is piqued you could then review Popular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11 "
and then could review David Ray Grifffin's response "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" to see
the folly in the Popular Mechanics book.
Likely we will never know what happened on 9/11 and who was responsible. Personally
at the least I believe this corrupt Bush administration knew of the attacks and let them
happen and I think there is a good chance they were more involved. People say they are
too incompetent to carry out the attacks - and its true they are incompetent - but
perhaps their incompetence is shown in the myriad of smoking guns they left in their
wake.
The comment by 1.24pm is the type of unquestionning complaceny that the Bush
administration relies on. You say lets assume that the building was pulled as Larry
Silverstein said and that it was for the insurance money. Sure - he collected big on
insurance - which incidentally he had just taken out for terrorist attacks before 9/11 -
what great timing. But how long do you think it takes to wire a building on fire with
explosives to pull it? A lot longer than the couple of hours that they had and yet it
collapsed almost perfectly, at free fall speeds, into its footprint - like a controlled
explosion. It leads to the question of how come this building seemed pre-wired for a
controlled explosion. Then there's the thermate at the scene which someone else
referenced. Lots of questions, people, lots of questions. The more digging you do, the
more uncomfortable the truth becomes and the greater the need for a full independent
investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
28. At 15:09 2nd Jul 2008, James Rigby wrote:
So a journalist with the BBC, writes about a BBC TV programme which examines a
conspiracy in which the BBC was implicated, and we're supposed to believe you! Yeah
right!
So you're saying it's all down to misintepreted statements cause by chinese whispers
and a misfiled tape! After seven years is the best excuse you could come up with?
And comments are moderated too! I bet those who know the real truth will have their
posts purged and find themselves visited by mysterious men in the early hours.
(only joking)
29. At 15:10 2nd Jul 2008, Richard Drake wrote:
There is only one problem with dividing the world into conspiracy theorists and non-
conspiracy theorists. It has never helped anyone, anywhere, get closer to the truth of
any complex, real-world situation. That is its only weakness.
Let me call that tendency - the dividing of people, and their detailed theories about the
real world, into two groups - conspiratology.
Conspiratology, like scientology, has its pretensions to advanced thinking. But it is not. It
is easy to show that in the group labeled conspiracy theorists there are some nutters.
Therefore, conspiratology claims, nobody it puts in the CT category is to be taken
seriously.
This is not advanced thinking. It is the absence of critical thinking.
Some women are nutters. Margaret Thatcher is a woman. Mother Teresa was a woman.
Which proves what? Some black people are nutters. Robert Mugabe is a murderous thug.
Does that make Sir Trevor McDonald either? Such argument from insult is the absence of
critical thinking
In #20 don't try to label frasay but admit he speaks better sense than those on either
'side' thus far. He doesn't get sidetracked by BBC tapes but points to some of the
genuine and disturbing mysteries of what happened on 9-11. He also praises the BBC for
not ducking some of the real issues this time, which seems deserved, given that you've
interviewed Steven Jones and Richard Gage. Mind you, why you bother with anyone
from Loose Change is beyond me. That's still a big negative against your programme, for
me.
We'll have to see if you've done justice to the much more qualified views of Jones and
Gage when we view the end result.
But labeling either of them conspiracy theorists and thinking that ends everything of
importance in the argument is convenient, lazy and wrong.
30. At 15:15 2nd Jul 2008, raindancer68 wrote:
Most adults literally live with a goldfish bowl over their heads, which prevents the vast
majority from seeing the world with a clarity of vision. However, the goldfish bowls give
the majority of adults a warm, fuzzy feeling of security inside, nominally called their
comfort zones, and many are happy with this state of mind.
The way the majority of these adults perceive and evaluate data is regulated by the
general consensus and customs of the societies they live in. Therefore, their frame of
reference tends to be limited in scope, in order to keep that society running, and that
society running them.
Until the goldfish bowls are removed from millions of heads, then no truths will be
learned. 9/11 and Building 7 will go the way of the JFK assassination, mired in Majestic
truths, whispered hearsay and conspiracy balderdash.
31. At 15:16 2nd Jul 2008, The Notting Hill Hammer wrote:
I was just outside New York in Tarrytown on 9/11. Panic and confusion was total all
around the metropolitan area. We were evacuated from our offices and were told there
were more planes heading for New York. The panic and confusion downtown can totally
explain all of the events around the news coverage. I despise the neo-con project and
much of the USA's foreign policies over the last 50 years, but to suggest that the US
government sponsored or carried out these attacks is simply beyond credibility. All real
conspiracies (and they are usually much smaller scale) get found out pretty quickly. If
9/11 was an inside job, just think how many people would have had to be involved. Do
the conspiracy theorists not think that at least one of those Americans might just have
baulked at the thought of murdering many of their own compatriots?
senojnerrad:
I don't think anybody is suggesting that policemen and firefighters were part of the
conspiracy. I personally don't see that they would need to be, if they genuinely believed
that the plane crashes caused the towers to collapse. you might claim that they were
experts; I humbly suggest that very few people are experts in what happens if an
airliner hits a skyscraper.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the anti-conspiracy arguments are often feeble as well.
I chose the soccer comparison as a neutral one, but I could just as well point out that
socialism has killed millions of people over the last century or so, and yet some people
are still proud to claim allegiance to that doctrine. For some people, the right ideology
will justify anything. I'm not saying it happened: all I'm saying is that it is naive to
suggest that it physically couldn't.
33. At 15:36 2nd Jul 2008, _AntR_ wrote:
I guess it's better late than never to finally hear the truth of the "mysterious BBC psychic
ability"!
Seriously though, conspiracy theorists (or truthers as they like to call themselves) are
many different people from different walks of life and I think it's wrong to be
stereotypical of them. Some lost loved ones in the attacks, some are there to make $$
and some are just verging on paranoia.
The hardcore "truthers" seem to be in denial about certain facts, which makes it
impossible to change their views scientifically. I think the muddied landscape of the Bush
Administration has encouraged these ideas to flourish. With time most of the conspiracy
questions have been answered, which shows the power of reason.
Perhaps the only thing left to learn is how to construct buildings that can withstand a
similar scenario. The direct cause appears to be fire, although the role of the damage
from the plane impact/tower collapses have not been fully quantified relatively to the
damage from the fires. For example, if there were widespread fires, but no impact,
would WTC1 or 2 collapse? The same question for WTC2, but without the damage from
falling debris. I don't think the NIST report really answers this properly.
The design of the twin towers was obviously different from most other skyscrapers in
that the strength was mostly in the outer walls of the structure. That design could be
significantly weaker than traditional skyscraper designs, which would mean that collapse
in other large buildings would be less likely.
In any case, conspiracy theorists are good for our society as long as they are peaceful.
Some of the greatest physicists and mathematicians that are responsible for our
technological development would almost certainly fall into a paranoid personality type
that would see patterns and connections when there are none. They are also a signal of
the triumph of freedom that we have.
34. At 15:53 2nd Jul 2008, vsssarma wrote:
The skill of organising so many hijackings is not with the Arab people. It is certainly a
joint CIA-Mossad operation. Once agents are involved, there is no leak.
How did OBL manage to bring down the building 7 ?
How did OBL manage to neutralise the entire war machinery of USA for almost 100
minutes when the aircrafts were criss-crossing the US airspace ?
How did OBL manage the 'put options' on AA and UA ?
When you take the surmise that it was a joint CIA-Mossad operation, things fit very well.
No other explanation appears credible.
35. At 16:02 2nd Jul 2008, Briantist wrote:
I'm pleased that Auntie has finally got to grips with this question, because it certainly is
the most well supported "conspiracy theory" about 9/11.
Every time I hear the words "twin towers", I just think "there was three of them".
I shall be viewing the programme with interest.
36. At 16:24 2nd Jul 2008, ROBBYBB wrote:

Mike!you tell me one person who has ever said the BBC was part of a conspiracy?yes
thats right nobody has suggested that but it is kind of unusual to predict in advance an
event that has never happened ever before don,t you think.Remember that Guilliani is
on tape saying he knew the WTC would collapse before they actually did.It is virtually
impossible to preempt steel framed building collapses when only three buildings in
history have ever done that.I watched the first couple of minutes of the last conspiracy
files.My God how i laughed.You started with an Air Traffic Controller saying a plane had
been hijacked and was heading for New York.Then you said the interceptor jets did not
know where to go and went the wrong way.Am i supposed to believe that nobody,even
though it had already been established the hijacked plane was heading for New
York,thought oh hang on i think i should head for New York.Utter garbage is my verdict
on that tripe!.
37. At 16:25 2nd Jul 2008, Flyattic wrote:
Wow this blog post really brought out the official story theorists. I would like to state
again that anybody who uses the word conspiracy theory as a derogatory term really
needs to get their head checked. Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.
it is very possible that wt7 may have eventually collapsed from fire, i don't think any
alternative theorists dispute this. But it would have collapsed in an asymmetrical way
and probably only partially (these are basic laws of physics, which for some reason don't
apply to official theorists)
People have to realise that the official theory is just that A THEORY. No scientific facts
have yet to surface in anyway from the official theorists, yet countless journals from
scientists and engineers showing science in action are flooding the alternative theorists.
This is why we, the critical thinkers are asking questions rather than towing the offical
line.
Its even got to a laughable position where the alternative theory's are being debunked
by blatantly propaganda sites. Do you really want to believe a website like JOD9/11 that
has an advisory board with a man called "shagster" on it? then go straight ahead.
The upcoming WT7 report has a segment that states that just before collapse a fireball
shot out of all the windows. Apparently according to nist there is no logical reason for
this. well i have one crazy theory for you, but i don't think you want to hear it.
also anyone who thinks a conspiracy of this magnitude takes anymore that 10 people is
living in an alternative reality. Have none of you heard of a thing called a "lie" its what
people use to manipulate subordinates.
I really cant see the use of arguing with defenders of the official theory anymore. they
are faceless entities who for all we know could be the same sweaty geek typing under
different names. Instead of defending their official facts (of which there are none) they
attack the theory of others. which is exactly what a conspiracy theorist does.
But hey, peak oil just hit and before long they will be living in run down city's fighting
over copper wiring with the rest of us wondering what happened. we shall smile and pat
them on the head and tell them about the history they hid from themselves for so long,
invite them back to our sustainable communitys and all be friends again.
38. At 16:38 2nd Jul 2008, hackerjack wrote:
"They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister
after all."
Oh come on. For ordinary tapes this might be understandable, but film of the worst
atrocity of the 20th century, which led directly to the Afghan War . . . .
. . . I'm not a conspiracy theorist about 9/11, but I do know of another topic I have an
interest in where BBC staff routinely suppress the truth . . .
. . . you can see why people people wonder, can't you.
----------------
Actually the noteriety of the film in question would lead toa much higher liklyhood of
misfiling. ordinary tapes get put in place once and very rarely moved, this tape was
likely removed and replaced numerous times over the following years, at any time any
junior reporter, production worker or librarian could have gotten careless
-----------------
I humbly suggest that very few people are experts in what happens if an airliner hits a
skyscraper
-----------------
They wouldn't need to be. All the necessary can be simulated extremely accurately via
computer model, you would need only be an expert in architecture and material science.
39. At 16:38 2nd Jul 2008, edfromtheairship wrote:
Dear Mike,
Once again you needlessly veer towards the extreme opinions voiced by some who
doubt the 9/11 official theory.
You say: “Some people suggest… the police, the fire service, first responders and even
the media” were involved. In 4 years of following this story I would say that this is a
very marginal aspect to the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly all “Truthers” are sympathetic
to these groups and there are many Police/Fire/First Responders/victims associations
that are calling for a reinvestigation. You may as well investigate the
UFO/Satanic/religious 9/11 Truth fringe while you’re at it.
The BBC misreporting (or pre-reporting the collapse of WTC7) is also regarded as a
marginal issue. What is key to investigators is where or from whom this announcement
originated. So why your surprise at Dylan Avery’s comment? The obvious defence of
protecting sources will no doubt be used if Reuters is probed further.
As for the “2002 shelf” instead of the “2001 shelf” and the “17.15 satellite timer”– while
plausible explainations they are also, conveniently, totally indisputable.
The evidence for the WTC7 “controversy” pointing to internal conspiracy in the 9/11
event is quite simply the 3 simultaneous shots of the building collapsing. They show:
1. Foreknowledge of the event (the cameras were setup and pointing directly at WTC7).
2. Identifiable puffs of smoke (demolition “squibs”) along the front upper right of the
building.
3. Uniform collapse at freefall or gravitational speed (approx. 6 to 7 seconds) indicating

a simultaneous failure of the structure, which must be considered an impossible outcome
of small and unevenly distributed fires.
I look forward to Sunday’s programme.
40. At 16:44 2nd Jul 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:
Please anyone who thinks it is to fantastic to be for 9/11 to be 'an inside job' or who say
too many people would be involved please remember the Iran-Contra affair.
A massive conspiracy involving the US govt. Drug dealing, terrorists, hostages, gun-
running, and lots of money, It ran for years, involved thousands and was real. It
happened.
There is precedent for these things happening on a similar scale, with a similar collection
of govt, military and foreign actors.

