'There's no story here' - BBC World boss in denial

[Pikey]

BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires
Building 7 becomes the Achilles heel of the official conspiracy theory
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/050307yellowjournalism. htm

see previous topic too............
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7523

this topic refers to.............
BBC World footage - Huw Edwards and Jane Stanley announce WTC7 (Saloman Building) collapse 23 mins before it happens


Link


Compilation of WTC7 collapse footage


Link

[TonyGosling]

Richard Porter's second response to the collapse of WTC7 being reported by BBC World 25 minutes before it happened is even more unprofessional than his first. By only answering trivial criticisms such as the loss of the tapes it reinforces the impression that balanced reporting of 21st century fascism will be impossible while he's in charge.

He has used this piece to deflect criticism, not address the cogent issues: this was not a "mistake" as he has tried to paint it. Most importantly he still hasn't explained the source of the story. And most importantly who wrote the story Huw Edwards was reading off the autocue.

Porter has gone back through that day's coverage right across BBC output it seems and cherry picked quotes, which he does not reference, in an attempt to cover up an extremely serious reporting anomaly, not a mistake.The small fires that were burning as Jane Stanley spoke cannot, repeat, cannot be mistaken for the building having collapsed.

Nobody to my knowledge is saying the BBC were the conspiracy, it's much more likely that whoever brought WTC7 down by controlled demolition told the world's press a bit too early what they were about to do. Maybe there was a last minute delay in the demolition after the press had been told.

Nobody's blaming BBC World - but Porter spends all his time defending it. Why? And he's given us no information about where the story came from. Which is all we really wanted to know. Instead he has taken the rap and 'protected his source'. Honourable in true reporting but reprehensible in disinformation. He has also decided he won't talk about it any more. Why? Does he not want to get to the bottom of this? Oh, that's right , he already has.

Yeah.... Right...

[astro3]

'There's No Story Here' - BBC in Denial

Here are the two BBC blogs, in response to Richard Porter
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
(two hundred letters)
'There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.' - Richard Porter. Move along now, nothing to see here.
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
 (three hundred letters)
They wouldn't put up my letter ...

We haven't yet been told the name of the person in the BBC studio, who gave the first-ever explanation of why WTC-7 had collapsed, 15 minutes before it did so.... and No, Precognitive Jane will not be answering questions.

K.G. reckons that what the BBC really needs now, is some protest from indignant New Yorkers, over ther BBC being 'in' on the WTC-7 collapse:
...................................................................... .....................
Note by K.G.: This morning (9 March) I got a call from Richard Porter, after tracking down his number from the BBC in NY. He told me he had nothing to add and when asked who else was involved, could not give any names. I suggested it would be wise to put Jane Standley forward, let her talk about this, and he said it wouldn't. I guess it's like the defence counsel not allowing their client to take the stand, who knows what might come out...
When I put up a post on the BBC blog with this information, it was not posted...I guess they did not like it.
BTW, the NY 9/11 group is working on a picket, and the place to go, as Les Jamieson pointed out, is the BBC News office, 7th floor of 450 W 33rd Street (between 9&10th Avenues, south side of the street). The phone is (212) 501 1500. Another office is at 747 Third Avenue, near the British Consulate at 845 Third Avenue.
BTW, the 450 W33rd office is near the Moonie HQ, which is the NYer hotel on 33rd and 8th. Moon runs the Washington Times, which is a paper telling the world that he is the Prince of Peace and bashing the 9/11 truth seekers. Prince of Peace? Moon is a convicted sex offender and brainwasher.
Thursday, 17 March and in the days leading up to it, there will be protests in Washington, so let's hope lots of decent people find the BBC News office there and Moon's office and picket them. It would be good to hand out fliers demanding they tell us the truth or leave the US. No use having a bunch of liars around insulting the rest of us. What happened to the BBC? I used to love it growing up in the US. If it would have just stuck to Monty Python it would be great.
We will invite the BBC to a public debate, along with the Guardian and the Independent. Will they have the guts to stand face to face and debate, or are they like kids who throw rocks at the crowd but run away when confronted?

[TonyGosling]

The presenter is Huw Edwards I believe

[conspiracy analyst]

There's no story.... BBC World

Who said irony was dead?

Thats the whole point of the BBC in all its guises.

How to recreate a real story into a lie.

How to cover up.

How to justify the 'war on terror'.

That is the story. The rest is the BBC.

[TonyGosling]

This thread is about dissection and analysis and information sharing on the BBC World/WTC7 'clairvoyance' story. The posts criticising the 911 Truth campaigns response have been split off and are here in critics corner.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7763
Now we can get on with the job and whatever anyone does make sure you don't assume we've been doing nothing because you haven't seen the story appear in the mainstream press.
The BBC and associated forces of darkness have been working extremely hard to keep this story down and we don't need our own people chiming in with them.
Bear in mind we have had considerble disruption already in the topics on this forum which have been discussing this issue, so make sure your post is creative and/or constructive.

