Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Kevin M. West]

Actually if you ask me, the CNN report makes this all make some sense. Maybe parts of the building did start to collapse an hour before. This would explain why cnn reported that it "has either collapsed or is collapsing" and where the story that the BBC reported originated. Maybe they heard it had partially collapsed, or had begun to collapse, and the story was confused somewhere along the line before they got it on the air.

Pictures from earlier in the day don't show as much damage near the roofline, but in this picture near the end of the day it looks like someone took a giant ice cream scoop to the south roofline, right above the area that firefighters reported as heavily damaged. Maybe this section collapsing is what triggered the false reports that the building was collapsing or had collapsed?

Edited March 2, 2007 by Kevin M. West

[John Geraghty]

Personally, I prefer this video from an actual demolition expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOG3g-mOXU

I also listen to my brother, who is a civil engineer with a phd. I place a lot more credibility in their level of study.

John

Edited March 3, 2007 by John Geraghty

[Sid Walker]

Actually if you ask me, the CNN report makes this all make some sense. Maybe parts of the building did start to collapse an hour before. This would explain why cnn reported that it "has either collapsed or is collapsing" and where the story that the BBC reported originated. Maybe they heard it had partially collapsed, or had begun to collapse, and the story was confused somewhere along the line before they got it on the air.

Pictures from earlier in the day don't show as much damage near the roofline, but in this picture near the end of the day it looks like someone took a giant ice cream scoop to the south roofline, right above the area that firefighters reported as heavily damaged. Maybe this section collapsing is what triggered the false reports that the building was collapsing or had collapsed?

Well thanks for your further contribution, Kevin.

The BBC's Richard Porter has a more comprehensive rebuttal entiteld Part of the conspiracy? (2)

Well, it turns out there is NO STORY here. Everything has a quite innocent explanation.

How do I know?

Because Mr Porter says so. He concludes:

've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.

Nothing to see here! Move along folks!

Thanks heavens the BBC can sort out the wheat from the chaff! Otherwise, life might get confusing!

The comments to Porter's latest, however, suggest the BBC is not able to convince its general audience quite so easily.

Some of these comments are rather well-informed.

A common theme is that people demand to know the original source of this WTC-7 collapse story.

It's a detail to this 'non-story' that Porter seems very disinclined to reveal.

What a shame. If only it was a real story, we might have real journalists at the BBC follow it up.

As it is, the mass media makes the 'news' and the public must rely on its own journalism to make sense out of it.

Perhaps we should receive a licence fee and the BBC staff should pay it?

· Andrew Kenneally wrote:

I would also like to direct to Matthew that question as to why the mysterious collapse of WTC7, at a rate of freefall thus defying the possibility of its collapse being due to that pancake theory, was completely ignored by the 911 Commission. Did they forget all about it in their conclusive investigation?

· Rick B wrote:

Ok, let's take your explanation at face value. It still seems strange that all copies of this bulletin were wiped off googlevideo as soon as they were going up. I guess that could simply be a face-saving gesture but it still smacks of suppression.

Also, this whole episode rmeinds me of the saying "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

· Ian Curtis wrote:

I would like to know why the BBC was lying about the structure of the world trade centres within hours of them coming down. Claiming that and i quote

"now unlike conventional sky scrapers which have lots of interior columns to give strength to the building the exterior walls of the world trade centre bore most of the load, so the direct attacks were enough to weaken the buildings and lead to their collapse."

In case you don't know what video I am talking about. You can find it here.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1134882?user_id=245557

I have many questions about this. Why did the BBC feel the need to even explain this when no investigation had been done ?

Did the BBC realise the 'facts' they were giving about the WTC building structures were totally incorrect, and in fact the opposite of what they were saying was true ? If no one was telling you to say these things why were you lying to the public ? Another 'cock up' ?

The questions keep coming, and the answers are far from satisfactory.

And actually according to your own website and i shall quote

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use

"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_i...cy_overview.htm

So where does the figure of 90 days come from ?

You wrote:

"Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this."

We want to know which one, that's the whole point of this. Basically your reply is: "Somebody probably told us, but we can't remember who". This is not satisfactory. Which news agency? You need to find the report. If you don't normally archive agency reports, then why not ask the agencies to have a look at their archives for you? And knock it off this with "part of the conspiracy" while you're at it.

· Andrew Kenneally wrote:

Does the BBC have any opinion as to why in their supposedly in-depth investigation, the 911 Commission completely failed to mention the collapse of the Salomon building; a building that collapsed at a rate of freefall? Was it also total incompetence that led to this collapse of a 47 storey being completely forgotten? Or was it that no explanation is feasible other than the obvious one that fits the observable facts beautifully, ie controlled demolition? And why does the BBC accept such obvious duplicity? As Orwell famously wrote, "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". Sadly, the BBC, like so much of the mainstream media, appears to have little willingness to buck the trend. And as Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, "The media is in the hands of the power elite."