41. At 16:52 2nd Jul 2008, Peedjay wrote:
Are you sure this is the final question on 9/11? I remember some letters containing
anthrax spores delivered to several US government departments. And also a plane being
'evaporated' after crashing into the Pentagon?
42. At 16:54 2nd Jul 2008, ayjayhawk wrote:
As someone else has pointed out, you contradict yourself, Mike, when you say the official
explanation for WTC7's collapse was fire, and then state that the official NIST inquiry has
yet to report. The substantial problem is that you cannot wire a building for demolition in
so short a time - it had to have been done before. To those who say it collapsed due to
fire and damage, it was a good 400 yards or more from WTC 1 and 2, and WTC 5 and 6,
which were much nearer and much more severely damaged, did not collapse in the same
way. Watch the video -how can it have been possible for it to collapse straight down
when the damage was only to one side? This is a crazy suggestion - it's basic physics, it
would have fallen asymmetrically and much more slowly.
I submit that nobody who has seriously studied this building can argue any case other
than controlled demolition. That includes studying the similarity with other CDs as well
as all the related facts - ie the offices contained in WTC7, the Silverstein statement, the
video of the demolition countdown, the issue of the report of the collapse being too
early. Don't come on this blog without having looked at it properly and condemn
"conspiracy theorists" as wackos, you are not thinking clearly about the implications of
this.
I am not stupid, I am well educated and a perfectly ordinary person, not given to any
form of exaggeration or weird beliefs, just concerned about the fact that the US and
Britain has launched a "global war on terror" and the removal of habeas corpus, among
other things, on the back of all this. Oh and the families of many the victims are calling
for a proper explanation, and indeed were instrumental in forcing a reluctant Bush to set
up the 9/11 commission in the first place, an inquiry which even its chairman admits was
deeply flawed. Go back to the source material and put up some serious arguments if you
can. I suggest there arent any.
Mike, you'd better deliver something a bit more robust than the clips I've seen so far, or
you're in for more of this!!
43. At 16:57 2nd Jul 2008, Giggidy wrote:
16. Bionic-Badger :
'Even if something was proved, so what? Let's assume the building was "pulled"
(controlled demolition) as the owner Larry Silverstein put it in an interview.'
======
It takes several weeks to prepare a building for a controlled demolition - the skill and
planning required to correctly pack a structure with explosives, so that it falls into its'
own footprint, is a highly specialized and exact science.
The "so what?" is that pulling any building requires weeks of advanced planning and
preparation - you don't just "decide" to pull a building and Larry Silverstein did not just
"decide" on September 11 to demolish WTC7 - it HAD to have been planned weeks in
advance.
44. At 17:22 2nd Jul 2008, frasay wrote:
Amending my comment #20, I should have said the molybdenum "spherules" found in
the trade centre dust samples are the mystery, because moly has an exceptionally high
melting point (2623 celsius).
One more point worth making...

All these people saying 100's or 1000's of people would have to be involved in a coverup,
are the same people who believe only 19 people carried out the terrorist operation
successfully. Hmmm. How many people are necessary for an operation of this
magnitude? Is it 19, or 1000's?
How many people does it take to wire a building? 1 or 2 dozen, or a hundred? I would
have thought about 20 men, given the time and access, could do the job.
Were people in the US administration involved, or were they blackmailed/threatened into

covering up the event? There are hundreds of possible scenarios, but really, this analysis
should probably come after we first understand how the buildings came down.
Why haven't people come forward? Actually they have. Hundreds of pilots, architects,
military personal and academics have come forward questioning the official story. Search
the web for patriots questioning 9-11.
It is not disrepectful to ask questions and search for the truth. I think it's racist not to
ask these questions, and make sure we're at war with the right enemy.
45. At 17:34 2nd Jul 2008, newicester wrote:
I have to laugh at remarks such as those made by 'Magic-Moose' ('Here are the facts
about WTC-7') . . etc
Why do you think that NIST have taken 7 years to attempt to investigate this ? Because
buildings of that size do not, and never have done prior or since, spontaneously collapse
through their own sub-structure due to fires, falling debris, presence of electrical
substation or any other of the items listed on Magic-Moose's so called fact list.
They do, on the other hand, collapse in exactly this manner if carefully placed explosives
are used to remove the substructure in a planned demolition, so it seems reasonable to
speculate that that was the cause in this case.
Magic-Moose sez... 'People have managed to construct an entire conspiracy out of

nothing'
My goodness. If only this were true. Such a bald and utterly un-informed statement
could only ever be made by someone who has absolutely no interest in pursuing true
accountability these horrendous events.
46. At 17:35 2nd Jul 2008, AshleyB_Canada wrote:
I myself don't believe everything claimed by the "conspiracy theorists" but I have seen
Loose Change and a few similar videos, and while they may be making some wild
accusations they are also undeniably raising some very important questions that the
Bush Administration has neglected to answer. Why was this the first time fire has been
able to melt reinforced and fire-proofed steel supports? Why are there no scraps bigger
than a car door of the plane that hit the Pentagon and why is the hole less than half the
size of a 767? Why is it that in the video footage of 9/11 can you see small explosions at
the base of the one of the Twin Towers just a few second before it imploded on itself
much like other buildings implode when purposefully demolished? Who knows. And those
are only a few of the many questions I, and many other people blindly labeled
"conspiracy theorists" have.
Perhaps there are perfectly logically explanations that I do not understand given that I
am not a physicist, but maybe not. It is certainly not impossible or unlikely for the US
Government to plan and execute this event and to coerce, bribe, threaten or persuade
1000s of people to follow along with it. To wave away all questions like those presented
in Loose Change is ignorance, I have never believed in blindly accepting what you've
been told without questioning it, and when it comes to 9/11 we should all be questioning
it.
It may turn out that all the conspiracy theories are wrong but don't be naive enough to
think they could never be right either. You'd be surprised what the US Government has
covered up over the years, this would only be the tip of the iceberg.
> And also, holding to conspiracy theories absolutely does not insult the thousands of
people who were killed that day, there is no denying that they died unfair and horribly
unjust deaths, the question is merely who was truly responsible for the cause of those
deaths. Whoever was responsible deserves a very special place in hell for what they
have done.
47. At 17:46 2nd Jul 2008, olddocross wrote:
"2) What was the original source of the "local news story", and at what time precisely
did that local news outlet become aware of the report of the collapse?"
As explained in the original article, the source was many firemen saying they expected
the building to collapse. With apologies for my ignorance, I fail to see
a. The relevance of the rest of your other questions.

b. How the answers to them would point to conspiracy and
c. How you could reasonably expect those sort of detailed records to be kept by
journalists reporting on the most horrific event most of them ever have or will see.
I'm afraid the evidence for conspiracy in the collapse of WTC7 eludes me.
There was confusion in media reports? Well duh. Understandable in the circumstances.
Journalists are human beings for cripes sakes. I think we can cut them some slack on
that one.
They reported something had happened that hadn't happened YET? Uh, yeah, the
closest thing to experts on the scene (the firemen) said they expected it to happen. In
the confusion this got picked up and some people wrongly ran with it as having
happened. I expect interest rates to go up later in the year. If I instead say now that the
Bank of England HAS put up interest rates already, does that mean I'm part of a
conspiracy? Cool.
I can *just about* get my head round conspiracy theories for the twin towers, but at the
end of the day you have to remember the people being asked to research this offically
are dealing with what effectively is the worlds largest crime scene, and a swathe of
evidence that is compacted, burned, melted and deformed. They probably won't have
answers to every minute detail people can pick out on video footage today, but that
doesn't mean they never will, or that there was a conspiracy. There is no way they could
know, for example, the complete contents of both towers on 9/11. Therefore how could
you possibly expect them to account for the colour of every minute flame that eminated
from the building?
I understand *wanting* to believe there is more to it - that so many couldn't have died
as a result of the actions of so few, that it shouldn't be that easy to commit such
carnage. It's almost 'safer' to believe that our Governments were complicit in these
attacks than they were powerless to stop them.
Wanting to believe it doesn't make it true though. The simple fact is that on September
11 2001, terrorists hijacked planes with the intention of taking as many lives as possible,
and tragically they were successful in that goal.
48. At 17:48 2nd Jul 2008, fish5133 wrote:
See what Governments consider in order to justify attacks on other sovereign nations.
Google Northwoods Document. Now an unclassified top secret US Military document in
the 60s illustrating several, "false flag ops" including shooting down a plane full of
American sports student and blaming it on the Cubans. The same document refers to
other options "real or simulated"
The Neocon Document just pre 911 stated it would need another "Pearl Harbour Event"
in order to get public backing for a huge military build up.
Whod have thought Hitler and cohorts would murder so many innocents. Its been done
before. Oh but of course we are a much more civilized nation now (US and UK) we
wouldnt do such a thing would we!!.
49. At 18:03 2nd Jul 2008, spivver wrote:
Further to my questions raised at #10 above, I have two more.

If Osama Bin Laden actually carried out this attack, why does it not mention this as one
of his crimes he is wanted for on his page on the FBI website? Don't believe me, then
check out yourself his page on the official FBI website. (To give you a clue here, the FBI
says that it has no evidence linking Bin Laden with 911).
And secondly, if concrete and steel skyscrapers can so easily collapse, just because of a
few fires, why are the Governments, and the BBC, not leading the Health and Safety
brigade in warning the millions of people who live and work every day in such tall
buildings around the world. Could it be because the World Trade Centre 7 tower was the
only one to have fallen in history as a result solely of fire? Hmmm... most perplexing..
50. At 18:22 2nd Jul 2008, Andy_PN wrote:
Hmmm...
Just got interested in this debate after stumbling across it.