So Bongo and everyone else -
1. What are the substantive questions we want the BBC to answer? and
2. What anomalies/mistakes/gaffs has Porter made in his blog entries? and
3. What approach/tactics should we be adopting? and
4. Is there any corroberation that there was a delay in the WTC7 demolition.
5. Names of staff and freelancers involved in the production of that day's BBC World output?
6. What was their source?
7. Why does Huw Edwards look so unsure as he reads the autocue?
8. etc....

IMHO we should be demanding the BBC 'come clean' on this - not blaming them. Personally, I think we should invite senior BBC people to the Screening on Monday week -
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7710
Give them the respect & space to air their views on the subject. If they decide not to come that compounds the insult to the victims and ammunition to say they are covering things up.

I repeat - any posts straying from this most important analysis or damning everyones megga efforts to get this story out will be moved or deleted.

[ZUCO]

One thing I noticed about the first blog was this:

[Eckyboy]

I would be interested to know if the media on 911 received any additional information on the day about any other nearby buildings that were damaged or about to collapse if not then does then does it not raise the question of why someone was so sure that WTC7 was about to collapse as it showed no signs (at least in all the available media and footage I have seen) of imminent collapse. WTC7 had fires in it one of which was burning out of control but no matter how hot or fierce they could not bring the building down in such a neat and tidy way.

Also I don't believe in coincidences and the sudden loss of transmission just before WTC7 actually does collapse is just too much in keeping with the numerous coincidences of that day to be anything other than deliberate. The BBC report proves one thing.
1. SOMEONE KNEW THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE (Despite no visual signs that it would and no real reason to suspect that it should as no plane hit it.)

[fourddream]

Well if like me you have been posting and been ignored and you've been waiting for the rest of the comments to come in that surely must be, but seeing the comments static at 317(i think) for days then don't bother to lodge an official complaint. I tried and the response was arrogant and negating of my questions.
I wrote:
More suspect BBC footage fron 11 september unearthed.
>>It has been posted in comments by others and me but not posted.
>>http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1134882?user_id=245557
>>I want you to post it. This is an important issue for British and
World
>> security and you are the media of the people.
>>I also want you to answer the questions it poses, not to me
personally
>> but to the world.

They answered:
Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
> ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could,
based on
> the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the
exact
> timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been
brought to
> our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and
> confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had
> collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.
We
> have published an editor?s blog, written by Richard Porter (Head of
News,
> BBC World) which is available at:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/richard_porter/
>
> Thank you again for contacting us.
>
> Regards
>
> James Molen
> BBC Information
> __________________________________________
> The BBC Trust wants to know what's important to you about your BBC.
> Want to help it set the BBC's strategic priorities? To get involved
just
>,click on http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust.

Now if that's an answer I'm Bin Ladin. The link I sent (which they won't post) would show that despite the confusion they had time to find out WHY the collapses were possible, basing it on the falshood that the towers "unlike other skyscrapers had no inner core and had to rely on it's outer walls to take the impact" What a load of balony.



SO WHAT DO WE DO? wait for it to drop off the board into forgetfullness.
Shouldn't we be petitioning the trust?
Shouldn't we be taking legal action, there must be a basis for it.
Shouldn't we be demanding answers by demonstrating at the BBC?
Shouldn't we be doing all the above.

[TonyGosling]

After the two chunks of flannel on the blog BBC World have clearly decided it's case closed - what arrogance! But they don't control public opinion in the arrogant fashion that Richard Porter appears to think they do. And he is hardly the person to act as judge and jury on whether this is a story.
His immature and unprofessional approach are already backfiring as trust in the BBC is waning furthern as a result.

Kenyon - can you have a chat with Porter again and invite him next Monday?

IMHO it's all about the spirit of the individual in charge - what the fascists have clearly decided to do is to install compliant managers in as many key media positions as possible - also to treat their jobs as face saving roles - much as taught in masonic/business schools and on public relations courses.

We still have no single meaningful answer off the BBC over this and we need to delve elsewhere, ie not Richard Porter, to get to the bottom of it.

[Leiff]

[Mark Gobell]

[conspiracy analyst]

Was it magic or just morons?

How did the BBC know nearly a full half hour before WTC7 collapsed that it would?

If it isn't a conspiracy whatever that may mean it means someone told them?

Theres no conspiracy in being told something would fall in half an hour.

The conspiracy is how would someone know something would fall if it was a coincidence?

It would not be a coincidence at the time if they were told the building would be 'pulled' in half an hour as Silverstein is quoted as saying after the event.

But when they changed the story and claimed the building fell due to a fire how would one know when the building would fall prior to it?

They reported what they were told at the time did they not?

Who told them what would happen?

A fortune teller?

Whichever way you look at it stating a building would fall prior to it falling means only one thing like the owner said after the event.

We decided to pull it. Thats what they knew. The question now is why?

Was it the command centre for the whole 'war on terror' roadshow and the mass murder of 3,000 citizens?

