As you will see, their BBC World "Head of News" Richard Porter has just dowsed himself with the fuel of conspiracy and jumped, apparently of his own free will, into the flames of public ridicule.
His Excuse Number 4 is beyond belief from every conceivable angle.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.I couldn't believe what I was reading. I checked that I was on the right page. I checked that it wasn't a spoof, that I hadn't slipped into someone's sarcastic comments. But no, this went out in the name of Richard Porter the BBC World's Head of News.
As this professional archivist from CNN told prisonplanet,
I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long.That's how a professional news gathering organisation typically behaves. Is Porter seriously expecting even his own grandmother to believe him when he tells us that the BBC is less competent? Even if it were true, what on earth would make a "Head of News" admit such gross incompetence so publicly? And why couldn't he/they see the obvious stupidity of publishing such a claim? It is literally and utterly incredible.
Excuse 5 isn't quite as dumb but it gets close:
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.They're getting a right pasting for it on their own website messageboard
I particularly like:
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.and
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.there are some a little more forgiving but still with a nasty sting:
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.and, as a fitting tribute to last week's "9/11 Conspiracy files" we got:
(given that no steel frame buildings prior to that day had ever collapsed due to fire alone)...its 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.but the real meat of the story is captured by
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.And, I don't believe, despite all the hysteria, that the BBC IS part of this particular conspiracy. (I can't speak for any others, I haven't studied them in so much detail).
The only thing of real significance about this story is that we now have conclusive evidence that the BBC told the world that WTC7 had collapsed some 26 minutes before it actually did.
What we have to decide is what does that mean? The very fact that that it hadn't happened, for me, confirms that the BBC was NOT part of any conspiracy because, had they been, their information would have been better. They would not have made the "error". The error and the unequivocal delivery of the premature message also reveals that they had considerable trust in the source of the information. This wasn't some punter calling in on their cell phone.
So the interesting question is just that: who or what was the source? I can even imagine an innocent explanation for that. What they got may have been a chinese whisper regarding the much reported (since) "imminent collapse" being discussed with Larry Silverstein and either they or their source overinterpreted it. No biggie, it's what conspiracy theorists do all the time. Why should we expect the BBC to be any more balanced?
What will be interesting to see is whether the BBC - having put itself so stupidly into the middle of its own Conspiracy vortex - will learn any lessons about Conspiracy Theories in general. As I've previously indicated, I am now firmly against the Controlled Demolition hypothesis in respect of the Twin Towers, but I still have to acknowledge that WTC7 is completely underexplained.
BBC's "Conspiracy Files" trivial and partial treatment of the issue merely added further fuel to the flames and must have helped to start people talking seriously about the BBC's possible role as a conspirator or disinfo channel. (Which is a great shame, because I actually share most of the other conclusions they reached)
But what was missing from the BBC's analysis is that even if you can dismiss most of the Conspiracy charges as poorly argued overhyped junk, it's like UFO research. There is a small but significant kernel that will not melt away. In the case of 9/11, WTC7 is the biggest remaining lump of obstinate Kernel. We simply cannot explain how assymetric damage could possibly produce an almost perfectly symetric collapse. Never mind molten metal. Never mind "pulling the building". Never mind 26 minutes advance knowledge. How can a building heavily damaged on one side only, collapse without favouring that weakened side. How on earth did it implode into its own footprint more neatly than the vast majority of professional demolitions of comparable size.
That question MUST be credibly answered if the Political Establishment wishes to retain even the minimal credibility it now has.
There are loads of other fascinating questions, but none are as pertinent as that one. The multiple orgasm that Alex Jones is clearly enjoying revealing all this "new footage" is typical of the overinterpretation by the Conspiracy lobby. Had Porter not attempted to patronise his audience, the premature message would merely have been interesting. But Porter's glib nonsense has actually persuaded a large number of former sceptics who were frightened off by the messianic tones of Jones into believing that the evangelist might actually have a point.