It seems that there are a lot of interesting and pertinent questions being asked by
people who clearly have some understanding of events and facts surrounding 9/11. Also
there seems to be some emotionally couched rejection and incomprehension of the need
to ask these questions by those who feel they already fully understand the events. Why
the unwillingness to seek further understanding?
If there are unanswered questions that official investigations have not satisfactorily
provided answers for (e.g. how the vast bulk of a steel framed skyscraper collapses
symmetrically in seconds from fire damage) then surely we all would like and benefit
from objective answers?
It strikes me as very strange that after nearly seven years with all the current scientific/
engineering knowledge and power available through computer modelling that there is no
definitive recognised explanation for this. Or if there is can someone point me in its
direction?
51. At 18:30 2nd Jul 2008, Ciaran wrote:
So we should be asking Reuters where they got their information then!
52. At 19:00 2nd Jul 2008, Briantist wrote:
rdrake98: eek, I just Googled "Conspiratology"
53. At 19:03 2nd Jul 2008, ROBBYBB wrote:
Thomas Keane has admitted that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail and Norad
lied.NIST have never explained the total collapse of the towers and never had any
intention of explaining the total collapse of the twin towers.They did however admit
without the fire the buildings would have stood indefinitely.There have been 3 different
investigations into those collapses by NIST,FEMA and Silverstein Weidlinger.Which do you
pick Global collapse,pancake effect or column damage.Why would anybody think it
acceptable for 3 separate reports to blatantly contradict each other.Who are these
experts that can,t get their story straight.There are too many contradictions and very
little hard evidence concerning 9/11 and i deal in facts not fairy tales.Now Mike Rudin
has all the answers,well i wager Mike Rudin comes out of this looking like Comical
Ali.And why would he make this when NIST have yet to publish their final report.FEMA
attempted to explain why WTC7 collapsed but admitted their theory had very little
chance of being correct.So that means nobody in an official capacity has ever explained
anything yet Mike Rudin takes it upon himself to do just that.Reading this blog you are
taking the same road as last time which ended in total humiliation for the
BBC.Conspiracy files was an embarrassment,a huge joke.Rudin will explain nothing,he
will give us soundbites and Popular mechanics,don,t expect any thing else.
54. At 19:20 2nd Jul 2008, strateshutr wrote:
For anyone with even a passing knowledge of cutting and welding steel with oxy-
acetylene torches, there is no conspiracy theory--9-11 was an inside job, and there is no
question about it. End of story.
For those who question how secrecy could be maintained, what would you divulge if your
family and loved ones were threatened for something you might say, and you might be
killed, disappeared or imprisoned as well?
For anyone who still believes that their government could not possibly create or allow
such things to happen, study history--look up Operation Northwoods; read John Perkins'
"Economic Hit Man" and Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"; Bill Blum's "Killing Hope"
and many other informative books.
Conspiracies do in fact exist--it is a documented fact--and using the derisively
defamatory label "theorists" only serves to distract others from learning and believing
what in fact might be true.
In answering these questions for yourself, it is always good policy to 'follow the money'
while asking yourself 'cui bono'?
Though much is public concerning 9-11, there are still many questions needing answers,
and the real perpetrators needing to answer for what they have done, and the same
applies to the later subway bombings in London. Both were excuses to hide real intent
and ambitions, and both succeeded in the manipulation of people to allow actions which
otherwise would have been impossible.
The BBC story this responds to is only a small part of the cover-up which allows similar
atrocities to continue, perhaps abetted by some who are in denial and do not realize
they are complicit.
Regards,,,John
55. At 20:07 2nd Jul 2008, zeuszeus00 wrote:
olddocross
Your post #47 - how interesting that you attempt to discredit my post #23 - I was on a
fishing expedition, and you took the bait - you are a shill, aren't you?!
Those were perfectly reasonable questions, and you know it, don't you?!
56. At 21:06 2nd Jul 2008, seanplynch wrote:
Thank you for the thoughtful article.
You may be interested in a scientific paper recently published that contains details about
the collapse of WTC 7:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4792
This will take you to a page hosted by Cornell University that will allow you to browse or
download a copy of the paper.
Thanks again,
Sean Lynch
57. At 21:43 2nd Jul 2008, raindancer68 wrote:
strateshutr says "follow the money" in post 54. How very true...
One important fact that's not been brought up here so far (I think) is that people in the
shadows profited to the tune of many billions of dollars after betting that US Airline
stocks -- United Airlines (the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93) and American Airlines
(the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77) plus banks and insurance companies, would fall
heavily in the coming weeks. This type of transaction is the notorious "put option," a
contract that allows holders to sell assets at specified prices by a certain date, allowing
them to profit from declines in stock values.
In the days before the 9/11 attack, these shadowy individuals were behind the
purchasing of huge volumes of put options of the two Airlines used in the "attack" as
well as banks and insurance companies, suggesting a cabal knew exactly what would
happen when the stock markets reopened for business a week after 9/11 occurred. And
surprise surprise, American Airlines and United Airlines, plus quite a few insurance
companies and banks, posted huge losses in stock values, so those holding the put
options were in line to rake in billions and billions of dollars.
For a few days after 9/11, these stock irregularities got prominent mainstream media
coverage. I remember seeing extensive reports on ITN News, and then suddenly there
was a blackout of all coverage relating to the put option irregularities. Why?
I don't think it was a coincidence that before the 9/11 attack, there was also a huge
surge in purchases of "call options" [the opposite of the put option -- betting that the
value of companies would go up] in Weapons manufacturers. We all know that
companies of this ilk would benefit financially in the long term from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don't know about the readership here, but I'm smelling a rather big
military industrial rat behind 9/11, but it's probably only one of many players, another
being the Western world's financial sector -- as all the put and call option transactions
should have been traced back to their holders, and these people brought to book, but no
serious investigation took place.
As a footnote, it's not an "elected" government who was behind 9/11 in my opinion.
We're talking about a shadow government entity here, that's 33 degree-masonic based
and goes well beyond national borders, involving a whole host of different
"compartments" buried within the intelligence agencies of the western world, the military
industrial complex and the business and financial sector.
58. At 21:54 2nd Jul 2008, DCHeretic wrote:
Dozens of posts later, and still no one can deny the tens of thousands of witnesses who
watched the events of 9/11/01 with their own eyes. For those of you who have never
been to Washington, the Pentagon is ringed by a VERY busy civilian freeway. The attack
occured during the morning rush hour. Hundreds of people saw the airliner descend on
the Pentagon and slam into the building. I did not witness the actual attack (thank
goodness), but I did visit the Pentagon shortly afterward and the damage was far more
severe than it appeared on TV.
There can be no denying that 9/11 was a unique event in the history of mankind and
engineering. How many other 110 story structures have been hit by commerical jets
nearly full of jet fuel traveling at hundreds of miles an hour? The towers, built with late
1960s materials, were not designed to withstand that amount of structural trauma.
It is also farcical to think that the US government is blackmailing thousands of people to

keep them silent. The US government is the most polarized it ever been and if there was
even the slightest whiff of government involvement, the Democrats would be all over the
story to discredit Bush. During the lead up to the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon and CIA
were leaking like sieves as government employees opposed to the war tried to discredit
and derail the Bush administration.
People from dozens of countries died that day. Have the UK, Russia, Japan, France,
Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia and other governments miraculously formed a secret pact to
protect the US government and president Bush?
For those of you who think that it is far-fetched for Muslim extremists to use hijacked
airliners as bombs, did you think it equally far-fetched when Algerian militants hijacked
an Air France jet in 1994 with the intention of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower? What
about the man who was caught in 2001 trying to light a fuse on his shoe to bring down
an American Airlines flight from Paris? Or the 2006 plot to use basic liquids to destroy
dozens of aircraft over the Atlantic? We are facing a creative and skilled adversary and
we ignore them at our peril.

59. At 21:56 2nd Jul 2008, Richard Drake wrote:
Briantist (#52): Thanks. Clearly I should've googled it first myself!
It was a spur-of-the-moment term. But I don't object to the association that much.
Because by lumping together very thorough and disciplined researchers like Jones or
Gage with hateful, racist loonies (as I take the authors of conspiratology.com to be, from
a quick glance) the determined conspiratologist (in my terms) is as guilty for me as any
racist bigot. Those who lump together the very good with the very bad, deliberately, in
order to contaminate the good and prevent ordinary people from coming near the truth
are themselves stooping to the level of the very bad. All the worst conspirators in history
did this to their enemies: thus Hitler took the most evil of Jew in history and said
"They're all like that and they're all conspiring against us." It's the same game.
What's needed is painstaking, critical thinking and analysis. That's on both sides. The
biggest objection to a major CT of 9-11 is, as many have said here, the social issue of
how hard it would be to rig the buildings for demolition beforehand without someone
blabbing about it later. But the problems with the physics of the explosion and
disintegration of the three massive steel-framed buildings (not just 'collapses') won't go
away just because of that.
We need totally excellent thinking. I'd exclude the Loose Change people for exactly that
reason. They've been much too sloppy, from everything I've read. Jones, Gage and a
number of others have maintained a high standard throughout (though not without
wrong turnings, like any scientist). That's the way to go.
And we seem to be getting there. Let's see how it's all handled on Sunday evening.
60. At 22:09 2nd Jul 2008, theodorelordoftrouts wrote:
Reuters Shmeuters.
The BBC was fed a tip on 9-11 about WTC7 that came from a source so highly-placed
and unimpeachable that they didn't bother to check it by looking over their shoulders out
the window.
And now they refuse to say who it was.
This documentary will not be credible no matter what it says, as the BBC is no longer
credible.
61. At 22:41 2nd Jul 2008, nobleFloridian wrote:
I can't believe we are even talking about a 9/11 conspiracy! I wonder what the relatives
of those poor souls who died in that holocaust think about the maniacs who have the gall
to advance such a preposterous theory.
Kudos to those bloggers who have ridiculed the conspiracy theorists with both
commonsense and proven facts, and to those who even countenance such a horrific idea
- you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!
62. At 22:46 2nd Jul 2008, sphil wrote:
Sneak Preview news....Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 premieres in Clapham Picture

House July 29th and then goes on limited release August 22nd Nationwide. This film
covers the main arguments surrounding what happened but also, crucially, exposes the
links between Al Quaeda and The US Govt - did you know the name Al Quaeda is an
arabic translation of the english 'the base' and if you add one extra work you get the
database, the database of Mujahadeen soldiers created and paid for by the US Govt... ?
Anyway come and watch the film when it comes out. It was the hit of the Rome Film
Festival and was shown to the EU Parliament earlier this year. If you want to watch an
extended trailer go to www.zero911movie.com . FYI it stars Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo,
and Gore Vidal....

63. At 23:06 2nd Jul 2008, ynda20 wrote:
# 61. nobleFloridian wrote:
"I wonder what the relatives of those poor souls who died in that holocaust think about
the maniacs who have the gall to advance such a preposterous theory."
Well actually they are some of the main critics of the Official Story: The so-called Jersey
Girls, relatives of the victims basically lobbied for the 9/11 Commission and are still to
this day the most consistant and critic voice of the process. They raised so many
questions over, pre-knowledge of the event and why procedures were not followed and
trying to establish basic facts. Guess what? Few of their questions have been answered.
Go see "9/11 Press for Truth" for more details.
50. At 6:22pm on 02 Jul 2008, Andy_PN wrote:
"Hmmm...
Just got interested in this debate after stumbling across it.