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/wtc7bbc/

This petition already has more signatures than "ours" (linked on the front page) - and that's been there for over a year!!

The Internet Archive Version has indeed been removed - this was the link I downloaded it from:

http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16. mpg

(an odd thing to do when the BBC claim to "have lost their tapes"), but the YouTube versions are still available.

If people want the 1GB version, let me know and I will post it to you on a DVD.

Please forward this to EVERYONE you know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

To: The British Broadcasting Corporation
So Mr. Richard Porter of the BBC wants the whole 'BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell' scandal (and believe me, it IS a scandal even if you don't see it on the evening news) to just go away. The BBC is under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental 'c*** up' which is the BBCs attempt at damage control. The BBC is also under the impression that it is only a few 'lone nuts' out there hammering the YouTube and Google Video counts and that this story is going to lose all it's steam by next week.

Well Mr. Richard Porter. This is where you are so very wrong...

We the Undersigned formally demand the following information from the BBC.

1. Who was the source who told your station that the Salomon Building had collapsed?

2. Who from the BBC ordered YouTube and GoogleVideo to immediately start pulling the videos from their sites the day this story broke?

3. Who from the BBC ordered Archive.Org to block and then remove their copies of the footage which (until this story broke) were freely available online?

4. Who is responsible for and what were the circumstances surrounding the 'c***-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

5. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

Until you answer these 5 questions IN FULL, you can expect the BBC's phones to be ringing daily with people asking these 5 questions over and over until they are answered.

Take a good look at the number of signatures here Mr Porter. These are the people who are demanding these answers and these are the people who WON'T go away.

Welcome to the Digital Age Mr. Richard Porter. You're either a news outlet or a supermarket tabloid. Which is it?

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

[fourddream]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?wtc7bbc

The petition to the BBC re: No more stonewalling from the BBC on WTC building 7 footage"
has 12 41 signatures to now.
I couldn't see it here anywhere.

[ZUCO]

It's on here somewhere posted by Andrew johnson, I've signed it and got a couple of my friends to sign it too, im number 1211

[fourddream]

Oh that's good to know, thanks.
I couldn't see it here so sorry for the double posting but maybe since it's so hard to find it's good it's up again here. It's important people sign. I just put it around about 20/30 mainly american boards. They are talking a lot about this BBC slip. Let's hope we can scare them into a semblence of honesty.

[paul wright]

I posted there. It wont do no damn good. But those here gotta do it

[Bongo]

Signed #1381

[locsen]

signed.


I think the person who already posted who is in correspondence with the bbc world guy might be worth asking him if he would like to confirm when he was develop vetted by MI5, when it expires and the DV number. He has been, as a bbc world employee and i think this may be good information to have.

just a thought.

[scubadiver]

[Linda]

No more Stonewalling from the BBC re WTC 7

http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/petition.html

To: The British Broadcasting Corporation
So Mr. Richard Porter of the BBC wants the whole 'BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell' scandal (and believe me, it IS a scandal even if you don't see it on the evening news) to just go away. The BBC is under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental 'c*** up' which is the BBCs attempt at damage control. The BBC is also under the impression that it is only a few 'lone nuts' out there hammering the YouTube and Google Video counts and that this story is going to lose all it's steam by next week.

Well Mr. Richard Porter. This is where you are so very wrong...

We the Undersigned formally demand the following information from the BBC.

1. Who was the source who told your station that the Salomon Building had collapsed?

2. Who from the BBC ordered YouTube and GoogleVideo to immediately start pulling the videos from their sites the day this story broke?

3. Who from the BBC ordered Archive.Org to block and then remove their copies of the footage which (until this story broke) were freely available online?

4. Who is responsible for and what were the circumstances surrounding the 'c***-up' which led to the loss of BBC World News' 9/11 footage?

5. Who cut reporter Jane Standley's live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01?

Until you answer these 5 questions IN FULL, you can expect the BBC's phones to be ringing daily with people asking these 5 questions over and over until they are answered.

Take a good look at the number of signatures here Mr Porter. These are the people who are demanding these answers and these are the people who WON'T go away.

Welcome to the Digital Age Mr. Richard Porter. You're either a news outlet or a supermarket tabloid. Which is it?

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

[Eckyboy]

2518. signed. I just hope the numbers keep adding up and we force them to tell us the source.

[TonyGosling]

Petitions are a kind of con - into thinking yoiu've done something when you haven't.

Better to keep phoning up the national newspapers' media commentators and industry weeklies, private eye etc. asking them if they know about it all IMHO - as I've been doing.

Tony

[Bongo]

Conspirator Wrote...

[fourddream]

From the BBC petition http://www.petition online.com/ mod_perl/ signed.cgi? wtc7bbc&1001
Here’s something that you might find disturbing. BBC World was (at the time of 9/11) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.” Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995. Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).

[Disco_Destroyer]

Downloads available here!!


http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24001.shtml

[Micpsi]