It seems that there are a lot of interesting and pertinent questions being asked by
people who clearly have some understanding of events and facts surrounding 9/11. Also
there seems to be some emotionally couched rejection and incomprehension of the need
to ask these questions by those who feel they already fully understand the events. Why
the unwillingness to seek further understanding?
If there are unanswered questions that official investigations have not satisfactorily
provided answers for (e.g. how the vast bulk of a steel framed skyscraper collapses
symmetrically in seconds from fire damage) then surely we all would like and benefit
from objective answers?
It strikes me as very strange that after nearly seven years with all the current scientific/
engineering knowledge and power available through computer modelling that there is no
definitive recognised explanation for this. Or if there is can someone point me in its
direction?"
Hi, welcome. I was where you are 12 months ago. I wanted to find the science and
computer simulations to explain the 3 towers collapse. I feel as though I'm clever
enough to understand with my education and professional background... but guess what
there is none. The NIST report on the building performance firstly ignores WTC7 and for
the twin towers only attempts to explain fire progression. There is no model that is in
the public domain that simulates the collapse mechanism! A university has modeled the
impact of the first aircraft in one of the twin towers and it is very good - I recommend it
to anyone. It clearly shows the extent of the damage: some of the core columns are
severed but the building is designed to transfer the stresses to other columns and it
should not have fallen (or even explode into dust) even with the fires in the building.
"Something else" must have made that happen.
The second aircraft impact has not been modeled but since it hit more of an angle, it
should not severed as many columns. The second tower should have fallen down
differently from the first. But it didn't.
WTC7 also fell down in a strange way - just like a controlled demolition rather than a
progressive collapse that you would expect from a fire. All suscipous. Now add in the
final bits of evidence: concrete turning into micro-fine dust, evidence of the use of
thermite explosive in the dust, molten steel at the bases of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (that
persisted for weeks) and suddenly you realised the official story is missing a huge chunk
of explanation. Will I as a so-called "Conspiracy Theorist" ever believe the official story?
Sure I will, provided the official story makes some sense(!), is not self-serving (ie a
pretext for war and new laws) and addresses all of the evidence (manner of collapse, the
dust, the molten steel, the eye witness testimony of secondary explosions), not just
selected items that meet the criteria of the 9/11 Commission report (which was designed
to solely support the story invented by politicians and given On The Day of 9/11).
Good luck with your investigations. Please report back anything new and substantial.
65. At 23:37 2nd Jul 2008, blackboxes wrote:
i havent noticed anyone talking about the only black boxes in history to have completly
melted or never been found. to covienent i say,also who benifited the most from all this.
Hi Mike,
I'm with Dylan Avery in believing the BBC is not involved in any conspiracy associated
with 9/11. However, it has been less than candid and is behaving more like the Ministry
of Truth than any independent news organization. Do you think that 9/11 is so un-news-
worthy and lacking in significance that it doesn't need to be examined in minute detail?
Even now, nearly 7 years later 9/11 little is known about the basic facts of the day but
its historical importance becomes larger and larger.
So why is the official story so full of holes? Why isn't the media addressing the issues?
No air crash investigation, no judical investigation, the flawed 9/11 Commission Report
(disowned by its authors), basic facts disputed (cell phones on planes, building collapse
mechanism, skyscraper safety, molten steel, etc), insurance scams, pre-knowledge of
9/11, planted evidence such as the magic passports of the hijackers, indeed
confirmation of the hijacker identities, who made the fake bin laden video, the cause of
the DoD budget overspend reported on 10th Sept 2001... the list just goes on and on
and on. And nobody in the mainstream media is investigating. It is left up to students
and amateurs. Rather than pointing out the trivial mistakes they have made, why isn't
the BBC (or anyone) investigating the very serious and valid points that are being made?
(These points are not just "conspiracy theories"!)
67. At 23:53 2nd Jul 2008, NPAWC910 wrote:
"nobleFloridian" is your real name Jeb Bush by any chance?
68. At 00:00 3rd Jul 2008, gileshalton wrote:
I've read a fair few of these posts now and there seems to be a mixed veiw on opinions.
One thing that stands out is that people who disagree with the conspiracy theorists,
disagree with thier veiws vehemently, saying they can't possibly be true. Why? Because
belief or understanding of an attrocity so great is a terribly frightening thing? Because
we have been taught over the years to beleive hands down what we are told? Or
because people don't use the amazing brain they have been given?
I don't know who said something along the lines that the most logical given answer to
something regardless of how ridiculous it may sound must be the truth (something like
that - if someone would like to correct me on that I'd be grateful)
Laws of physics state that a falling body falls at a given speed - freefall. You cant have
the top floors of a 110 storey building fall at free fall through the remaining 70-90 or so
floors without there being resistance to slow freefall speed. It's impossible, yet we see
that happening, twice, for the first time in human history of skyscrapers. This is despite
planes hitting other skyscrapers and standing. Most notable the Empire State Building,
which as you know stands to this day. Yet we find ourselves a few hours later with a 47
storey building, which is distanced further away from the twin towers than other
buildings that received greater damage that WTC7, but again are still standing. Also
physics mentions about a falling body which has damage at a certain point falls
unsymetrically, like a tree would in a forest when being cut down. It falls to the side with
the least support. WTC7 was only damaged on one side, although this damaged was
severe, its fall would not keep with the pattern of a building that has only been damaged
on one side. It would fall toward the side with the least support, collapsing toward the
Twin Towers. But it didn't it fell gracefully into a pile upon itself. This is impossible. It
cannot happen. Try it with anything. Jenga, a snowman, a tree, anything that you have
the ability to damage one side enough to make it collapse and it will fall toward the
damage. WTC7 was brought down by controlled explosive, fire doesn't burn or can be
controlled to an extent its temperature can make a structured collection of static steel
girders (a building) uniformally, and universally collapse at exactly the same time.
My point is, those of you who completely disregard any type of conspiracy theory, listen
to yourselves, the facts you're being told do not make sense . . logically. Think for as
long as is needed to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. Who knows who
attacked the WTC's? The point is that these buildings could not have come down in the
way that you are being led to beleive - it is impossible. Open your minds a little and
think about what you are being told rather than accept everything first hand. humans
are intellegent animals and we need to re-learn how to use that intellegence rather than
being lazy and just accepting everything.
69. At 00:39 3rd Jul 2008, fillandfrowpist wrote:
I am concerned that whenever there are programs on conspiracies it is considered

appropriate for the producers to disseminate and destroy the "evidence" upon which the
conspiracy has been built, rather than investigate the omissions, real or imagined, that
have lead to the conspiracy.
9/11 was unique in that it was covered on live TV as it happened and once it was
established "that a small plane has flown into WTC 1" (as reported on FiveLive by Simon
Mayo) was actually part of a series of terrorist attacks.
I was impressed on that day by the speed with which the BBC connected incidents up,
brought in studio comment to flesh up the visual information presented, and attempted
to relate the horrors experienced by New Yorkers on that terrible day. "Conspiracy" could
not have been further from my mind at the time.
However, with all the wealth of the visuals I had watched that day, came the realisation
from the comments of others that I may have been cheated, and that the coverage may
have been deliberately manipulated to add impact. For me this was a matter of trust,
and, as has been suggested by other correspondents, the BBC had been found wanting
in its reporting on other matters.
Layer on that the pitiful Hutton Enquiry and what we now know of Iraq and Afghanistan
and it becomes apparent that our political leaders cannot be trusted and nor can our
media.
My observation on programs that seek to explain conspiracy away is that they must also
deal with official deceit and the reason why so many political leaders seem happy to lie
to us, sell us deceits, and mislead us openly. There is never a moment when these lies,
deceits and misrepresentation of fact is questioned in depth at the time. Instead we
must wait three decades for material to become available.
At least the USA has attempted to deal with the subject matter of 9/11 and conspiracies
by countering the evidence that "Loose Change", "Plane Sight" etc have produced. But
even the USA has not tackled the political innuendo exposed in so many programs on
9/11 and its aftermath.
I would like to be able to trust the BBC to deliver news honestly and factually but it
seems that increasingly they produce news in the same vein as many tabloids. I think it
follows from this that many people will take programs produce by the Corporation with a
large pinch of salt. We do need to know what political pressure the BBC has been under
since it was humbled by Blair and Campbell if only to put its delivery of "news" into
perspective.
To DCHeretic
Why would it be necessary to silence people? I seem to recall that the exposure of
Watergate took two journalists a very long time because a large number of those
involved were unaware.
We also have the whole point of the USA being shell shocked at being attacked at home
and not in some far away place. Exposing the fragile nature of your own defences
against such an attack was perhaps the main concern post 9/11 rather than studying in
minute detail what actually happened and in what order.
Too many things remain unanswered and not investigated for anyone to feel confident
that what we are fed is actually true.
71. At 00:57 3rd Jul 2008, DCHeretic wrote:
It is hard to take this conspiracy theory seriously when bloggers are writing that the
buildings were brought down by "fire." A jetliner weighing several tons slamming into
the top quarter of a building at a tremendous speed is far more dramatic than a mere
fire in the building. No skyscraper has ever experienced such an impact and hopefully
never will again.
After listening to the debate and watching documentaries, the only possible conspiracy
that I can accept is perhaps a conspiracy of silence involving a design flaw in the
complex. And even that is doubtful.
For those of you who demand more empirical evidence, please make sure that any
experiments use the exact same 1960s era steel and other building materials used in the
WTC complex. Compare like to like.
72. At 01:28 3rd Jul 2008, Ambersil wrote:
Gileshalton, you may be thinking of the statement Conan Doyle attributed to Sherlock
Holmes, to the effect that once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth. However, I think you should also consider Occam's Razor,
that hypotheses should not be needlessly multipled, the simplest explanation that fits
the facts is likely to be correct.
In this case, the simplest explanation is that the generally accepted version of events is
correct, but does it fit the facts? You have put forward some suggested facts that would
refute it, but are they correct?
To correct your physics, falling bodies fall with uniform acceleration, not speed, until they
reach their terminal velocity, the speed at which gravity is balanced by resistance forces,
typically air resistance. What we need to consider here is the time it would take the
uppermost floors to reach the ground had they been falling through air, compared to the
actual time they took. I take it you are saying these times are the same, therefore the
lower part of the buildings offered no resistance, therefore it must have been destroyed
by explosives before hit by the rubble of the upper floors. Measurement is complicated
by a number of practical factors, including the huge clouds of dust that obscure the view
on the videos, but seems to indicate that in fact the lower parts of the buildings did offer
resistance. That they did, is actually shown very clearly on the videos of the collapse.
Pieces of debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the collapse wave goes down the
towers, therefore upper part of the towers was encountering resistance from the intact
lower part, and the hypothesis of explosives is not required.
The Empire State Building was hit by a very much lighter aircraft travelling at a much
lower speed and is of quite different construction. There is no reason for it to react in the
same way.
WTC7 received very extensive damage from the falling towers, caught fire, and burnt
attended for 7 hours. The firemen present were all expecting it to fall, and it duly did so.
A normal building will never fall in the same way as a monolithic structure like a tree, a
building is very largely empty space. The fall of WTC7 does seem surprisingly
symmetrical at first sight, but actually it isn't, the penthouse disappears early, giving an
indication of internal collapse. The building at its lower levels was very unusual, being
built over the ConEd substation, with a few massive beams transferring load. Structure
Magazine, for structural engineers, did a recent analysis putting forward a possible
explanation. NIST may or may not agree with this when their report is eventually
published. I would also recommend Dr Keith Seffen's paper on the collapse of the
towers, which demonstrates that once collapse started, it would inevitably continue.
There is nothing impossible about the way the buildings collapsed, if it was the engineers
of the many countries hostile to the USA would be shouting it from the roof-tops and
delight in proving it. They aren't, and I think you should perhaps be more wary of what
you are being told by conspiracy websites. See if any of them can answer the key
question put by Noam Chomsky, certainly no friend of a republican administration, why
should the US frame 19 nationals of Saudi Arabia, its most important supplier of oil in
the region, in order to provide an excuse for attacking Iraq?
Ambersil - your knowledge of physical science is obviously much greater than mine, and
well done for correcting me on many of my points, but I still stand by the point that I
was trying to make. Population on mass need to be less driven by what they perceive to
be true and think about facts that once thought through don't add up.
The collapse of those buildings is dubious, albeit with some facts that are both disputed
and some that are backed-up. The fact that there is an element of doubt should be
something that should ring bells. The official story should be one of complete undoubting
fact, if the events are exactly that. On September 11, many things happened,
unprecedently so, on more individual occasions than heard of before. Buildings
collapsing upon themselves due to fire, planes vapourising, paper passports surviving
fireballs, parts of engines completely alien to the planes flown appearing on the street,
pyroclastic clouds racing down New York Streets from destruction of buildings collapsing
on themselves as is the norm from uncontrolled demolition. I'm not saying the facts you
are producing are not fact, but there is to much grey area to think that all these things
and much much more could all happen for the first time ever on the same day at pretty
much the same time for it to be beleived the officail story is true. Coincidences are
surely a product of maths, and when these maths are added up the chances are
astronomical, however, not to say impossible.
I still beleive that the fall rate of the twin towers would have been greatly lengthened by
a pancake effect compared to the 'near' freefall speed at which they did, and I can't see
how a completely uniform drop of 2 110 story buildings could happen considering the
impact heights and angles differed so much.
Thanks again for setting me straight on the science I was not acurate on. I do not claim
to know everything about the issue, but my point was trying to make people aware of
being aware that the media, who are in instances controlled by those who may have had
a hand in instigating these things may not be telling the whole truth. We must open our
minds to every possiblity that lays before us, rather than just the ones that people with
possible bloody hands tell us. Would you (a populus, not you specifically) admit to a
massive crime if you were involved?
74. At 02:23 3rd Jul 2008, comsunjava wrote:
@Ambersil wrote: I always find it amusing to read these "explanations", especially the
line about "correcting your physics", yet then providing not a shred of empirical data
only "it seems". This building collapsed in *near* free fall speed, please explain how this
was done without controlled demolition technology - and without inventing new laws of
physics;)
Finally to conclude with the statement about Chomsky, questioning the sanity of the
evildoers for fingering Saudi's, I am again amused that this is the best argument the
deniers can come up with - another question, questioning the thought process of the
evildoers. And I think we can all agree, whoever it was, we all question their rationality.
One request: please don't say the U.S., it was not, that is like saying Italy when you are
speaking of the Mafia, or Russia.
75. At 02:30 3rd Jul 2008, comsunjava wrote:
"71. At 00:57am on 03 Jul 2008, DCHeretic wrote:
It is hard to take this conspiracy theory seriously when bloggers are writing that the
buildings were brought down by "fire." "
Ok, so somehow you've done the research and have a better idea how this occurred than
NIST? Really now.
I';m interested to see the rather naive and uninformed comments here it's rather
obvious the bbc is bringing this to broader attention of those poorly informed about the
events and the considerable research done by various parties.
Educate thyselves, people.
Ambersil, the most possible hypothesis is that one of the most powerful and
technologically advanced countries in the world could surmount such a diabolical plan to
destroy thier figureheads of finance through a physical attack on the people of a nation
is far more acceptable than a few men in a cave in Afganistan (as we are told is the
official story) being able do the same thing. It happened in England too - the
coincedences are amazing . . multimple tests of serious incidents at precicesly the same
time in the same place, the accusations of Muslim people, the passports surviving
fireballs where nothing else did etc it's too uncanny. I don't know if you're British or not,
but the same denial that the British feel to 7/7 about any consipracy is rejected in the
same way the Americans feel to 9/11 but yet we have reverse feelings about each others
horrendous catastrophes as we do about the Americans catastrophe because we never
beleive that our governments could do such a thing regardless of the cost
77. At 06:07 3rd Jul 2008, lydgrace wrote:
Morning All
Mike Rudin - I hope you read these contributions because I have a suggestion for you of
an area to explore.
What you need to do is focus on what happened BEFORE the attacks.
There is one piece of information that is fact and is not rational. It is this - there was an
exceptionally abnormal increase in the number of put options ( right to sell) in American
and United Airlines AND an exceptional increase in the number of call ( right to buy) in
defense stocks and stocks of suppliers to defense contractors BEFORE the attacks. It is
the AND that is key. If I knew of this in advance this is exactly what I would have done.
Apologies guys if this seems technical but it is really very simple.
The beauty of the internet is that most of the time people do not declare who they are or
their professional qualifications when posting. Lets change that here and now for the
purposes of this debate. I am a law graduate with 22 years experience in investment
banking and the reason I am telling you this is because not only has this taught me to
focus on facts not emotions but relevant to what I said earlier it is simply not possible
that the people who took the option positions both ways i.e. the right to sell the airline
stocks and the right to buy the defense stocks did this out of pure speculation. Rational
Investors with no inside information do not behave in this way. They would be risking
billions in aggregate if these were speculative plays. It simply is not what happens in
financial markets.
If you are a physics graduate or a metalurgist or a fire expert or an architect then please
give your perspectives on what happened to the buildings. I have given mine in my area
of expertise and I am not qualified on these areas.
Mike - get to the brokers and banks and find out who the buyers of the options were if
you can and follow the trail. They were not doing this on their own account there must
have been underlying clients. If they were doing it on their own account then that would
be far more disturbing. Think about it !
Work on the facts .
The other fact is that the BBC did report the collapse of WTC7 12 minutes before it
happened based on a Reuters wire. So Reuters by definition made the statement more
than 12 minutes before based on an unnamed local source. What was Reuters source ?
Tell us.
Good luck. Someone knew about this in advance without doubt - the question is how
many people knew ?
One more fact to be established.
Does anyone know if it is true that members of the extended Bin Laden family were
flown OUT of mainland US to Saudi through the security cordon within hours of the
attacks ?
Why ?
I agree with lydgrace's comments on presenting a more thorough picture of events prior
to the "attacks". Were there people for whom the development of a conspiracy theory
would be a godsend? Were there people who did know what was about to happen at
least in general if not in detail?
A program that demonstrates the development of conspiracies may actually reveal just
how complicit high ranking people are in their feeding of red-herrings that mask any
small truths that may be touched upon.
We know there are many conspiracies and we know that there is excessive media
manipulation. What we do not know for certain is why.
80. At 08:33 3rd Jul 2008, ynda20 wrote:
Mike,
I hope Richard Porter isn't your boss. He spent a week looking for the missing tapes and
the blog...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
...went on for a year . It seems to be covering pretty much the same ground although
with shorter and snapier contributions because the blog system was so unreliable. That
blog would still be going if it wasn't for the bbc's change of technology which froze that
blog to just 600 or so comments!
So how come you could quickly find the tapes and Richard Porter (if not your boss, then
a senior guy in bbc world news) could not? Was Richard not even trying? Do you know
who mislaid the tapes?
81. At 08:50 3rd Jul 2008, modernjq123 wrote:
Dear Mr Rudin,
The Conspiracy Files screened on the 1st of July was one of the worst pieces of
journalism I have ever seen. The 3 'truth' seekers were not allowed to speak for more
than about 5 minutes through the entire program and were hardly even allowed to
present evidence to support their claims, and every time they did so the good old beeb
would start playing on people's heart strings about how upsetting it might be for the
victims families.
Not to mention factual inaccuracy. You mention the planes couldn't be tracked because
of the transponders. I suggest you find out what Norman Mineta has to say about this
(he was in the White House bunker with Dick Cheney by the way). A plane crash in
Pennsylvania? I suggest you look on Google for what a plane crash looks like, there's
usually this thing called wreckage.
82. At 10:16 3rd Jul 2008, Roly_Hermans wrote:
Here is a website that looks very closely at the various theories surrounding the World
Trade Centre:
https://www.911myths.com
And here is a report from some real demolition engineeers:
https://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-
06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
I hope that the programme producers have checked out these sorts of sources as well as
Loose Change.
83. At 11:05 3rd Jul 2008, tapdancingdan wrote:
Please could one of the proponents of what I will call the 'alternative conspiracy theory'
surrounding the events of 911 (as opposed to the 'official conspiracy theory' which
involved about 19 people or so who came from the middle east) please outline in more
detail the extent of the conspiracy, the numbers of people involved, who they were
(what were their skills?), what were they motivated by (this is very important, also did
they get what they set out to achieve?), were they connected with those people in the
'official' conspiracy explanation (and if so how?), why did they get the BBC involved
(surely not the wisest move...), are they the same people or part of the same conspiracy
that led to 77 in London, what are these people up to now, how have they managed to
get away scot free, etc etc.
Basically there are people posting on here obviously absolutely convinced of the
'alterative conspiracy' yet no-one has painted a anything close to a realistic picture of
how this amazing plot was put together, and how they implemented it on the day (did
these people have a control room somewhere managing this operation?) and how to this
day they have managed to get away with it.
Oh and 'shadowy figures' etc is a cop out. Details please.
84. At 11:06 3rd Jul 2008, Richard Drake wrote:
Note that lydgrace is another poster asking the right kind of questions in the right kind
of way. The ranters, whether for or against a particular conspiracy view, may appear to
dominate but it's careful contributions like this that make the discussion worthwhile.
And, very importantly, it's only such an attitude that pays due respect to those who died
on 9-11 - the majority of whom did so in the very sudden disintegration of the twin
towers, whose stability was self-evident for the hour or more after the planes' impact
(which is why so many firefighters were sent inside). The memory and dignity of the
victims should be our concern at all times, as others have said. But that has to include a
passion to uncover the truth of what was done to pitilessly destroy them.
To answer some of the points made in response to my earlier post, #72, may I say this:
Those who say that the towers falling at the speed they did without explosives being
involved would violate the laws of physics need to demonstrate that, not just state it as
though it were self-evident. Dr Keith Seffen, a professor of engineering at Cambridge,
has written the most recent paper on the subject, available here:
https://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf Attempts have of course
been made to debunk it, that is to be expected, but not at all convincingly.
If the best argument against Chomsky's point is that the perpetrators were irrational,
that is very much a self-defeating point. To argue that the assumed perpetrators of the
most complicated plot the world has ever seen, perfectly executed, thousands of
participants persuaded to take part and keep quiet afterwards, were not all there is
beyond absurd.
No conspiracist has yet managed to produce even a coherent account of what might
have happened that fits all the agreed facts, there are hundreds of different theories and
varients, but one thing they have in common is that thousands must have been involved
in the plan and its cover up. More are added every time a conspiracist comments, all the
people at NIST, most of the media, acedemics who comment, all are assumed to be
involved. What can their motives be, are they paid off, threatened, all with deep political
motives? how could they be approached in the first place? "Hi, we are planning to
murder thousands of your fellow citizens to give us a better excuse to suppress freedom
and invade Iraq, can we rely on your support?" And everyone single one approached
either signed up or kept quiet, is that in the slightest bit plausible in the land of the
whistleblower, where even the President could not keep secret tapes made in his own
office?
Some more minor points:

The idea that 9/11 could not be planned by a few Arabs in a cave is the one of the
favourite scoffs of the conspiracists. Leaving aside the racist assumptions, bin Laden had
access to considerable funds from his family business, and at the time al Qaeda occupied
an extensive training complex, at Tarnak Farms.
Millions of pieces of paper were blowing around the streets of Manhattan, one of those
pieces that survived from the towers was a passport, why should that be impossible?
If anomalous engine parts were found, that would indeed be significant. Bring on the
evidence!
Pyroclastic flow occurs from volcanoes, dust clouds are something else.
The put options issue is extensively analysed here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200407260700.asp American Airlines had
issued a profits warning, analysts were recommending getting out of all travel stocks
after the dot.com bubble burst, it is all quite rational.
"83. At 11:05am on 03 Jul 2008, tapdancingdan wrote:

Please could one of the proponents of what I will call the 'alternative conspiracy theory'
surrounding the events of 911 (as opposed to the 'official conspiracy theory' which
involved about 19 people or so who came from the middle east) please outline in more
detail the extent of the conspiracy, the numbers of people involved, who they were
(what were their skills?), what were they motivated by (this is very important, also did
they get what they set out to achieve?), were they connected with those people in the
'official' conspiracy explanation (and if so how?), why did they get the BBC involved
(surely not the wisest move...), are they the same people or part of the same conspiracy
that led to 77 in London, what are these people up to now, how have they managed to
get away scot free, etc etc.
Basically there are people posting on here obviously absolutely convinced of the
'alterative conspiracy' yet no-one has painted a anything close to a realistic picture of
how this amazing plot was put together, and how they implemented it on the day (did
these people have a control room somewhere managing this operation?) and how to this
day they have managed to get away with it."
Ok. Can we agree on basic facts first before we start pointing fingers?
If you go to
https://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Which is factually-based timeline of events (facts: ie information from independent and

referable sources of information). And if we can agree some of those facts then we have
some opportunity for finger pointing. The BBC is involved only becuase they have not
challenged any of the official story.
See number 66: the official story so full of holes and why isn't the media addressing the
issues? No air crash investigation, no judical investigation, the flawed 9/11 Commission
Report (disowned by its authors), basic facts disputed (cell phones on planes, building
collapse mechanism, skyscraper safety, molten steel, etc), insurance scams, pre-
knowledge of 9/11, "put" share dealings on companies to be affected by 9/11, planted
evidence such as the magic passports of the hijackers, indeed confirmation of the
hijacker identities, who made the fake bin laden video, the cause of the DoD budget
overspend of $2.2trillion reported on 10th Sept 2001... the list just goes on and on and
on. And nobody in the mainstream media is investigating. Why isn't the BBC (or other
journalists) investigating the very serious and valid points that are being made? (These
points are not just "conspiracy theories"!)
87. At 12:33 3rd Jul 2008, grimble wrote:
I posted 2 comments on here yesterday (actually saying I think the conspiracy believers
are mentally deranged), but both vanished into thin air... spooky, or a conspiracy??
Thank you Tapdancingdan for asking very pertinent questions and rdrake98's
endorsement of my request for factual focus.
I would also fully support his statement on memory and dignity of the victims being
paramount . I may have mentioned earlier that the company I worked for at the time
was housed in the building across the street from the WTC. We owe a duty to the victims
to establish the facts. Several of my co workers families were in NYPD and the fire
service.
So if there was a conspiracy who was involved and how would they benefit asks
Tapdancingdan ?
The gains made on the financial positions I mentioned earlier were enormous. Where
were they invested ? Not inconceivably in a war chest or somewhere else in the CIA's
budget ? Farcical maybe but not impossible
The event led to a massive surge in Anti Islamic sentiment in the US and the West which
in turn diminished exponentially opposition to the entry of the US into Iraq. The phrase
War on Terror emerged.
Harnassing this sentiment Saddam is disposed and then US and western oil and oil
services companies will secure over time long term contracts in Kurdistan and other
parts of Iraq. This has happened and is happening today as we speak and long term
contracts are being tendered
Who was involved ? Ok people will say it had to be FBI and CIA with Executive
endorsement to achieve something of this scale? I do not know of course but consider
what happened in Vietnam where for extended periods including the barbaric extension
of the bombing into Cambodia and Laos it was a very small number of people who de
facto executed this strategy - Kissinger in particular. It is not inconceivable that a similar
concentration of decision making happened in 2001. In Vietnam it was anti communist
paranoia and the Domino theory that justified any and all action in South East Asia. In
2001 Communism is replaced by Fundamentalism.
So Islamic fundamentalism is elevated as the new great evil, a fanatical tyrant is

removed, the Arab is consistently potrayed in an adverse light by Hollywood and other
parts of the media { watch "24" guys !}and access to critical oil and gas contracts
secured. Before anyone asks I am a white, anglo saxon protestant !
Much of what I have written above is of course speculation but like I said earlier follow
the financial trail and it will lead you to some dark recesses I am certain.
72. At 01:28am on 03 Jul 2008, Ambersil wrote:

"To correct your physics, falling bodies fall with uniform acceleration, not speed, until
they reach their terminal velocity, the speed at which gravity is balanced by resistance
forces, typically air resistance. What we need to consider here is the time it would take
the uppermost floors to reach the ground had they been falling through air, compared to
the actual time they took. "
Don't you think that steel frames provide more resistance than air? So any collapse
would be slower than free-fall and asymentrical? WTC 1 and 2 fell symetrically despite
the aircraft hitting different positions. How do explain the steel beams being ejected
horizontally from the towers? The pulvisation of concrete (and bodies!) to dust from the
outset?
"I take it you are saying these times are the same, therefore the lower part of the
buildings offered no resistance, therefore it must have been destroyed by explosives
before hit by the rubble of the upper floors. Measurement is complicated by a number of
practical factors, including the huge clouds of dust that obscure the view on the videos,
but seems to indicate that in fact the lower parts of the buildings did offer resistance.
That they did, is actually shown very clearly on the videos of the collapse. Pieces of
debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the collapse wave goes down the towers,
therefore upper part of the towers was encountering resistance from the intact lower
part, and the hypothesis of explosives is not required."
How do you explain the "explosive" reaction of concrete to dust and the pools of molten
steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7 which persisted for weeks after the event?
"The Empire State Building was hit by a very much lighter aircraft travelling at a much
lower speed and is of quite different construction. There is no reason for it to react in the
same way. "
Indeed the Empire State Building is a far weaker building than the Twin Towers.
"WTC7 received very extensive damage from the falling towers, caught fire, and burnt
attended for 7 hours. "
Madrid tower: burnt for 23 hours with falling down. Please confirm independent sources
for "very extensive" since this is not borne out by independent eye witnesses.
"The firemen present were all expecting it to fall, and it duly did so. A normal building
will never fall in the same way as a monolithic structure like a tree, a building is very
largely empty space. "
This is not very encouraging to all the people that have to work in skyscrapers...
"The fall of WTC7 does seem surprisingly symmetrical at first sight, but actually it isn't,
the penthouse disappears early, giving an indication of internal collapse. "
As you would expect from a Controlled Demolition: this allows the building to collapse
inwardly. Nb buildings either side of WTC7 were virtually undamage and are still there
today.
"The building at its lower levels was very unusual, being built over the ConEd substation,
with a few massive beams transferring load. "
Indeed: MASSIVE BEAMS!
"Structure Magazine, for structural engineers, did a recent analysis putting forward a
possible explanation. NIST may or may not agree with this when their report is
eventually published. I would also recommend Dr Keith Seffen's paper on the collapse of
the towers, which demonstrates that once collapse started, it would inevitably continue."
Seffen's paper does not mention WTC7 and seems totally impenetrable. So much for my
university maths qualifications! Maths does not explain away physics: note the chemical
traces, energy required for dust creation and pools of molten steel.
"There is nothing impossible about the way the buildings collapsed, if it was the
engineers of the many countries hostile to the USA would be shouting it from the roof-
tops and delight in proving it."
Er... I think they are.
"They aren't, and I think you should perhaps be more wary of what you are being told by
conspiracy websites."
And just believe George Bush? Come on, what about all the other anomalies of the day?
The official story is full of holes. Don't you think this is important to have a real
discussion?
"See if any of them can answer the key question put by Noam Chomsky, certainly no
friend of a republican administration, why should the US frame 19 nationals of Saudi
Arabia, its most important supplier of oil in the region, in order to provide an excuse for
attacking Iraq?"
Are you asking who benefits?

- $2.2trillion DoD overspend (never investigated) announced on 10th Sept
- Huge additional sums spent on US DoD ever since. Check their budget: the auditor for
7th year cannot sign-off the accounts because of total chaos there.
- Gold Bullion at bottom of WTC7 not recovered.
- US economy M1 money supply blip in August 2001 unexplained.
- Silverstien's insurance scam on WTC was worth $7billion or more. WTC towers were a
huge white elephant, btw...
- Requirement for gas pipleine in Afghanistan - now approved.
- Excuse to invade Iraq serves the military-industrial complex esp Halliburton (Cheney
was CEO of Halliburton).
- US and UK Oil companies just received concessions in Iraq.
- Excuse to apply the Patriot Act (observely written pre-9/11 and waiting to be applied)
and so change the US consituition.
Gee, I can't see who would benefit from that lot.
"87. At 12:33pm on 03 Jul 2008, grimble22350 wrote:

I posted 2 comments on here yesterday (actually saying I think the conspiracy believers
are mentally deranged), but both vanished into thin air... spooky, or a conspiracy??"
I think calling people mentally deranged for people saying that they don't believe George
Bush isn't in the spirit of the bbc's guidelines.
Tell us why you believe George Bush when there has not been any real evidence for his
claims (no air crash investigations, building reports that miss evidence such as the
molten steel and reprots of secondary devices in the buildings), no evidence except for
that extracted by torture. We're still waiting for the report tying Bin Laden to 9/11.
And then tell us why you want to ignore all the evidence that goes counter to the official
story.
Then perhaps you can tell us where the logic fails. I am happy to listen to logical and
well informed people.
91. At 13:16 3rd Jul 2008, Richard Drake wrote:
tapdancingdan (#83): we were within a minute of each other at 11.05 so I'll have a stab
at your questions, which I do by the way appreciate and take to be honest ones.
First. the 'alternative conspiracy theory' you are seeking information about does not
exist. For there are many such theories. That's why we need critical thinking, on either
side of the divide. (And the divide is best characterised I think as between those that
tend to trust most of the official version, as expressed in the 9-11 Commission Report
and the NIST work, and those that have serious questions about it. Nobody in their right
minds believes every detail or doubts every detail. The world is surely more complicated
than that.)
"please outline in more detail the extent of the conspiracy"
Don't know.
"the numbers of people involved"
Don't know.
"who they were (what were their skills?)"
Don't know.
"what were they motivated by (this is very important, also did they get what they set
out to achieve?)"
Don't know. But I do have some thoughts on this. Those that planned and made masses
of money from 9-11 (as definitely happened, as lydgrace has begun to detail) were
interested not just in immediate financial gain but also in setting on fire the pre-existing
battle between Muslim extremism and the West. Arms sales in the 90s at the end of the
cold war were down 50%. But even there it wasn't just the money. It was manipulation
of the whole world into much more bloodshed, which has to be for some very dark
purposes indeed. If any of us are even close to the truth on this we are clearly talking
about something horrendously evil. But don't miss the fact that all this conjecture is
based on the hard evidence of the way the WTC buildings were destroyed, which simply
cannot have happened in the way the OV describes because of the laws of physics.
"were they connected with those people in the 'official' conspiracy explanation"
People disagree on this but I would say yes.
"(and if so how?)"
Don't know.
"why did they get the BBC involved"
They didn't.
"are they the same people or part of the same conspiracy that led to 77 in London"
Don't know.
"what are these people up to now"
Surprisingly, they haven't told me.
"how have they managed to get away scot free"
They haven't. Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice have recently had their first paper
published in a peer-reviewed engineering journal. Even the BBC may be about to expose
some of the obvious lying about WTC7. It may be small beer so far. But STJ911.org
continually emphasizes that its aim is not to explain everything that happened - nobody
can do that, especially from the outside - but to get an official inquiry that properly
addresses the gross anomalies in the case, especially in the mass murder at the WTC
site.
You're right that many people who doubt the OV of 9-11 sound much too sure of
themselves and their theories. I suggest we need sensible people like you to look very
carefully at the real problems of the case, then, armed with more solid information, join
the fight for truth and justice from there.

92. At 13:32 3rd Jul 2008, raindancer68 wrote:
grimble22350 #87, can you go into detail why you believe "conspiracy believers" are
"mentally deranged," or do you have to sign a release form from your local psychiatric
hospital first?
I'd just like to say that if you're not in possession of all the facts, then it's quite easy to
get a distorted view of reality. And when it comes to 9/11 and Building 7, most people's
information is filtered by the mainstream television, who in turn get their info from
government institutions, so it's not surprising that people believe in the "official" story.
In reply to post 89:

The time taken for the towers to fall WAS slower than if they had fallen through air.
WTC2 was seen to tilt to one side initially, ie did not fall symmetrically until global
collapse commenced, then given how the top floors were falling on the lower, it was
inevitable that the collapse would be symmetrical. Naturally in a chaotic collapse, some
debris would be ejected sideways. There is simply no evidence that pulverisation of
concrete occurred at the outset, and indeed there were large chunks of concrete in the
remains. What is certain to have powdered early on was the many tons of gypsum
wallboard, which probably accounts for a large part of the dust clouds.
There is no evidence for molten steel at ground zero, there are some accounts of molten
metal, which are more likely to have been aluminium. molten steel is not anyway the
result of the use of explosives.
The Madrid tower suffered all its steel component collapsing, just as the WTC did. What
remained standing was the concrete core, which the WTC buildings did not have.
Not all the concrete was pulverised and calculations based on that assumption are
flawed. Seffen deals with the towers, not WTC7, obviously. sorry you cannot follow his
maths, neither can I.
The world's structural engineers are NOT falling over themselves to prove an inside job,
whatever country they come from.
Accepting the 'official' account of what happened does not depend in any way on
believing G W Bush, it depends on hard evidence and informed opinion, things the
conspiracy theories notably lack. Imaginary anomalies cut no ice.
The unaccounted trillions at the Pentagon were known about before 9/11 and continued
to be investigated afterwards. Silverstein lost out on the insurance, he was underinsured
for the re-building, and has been in court against his insurers many times - his must be
the most incompetant insurance scam in history! The pipeline was cancelled and is only
now going ahead 7 years later. Fairy gold!
94. At 15:17 3rd Jul 2008, ayjayhawk wrote:
Can I just repeat the observation from someone way back on the thread: the argument
is continually made that hundreds or thousands must have been involved in such a
conspiracy, and yet the people who say this believe that 19 Arabs carried it off.
Please clarify your position...
95. At 15:23 3rd Jul 2008, Marlinspike - not impostor wrote:
Classic....you couldn't make it up.
"This content isn't available at the moment"
Realised it's a bit incriminating and been removed?

96. At 15:26 3rd Jul 2008, frasay wrote:
Ambersil, #93
This link will take you to a photo showing the Twin towers being constructed...
https://911.yweb.sk/images/co-hovoria-o-pade-WTC-oficialne-spravy/03-
WTC_Core_03s.jpg
As you can see, it is hard to miss the central steel core running up the centre of the
building. This core housed the elevator systems.
If the floors were falling onto each other as you suggest, what made the steel core
disappear. Shouldn't the steel core have remained standing, with a pile of floors at it's
base?
I have included the above link to verify that the Twin Towers were not hollow in the
middle, as many people still claim.
How was the central steel core's integrity weakened, completely, through both towers?
How did the steel above pass through the steel below it with so little resistance?
97. At 16:59 3rd Jul 2008, jimjamjommcgrew wrote:
Loose Change is probably the worst researched investigative documentary of all time.
Dylan Avery knows about video editing, but that's about all. Anyone who cites that film
as some sort of 'evidence' of global conspiracy needs to take a step back and think.
Occam's Razor is extremely applicable to the events of 9/11 - why invoke conspiracy of
such huge proportion when the simplest explanations are that a) the US government
was incompetent leading up to and during the events of 9/11 and b) that the buildings
were not built to the stated specifications. Simple as that.
ayjayhawk wrote:
Can I just repeat the observation from someone way back on the thread: the argument
is continually made that hundreds or thousands must have been involved in such a
conspiracy, and yet the people who say this believe that 19 Arabs carried it off.
Please clarify your position...
You clarify your position on what happened, then we will be in a position to estimate the
numbers involved.
If you are prepared to believe that the perpetrators of an inside job were able to recruit
19 suicide hijackers to fly planes into buildings, which then collapsed, then indeed
thousands of people would not need to be involved. However, few if any conspiracists
say that. They normally postulate that specially modified remote control planes were
used, those on board were gassed, voice morphing technology used to simulate phone
calls, explosives planted in the towers, incriminating evidence removed, false reports
prepared by FEMA and NIST, a continuing media cover-up, and so on.
99. At 17:22 3rd Jul 2008, TheresOnly1Soupey wrote:
Complete nonsense.
If you want to know the true conspiracy behind the whole thing - look up:
A) Larry Silverstien
b) His purchase of the leashold (January that same year!)
c) The bidding process - how he lost and then the winners walked off the pitch and
decided they didn't want it.
d) ...and then you can talk about the actual falling of the building.
The mis-reporting is just evidence of how Journalists have become no better than Sheep
- not verifying their sources and checking the information is correct (I mean c'mon how
can Reuters mistake then be propogated by both the BBC and CNN)
This whole thing was a classic INSURANCE FRAUD. You buy the property in a bidding
process, which you loose - but then agree with the winners to a deal which gets you it
for $50 million LESS than the winning bid.
Then you burn the thing down, and strangely you try to claim DOUBLE the insured
amount ($7.1 bill compared to the insured amount of $3.55 bil)
The insurers object to this and it goes to court - but you don't worry because you're well
connected - and hey presto - at the second trial the court reverses it's ealier decision
and awards you nearly everything you were after.
I have no doubt whatsoever that in the country where the dollar is king - there are no
morals in the making of that money.
If I had followed Larry's effort on a property in this country (but on a much smaller
scale) - don't you think the insurance companies would smell fraud?
I suspect the conspiracy was that certain people knew the attacks were going to happen
before January 2001 - Larry found this out and decided to profit from the situation.
Everyone benefited from this, the Government got the justification for the war they
desperately needed to boost the flagging defence manufacturers, the terrorists got their
martyrs, Larry got his $$$'s and the hawks got the patriot act and increased snooping
powers.
All winners - except the 3000+ people that they murdered on that day.
But then as Hitler said:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
....just before he burnt down the Reichstag and then used it to justify the elimination of
the Communist party in Germany.
frasay wrote:
"If the floors were falling onto each other as you suggest, what made the steel core
disappear. Shouldn't the steel core have remained standing, with a pile of floors at it's
base?
How was the central steel core's integrity weakened, completely, through both towers?
How did the steel above pass through the steel below it with so little resistance?"
Remember that collapse started with the equivalent of at least a 12 storey building
dropping on to the lower lower section of the towers. Do you really expect the lower
section to stand up to that dynamic load? The central core was very likely pulled apart
sideways by the attachments to the floors, as the floors were knocked down. I am sure
you have also seen a picture of part of the central core of one building, known as the
'spire' surviving for a short time as you think all should have.
Page 1 of 7 First 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last
This entry is now closed for comments
More from this blog...
Topical posts on this blog Archives Categories Latest contributors

The Great British class Past twelve months These are some of the popular Host
calculator (14) April 2013 (3) topics this blog covers. Steve Herrmann
iPhone and iPad app March 2013 (1) Richard Porter
update (42) February 2013 (1) bbc
1xtra asian network Kevin Bakhurst
School Report News Day 2013 January 2013 (1) news bbc news channel Peter Rippon
(7) December 2012 (3) Peter Horrocks
bbc news website bbc
BBC Arabic and the November 2012 (3) Alistair Burnett
complexities of the Arab October 2012 (5) bbc world
parliament
Jon Williams
world (18) September 2012 (2) news breakfast Helen Shreeve
BBC World News moves to August 2012 (3) broadcasting house click Andrew Roy
Broadcasting House (33) July 2012 (5) college of journalism credit
BBC News comes to Burma (9) June 2012 (7) crunch daily politics ipm
Expanded distribution in the May 2012 (4) nations and regions news
US for BBC World News (17)
complete archive editors newsnight
Mozilla Festival and the
fellowship announcement (11) newsnight scotland newsround
Election stats - new mobile one o'clock news panorama
record (8) pm politics show question
Election night (39) time radio 1 radio five
live radio scotland six o'clock
news storyfix ten o'clock
news the andrew marr show
the world at one the world
this weekend today weather
working lunch world service
world tonight young
voters' question time
Mobile site Terms of Use About the BBC

Privacy Accessibility Help
Cookies Contact the BBC
BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the Parental Guidance
content of external sites. Read more.
https://www.forbes.com/2003/07/23/cx_da_0723topnews.html?sh=2c0369707675
Subscribe Sign In
Larry Silverstein's $3.5B

Definition
Jul 23, 2003, 07:27am EDT
This article is more than 10 years old.
More From Forbes
  1:00 / 1:01 
An overflow crowd gathered at the normally sleepy
Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an extended
argument on the meaning of the word “occurrence.”
An overflow crowd gathered at the normally sleepy
Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an extended
argument on the meaning of the word “occurrence.”
Interest in the question was intensified by the fact
that $3.5 billion could be riding on the answer.
src="/scripts/commentary/dackman.js">
]]> The three-judge court sitting in Manhattan was

hearing arguments in the World Trade Center
insurance litigation in which Larry Silverstein Larry
Silverstein , who holds a 99-year lease for the
buildings that were destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001,
terror attacks, is claiming that he is entitled to recover
$7.1 billion from the 22 insurers of the properties,
twice the ostensible policy limit, on the ground that
the attack of the center was two occurrences, not one.
Otherwise, he would be stuck with the $3.55 face
value of the policies.
Silverstein’s lawyer, Herbert Wachtell, told the

appeals court that the law was so clear that his client
deserved summary judgment on the issue, which a
lower court judge had denied. Though he insisted the
result was inescapable, Wachtell’s argument was
highly nuanced and it drew some incredulous
result was inescapable, Wachtell’s argument was
highly nuanced and it drew some incredulous
questioning from the judges.
Wachtell’s argument goes like this: When Silverstein

was negotiating with the insurance companies, his
broker Willis Group Holdings propounded a form of
insurance called the WilProp form. This form defined
“occurrence” to mean “losses or damages that are
attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to
one series of similar causes.” U.S. District Court
Judge John Martin, whose decisions are on appeal,
said this definition means that the attack was a single
occurrence.
Wachtell disagreed, but he emphasized more his view

that the WilProp form had been abandoned, and that
Silverstein and the insurers were about to proceed
with a form issued by Travelers Property Casualty .
The Travelers form did not define occurrence at all
and it was never formally agreed to by anyone. In fact,
by Sept. 11, there was no final policy, just a series of
preliminary agreements known as binders. But
Wachtell insisted that the progress of the negotiations
indicate that they would have adopted the Travelers
Wachtell insisted that the progress of the negotiations
indicate that they would have adopted the Travelers
form, and, without a definition, the court must
enforce the definition supplied by New York law. That
definition would define the World Trade Center
attack as two occurrences.
At one point, Judge Jose Cabranes wondered how the

law would bind insurers based on a to-be-negotiated
contract that many of them had never seen. Wachtell,
a founding partner of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz,
New York’s most profitable law firm, held his ground.
“That is exactly the law,” he said. “That’s what you say
the law is,” the judge answered.
Barry Ostrager, the lawyer for Swiss Re , the insurer

with the most to lose, called Wachtell’s entire theory
“a lawyer-driven concoction.” While it’s possible for
one insurance company to agree to the terms
negotiated by a “lead” insurer, it never happened in
this case, he said, adding that the Traveler’s form
never bound any company, except possibly Travelers.
With no binding definition, Swiss Re has argued that
a jury must decide what the parties meant.
Lawyers for three of the insurers, Hartford Financial

a jury must decide what the parties meant.
Lawyers for three of the insurers, Hartford Financial

Services , Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance and St. Paul
Cos. , played a stronger hand, as Judge Martin had
ruled that they were definitively bound by the
WilProp form. Their lawyers, including Charles Fried,
a Harvard Law School professor and former United
States Solicitor General, argued that the specific
terms of the working agreement must govern. Fried
said that allowing a court to delve into the “vague
process” argument that Silverstein has forwarded
would dramatically unsettle the law. (Two of the
original 22 insurers are not part of the lawsuit since
they have settled with Silverstein already.)
Wachtell countered that there was nothing vague

about it. The ordinary custom is to not define
“occurrence.” Usually this lack of definition works
against the policy holder because it frees the insurers
to argue that a loss was caused by multiple events,
with a separate deductible for each. Here, where the
loss was total, the standard definition where there is
no definition is supplied by past court cases. “Silence
does not equal ambiguity,” Wachtell said as the law
itself imposes a definition that is unambiguous. That
does not equal ambiguity,” Wachtell said as the law
itself imposes a definition that is unambiguous. That
law defines “occurrence” as the “immediate, efficient,
physical, proximate cause of the loss, not some
indirect or more remote cause of causes,” Wachtell
noted. For him, the immediate cause were the
airplanes, of which there were two, not the plot that
set the airplanes in motion, of which there was one.
The judges didn’t seem to find any of it all that clear.

But even if he loses his appeal, Wachtell should get a
chance to take Silverstein’s case to a jury. After the
argument, Silverstein repeated his insistence that all
he wants is a fast resolution so he could put the
money to work rebuilding the towers. If Wachtell
manages to tell that to New York jurors in a
courtroom about a mile from the site of the
catastrophe, they may be inclined to care more about
two towers falling than they do about 20 insurance
binders passing.
Editorial Standards Corrections Reprints & Permissions
ADVERTISEMENT
Recommended
Recommended
01. Leadership Development Programs
02. 5 Stocks to Buy Now
03. Highest CD Rates Today
04. Mental Assessment Test
05. Top 10 Stocks to Invest In
SEE
SEE ALSO
ALSO
01. How Do I Start a Blog
Punta Cana All Inclusive

02.
Resorts
Top 10 Cholesterol
03.
Lowering Foods
03.
Lowering Foods
$20/Hour Work at
04.
Home Jobs
FORBES BUSINESS
BREAKING
Grizzlies Star Ja Morant Won’t

Face Charges For Gun-Waving
Video
Nicholas Reimann Forbes Staff
I cover breaking and trending news, focused on national
politics.
Mar 8, 2023, 05:06pm EST
TOPLINE Sidelined Memphis Grizzlies guard Ja

Morant will not face charges for waving a gun during
an Instagram Live video at a strip club over the
weekend, Colorado police said, though he still faces
an NBA investigation and his potential punishment
weekend, Colorado police said, though he still faces
an NBA investigation and his potential punishment
from the league remains unclear.
uPHiG
12
Ja Morant of the Memphis Grizzlies reacts... [+]

GETTY IMAGES
KEY FACTS
• Glendale, Colorado police said in a statement that

media reports alerted them to the “concerning”
video, but there were no calls for disturbances from
the club and there was not enough evidence to
determine probable cause to charge Morant.
• The video, posted after the Grizzlies’ Friday night
loss to the Denver Nuggets, shows Morant very
briefly brandishing a gun as he parties in the dimly
lit club.
• Colorado is an “open carry” state—meaning it’s

legal for adults to openly carry guns without a
permit, including in bars where there is no signage
banning them—though it’s illegal to possess a
firearm while intoxicated.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“The investigation also concluded that no one was

threatened or menaced with the firearm and in fact
no firearm was ever located,” the Glendale Police
threatened or menaced with the firearm and in fact
no firearm was ever located,” the Glendale Police
Department said.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The NBA is conducting its own investigation into

Morant, and he could face a lengthy suspension if it’s
discovered he brought the gun on a team bus or plane
or into the Grizzlies’ locker room, which is explicitly
prohibited under the league’s collective bargaining
agreement with the players’ union. Then-Washington
Wizards star Gilbert Arenas received a 50-game
suspension in 2010 for storing guns in his locker at
the Wizards’ home arena, though that was also in
violation of local law and Arenas pleaded guilty to
carrying an unlicensed firearm.
ADVERTISEMENT
KEY BACKGROUND
Morant has sat out the two Grizzlies games since the
video was posted, and it’s uncertain when he might
return. He said in a statement after the incident he
Morant has sat out the two Grizzlies games since the
video was posted, and it’s uncertain when he might
return. He said in a statement after the incident he
planned to “take some time away to get help.”
Morant’s absence could have major ramifications on
the remainder of the NBA season given the
competitive state of the Western Conference. The
Grizzlies were considered a top contender to reach the
NBA Finals this year but the team has lost both games
Morant has sat out, dropping them to third in the
Western Conference standings. Many league
observers hold Morant, 23, as one of the top young
talents in the NBA. He’s been selected to the NBA All-
Star Game the past two seasons.
FURTHER READING
Ja Morant says he’ll get help after video shows

apparent gun (Associated Press)
Forbes Business
01:12
01:12
Trevor Bauer’s Legal Blitz Of

Defamation Claims Has So Far…
Follow me on Twitter. Send me a secure tip.
Nicholas Reimann
I'm a news reporter for Forbes focused on national

politics and other news of the day, such... Read More
Editorial Standards Corrections Reprints & Permissions
ADVERTISEMENT
Recommended
01. Best Cryptocurrencies to Buy
02. Best NFT Stocks to Buy Now
03. Best Shampoo for Thinning Hair
04. New Samsung Smartphones

04. New Samsung Smartphones
05. No.1 Stock to Buy
Omie para Contadores,

Conheça
Organize todas as suas demandas e projetos em
um só lugar
Fale com um consultor
SEE
SEE ALSO
ALSO
Discounts on Samsung
01.
Smartphones
Samsung Cell Phone

02.
Deals
Best Stocks to Invest in

Best Stocks to Invest in
03.
2023
Foods to Increase
04.
Immunity
© 2023 Forbes Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.

AdChoices Privacy Statement
Do Not Sell My Personal Information Digital Terms of Sale
Terms and Conditions Contact Us Report a Security Issue
Jobs At Forbes Reprints & Permissions Forbes Press Room
Advertise
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq
Sign in
Support us
News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle
September 11 2001
This article is more than 20 years old
Uncle Sam's lucky finds

Anne Karpf
O
Tue 19 Mar 2002 02.22 GMT
n Sunday night the United States prepared for fresh strikes against
new pockets of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. At
almost exactly the same time, American intelligence revealed that
they had uncovered an increase in money being transferred
between groups of al-Qaida fighters. According to my reckoning, this is the
14th handy thing that American intelligence has discovered since September
11. Think back over the past six months and it becomes ineluctable: never in
the history of modern warfare has so much been found so opportunely.
It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a
flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed
Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of
the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence
was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers,
in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down
in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down
from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that
inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter
of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence. On September 24 the

belongings of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui threw up a cropdusting
manual, while four days later came Atta's suicide note, the one with the
counsel to shine your shoes before you meet your maker - a piece of advice
which seemed suspiciously Norman Rockwellesque. It was here, too, that the
stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.
In December the laughing, boasting video of Osama bin Laden was unearthed
in a house in Jalalabad. The new year saw no let-up in this serendipitous trove
- January turned up an email sent by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid from a Paris
cybercafe (and found on its hard disk) shortly before boarding the Paris-Miami
flight in which he claimed responsibility in advance for downing the plane.
(Luckily or carelessly, depending on your perspective, Reid had pocketed a
business card from the cybercafe.)
And then, last Friday, Major General Frank Hagenbeck revealed that
Americans had found a whole shelf of field manuals on undertaking terrorist
activity, to put beside the instruction manual on how to use light automatic
weapons left in a training camp in January.
Apart from the fact that the al-Qaida network seem to have a catastrophic way
with lost property, isn't it strange that these most demonised and potent of
terrorists seem unable to operate any weapons without a manual? Dad's Army
is nothing - this bunch sounds as if they wouldn't be able to programme the
video. And if the quality of their manuals is anything like those most of us
have come across, they will still be wrestling with them long after the
guarantee has run out.
Of course you could interpret these discoveries differently. You could detect in
them the clear hand of American propaganda. This isn't, of course, to claim a
dirty tricks department somewhere in the heart of Washington. That would
have you immediately accused of peddling conspiracy theories, though I'm
coming to think that conspiracy theories have had a bad press. What are they,
after all, but "joined-up government" by another name?
after all, but "joined-up government" by another name?
All these discoveries can't obscure four things that American intelligence
agencies have notably failed to find. First, even with a bloated expenditure
exceeding Russia's total defence budget, they never managed to find out about
September 11 before the event. Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones's new book, Cloak and
Dagger: A History of American Secret Intelligence (Yale), shows how, almost
since their 19th-century inception, American intelligence bureaux have
invented or exaggerated a succession of menaces to defend their spiralling
budgets and demonstrate their own usefulness while failing to tackle
effectively other, more substantial threats.
Second, despite a reward of $2.5m offered at the end of January, the FBI still
hasn't discovered those responsible for last year's anthrax attacks.
Third, American intelligence, tragically, didn't find Daniel Pearl, the US

journalist kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan.
Fourth - and most spectacular - despite having highly sophisticated satellite

tracking equipment, and offering a reward of $25m for information leading
directly to his apprehension or conviction, they still haven't found Bin Laden.
Is this one reason why the US is talking about an attack on Iraq - a flexing of the
military biceps to distract from flabby intelligence? Whatever the case, to find
one training manual might be regarded as a stroke of luck. To find a shelf-full
looks like desperation.
… as 2023 gathers pace, and you’re joining us from Brazil, we have a small
favour to ask. A new year means new opportunities, and we're hoping this
year gives rise to some much-needed stability and progress. Whatever
happens, the Guardian will be there, providing clarity and fearless,
independent reporting from around the world, 24/7.
Times are tough, and we know not everyone is in a position to pay for news.
But as we’re reader-funded, we rely on the ongoing generosity of those who
can afford it. This vital support means millions can continue to read reliable
reporting on the events shaping our world. Will you invest in the Guardian
this year?
Unlike many others, we have no billionaire owner, meaning we can fearlessly
Unlike many others, we have no billionaire owner, meaning we can fearlessly
chase the truth and report it with integrity. 2023 will be no different; we will
work with trademark determination and passion to bring you journalism
that’s always free from commercial or political interference. No one edits our
editor or diverts our attention from what’s most important.
With your support, we’ll continue to keep Guardian journalism open and
free for everyone to read. When access to information is made equal, greater
numbers of people can understand global events and their impact on people
and communities. Together, we can demand better from the powerful and
fight for democracy.
Whether you give a little or a lot, your funding is vital in powering our
reporting for years to come. If you can, please support us on a monthly basis
from just $2. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you can rest assured
that you’re making a big impact every single month in support of open,
independent journalism. Thank you.
Single Monthly Annual
$3 per month
$6 per month
Other
Continue Remind me in April

Most viewed
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-
announces-list-of-19-hijackers
Home • News • Press Room • Press Releases • FBI Announces List of 19 Hijackers
Recent National Press Releases

FBI Announces List of 19 Hijackers
04.13.16 Diane Upchurch Named Special Agent in Charge
of the Little Rock Division
Washington, D.C. FBI National Press Office
September 14, 2001 (202) 324-3691 04.08.16 Member of International Child Exploitation
Conspiracy Sentenced to 21 Years in Prison
The following is a list of the nineteen (19) individuals who have been identified as hijackers aboard the 04.07.16 FBI Announces Executive Appointments
four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, into the North and South Towers of the World Trade
Center in New York, the Pentagon, and Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania. Information listed for each 03.24.16 Seven Iranians Working for Islamic Revolutionary
hijacker differs, but may include date of birth, address provided, or visa status. This is the extent of the Guard Corps-Affiliated Entities Charged for
information available at this time. Conducting Coordinated Campaign of Cyber
Attacks Against U.S. Financial Sector
The FBI requests that anyone who may have information about these individuals-even though they are
presumed to be dead- to immediately contact an FBI field office or call the toll-free hotline at 1-866-483- Michael DeLeon Named Special Agent in Charge
03.23.16
5137. of the Phoenix Division
American Airlines #77
Boeing 757 03.18.16 National Instant Criminal Background Check
8:10 am departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles System Posts NICS Index Data
9:39 am crashed into the Pentagon
02.29.16 Gerald Roberts, Jr. Named Special Agent in
1) Khalid Al-Midhar - Possible residence (s) : San Diego, California and New York, New York; Visa Charge of the Intelligence Division of the
Status: B-1 Visa, but B-2 Visa had expired. Washington Field Office
2) Majed Moqed - No information available.
02.24.16 Timothy Gallagher Named Special Agent in
3) Nawaq Alhamzi - Possible residence (s) : Fort Lee, New Jersey and Wayne, New Jersey and San Charge of the Newark Division
Diego, California.
02.21.16 FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
4) Salem Alhamzi - Possible residence (s) : Fort Lee, New Jersey, and Wayne, New Jersey.
5) Hani Hanjour - Possible residence (s) : Phoenix, Arizona and San Diego, California. Believed to be a 02.11.16 FBI Announces Executive Appointments
pilot.
More National Press Releases
American Airlines #11
Boeing 767
7:45 am departed Boston for Los Angeles
8:45 am crashed into North Tower of the World Trade Center
1) Satam Al Suqami - Date of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates.
2) Waleed M. Alshehri - Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974/January 1, 1976/ March 3, 1976/ July
8, 1977/ December 20, 1978/ May 11, 1979/ November 5, 1979; Possible residence (s) : Hollywood,
Florida/ Orlando, Florida/ Daytona Beach, Florida; Believed to be a pilot.
3) Wail Alshehri - Date of birth used: July 31, 1973; Possible residence (s) : Hollywood, Florida, and
Newton, Massachusetts; Believed to be a pilot.
4) Mohamed Atta - Date of birth used: September 1, 1968; Possible residence (s) : Hollywood, Florida/
Coral Springs, Florida/ Hamburg, Germany; Believed to be a pilot.
5) Abdulaziz Alomari - Date of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979; Possible residence:
Hollywood, Florida; Believed to be a pilot.
United Airlines #175

Boeing 767
7:58 am departed Boston for Los Angeles
9:05 am crashed into South Tower of the World Trade Center
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi - Date of birth used: May 9, 1978; Possible residence: Hollywood, Florida; Visa
Status: B-2 Visa; Believed to be a pilot.
2) Fayez Ahmed - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
3) Ahmed Alghamdi - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
4) Hamza Alghamdi - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
5) Mohald Alshehri - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
United Airlines #93

Boeing 757
8:01 am departed Newark, New Jersey, for San Francisco
10:10 am crashed in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania
1) Saeed Alghamdi - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
2) Ahmed Alhaznawi - Date of birth used: October 11, 1980; Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
3) Ahmed Alnami - Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
4) Ziad Jarrahi - Believed to be a pilot.
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. government, U.S. Department of Justice
Close

08MAR23. Paula Schmitt A Fe Nas Versoes Oficiais Atentado Do 11 de Setembro Terceira Torre

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

08MAR23. Paula Schmitt A Fe Nas Versoes Oficiais Atentado Do 11 de Setembro Terceira Torre

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

https://www.poder360.com.

As torres gêmeas do World Trade Center, alvos de ataque

O leitor atento deve ter achado que

Receba A Newsletter Do Poder360

Interessante, não? Mas veja só que

“Nós não temos mais as fitas originais

Um ano depois que Porter escreveu

“É certamente verdade que em 11 de

Para quem não sabe, vale aqui lembrar

De acordo com o fantástico livro de não-

A CIA também subornou a irmã de

Os ataques do 11 de setembro têm

Existem outros fatos menos conhecidos

E por falar em sequestradores, depois

Mas por que eu estou contando tudo

Estamos em um momento em que a

Todos têm o direito, obviamente, de

Pode ser? Pode.

Pode não ser? Pode também.

Este artigo é a 4ª parte de uma série

nota do editor: os textos, fotos, vídeos, tabelas e

curtiu a reportagem? Compartilhe sua

apontar erros neste texto

leia mais sobre

11 DE SETEMBRO BBC PAULA SCHMITT

PENSAMENTO CRÍTICO Q-ANON

WORLD TRADE CENTER

Negociadora dos EUA discute

Brasil cobrará visto de cidadãos dos EUA,

Argentina cria nova taxa de câmbio para

8 de março é marcado por protestos ao redor

EUA tentam impedir fusão das aéreas JetBlue

PODER360 todos os dias no

Brasil à Frente Agregador de

PoderData Eleições 2022

Agenda da Poder Explica

PARCERIAS E PROJETOS ESPECIAIS

Low Graphics version | Accessibility help Help

RELATED BBC SITES

not been published? Diana

If the official account is right then the 47 storey BBC News

steel framed skyscraper in the world to have BBC News

collapsed because of fire. BBC News

Most popular now, in detail

Watch the collapse of Tower 7

In 1991 a fire in the One Meridian Plaza skyscraper

In 1991 a fire in the One Meridian Plaza skyscraper

In 2005, a 32 storey building in Madrid burned for a

WTC7 burned for seven hours and suffered a total

Fire protection engineers point out that the fires in

Return to the top of the page

Was there anything suspicious about Tower 7?

Tower 7 was one of seven buildings at the World

As well as housing offices

Dylan Avery, the writer and director of the internet

"You have to look at what was inside Building 7. You

"So automatically, for a number of people, myself

Some people argue that the US government had to

After its collapse a CIA

"I was in the World Trade Centre 7 on a number of

AP report, 5 Nov 2001: "The official, speaking on

"A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the

"The station was a base of operations to spy on and