· Thomas Jefferson wrote:

'I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story.'

wake up richard you do not control the news anymore.

· Andy White wrote:

What is with this rediculous straw man fallacy you keep making Richard? No ones suggesting the BBC was part of any conspiracy. We just want to know who your source was. Because the only 3 steel skyscrapers that have collapsed from "fire," all happened on the same day, how was it that you immediately concluded building seven was going to completely collapse? That doesn't make sense. Is it the result of terrible journalism?

"One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a 'bulge' in the building and he was 'pretty sure it was going to collapse.'"

Can you provide us his name and where he is quoted as saying that? Also if that quote was from a subsequent interview that still leaves the question unanswered. Who was the source that told you building 7 was going to collapse, which led to the first of your premature reports, which then led to Jane Standley reporting it?

Your not answering the question. All your doing is providing non-answers.

WHO WAS YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCE?

· Jonathan wrote:

Has anyone reading this thread actually watched the building fall? If not, please do so now. I'll wait. Just go to YouTube and search for WTC7, or click my name above.

Now, can you possibly say that a building with a "bulge" or other structural damage can fall uniformly straight down? Have you ever played Jenga? What happens when you lose? Buildings fall OVER, not DOWN, unless they are DEMOLISHED.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

Actually if you ask me, the The BBC's Richard Porter has a more comprehensive rebuttal entiteld Part of the conspiracy? (2)

Well, it turns out there is NO STORY here. Everything has a quite innocent explanation.

How do I know?

Because Mr Porter says so. He concludes:

've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.

Nothing to see here! Move along folks!

Thanks heavens the BBC can sort out the wheat from the chaff! Otherwise, life might get confusing!

The comments to Porter's latest, however, suggest the BBC is not able to convince its general audience quite so easily.

Some of these comments are rather well-informed.

A common theme is that people demand to know the original source of this WTC-7 collapse story.

It's a detail to this 'non-story' that Porter seems very disinclined to reveal.

What a shame. If only it was a real story, we might have real journalists at the BBC follow it up.

As it is, the mass media makes the 'news' and the public must rely on its own journalism to make sense out of it.

Perhaps we should receive a licence fee and the BBC staff should pay it?

· Ian Curtis wrote:

I would like to know why the BBC was lying about the structure of the world trade centres within hours of them coming down. Claiming that and i quote

"now unlike conventional sky scrapers which have lots of interior columns to give strength to the building the exterior walls of the world trade centre bore most of the load, so the direct attacks were enough to weaken the buildings and lead to their collapse."

In case you don't know what video I am talking about. You can find it here.

http://stage6.divx.com/content/show/1134882?user_id=245557

I have many questions about this. Why did the BBC feel the need to even explain this when no investigation had been done ?

Did the BBC realise the 'facts' they were giving about the WTC building structures were totally incorrect, and in fact the opposite of what they were saying was true ? If no one was telling you to say these things why were you lying to the public ? Another 'cock up' ?

The questions keep coming, and the answers are far from satisfactory.

And actually according to your own website and i shall quote

"All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use

"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_i...cy_overview.htm

So where does the figure of 90 days come from ?

You wrote:

"Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this."

We want to know which one, that's the whole point of this. Basically your reply is: "Somebody probably told us, but we can't remember who". This is not satisfactory. Which news agency? You need to find the report. If you don't normally archive agency reports, then why not ask the agencies to have a look at their archives for you? And knock it off this with "part of the conspiracy" while you're at it.

· Andrew Kenneally wrote:

Does the BBC have any opinion as to why in their supposedly in-depth investigation, the 911 Commission completely failed to mention the collapse of the Salomon building; a building that collapsed at a rate of freefall? Was it also total incompetence that led to this collapse of a 47 storey being completely forgotten? Or was it that no explanation is feasible other than the obvious one that fits the observable facts beautifully, ie controlled demolition? And why does the BBC accept such obvious duplicity? As Orwell famously wrote, "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". Sadly, the BBC, like so much of the mainstream media, appears to have little willingness to buck the trend. And as Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, "The media is in the hands of the power elite."

· Thomas Jefferson wrote:

'I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story.'

wake up richard you do not control the news anymore.

· Andy White wrote:

What is with this rediculous straw man fallacy you keep making Richard? No ones suggesting the BBC was part of any conspiracy. We just want to know who your source was. Because the only 3 steel skyscrapers that have collapsed from "fire," all happened on the same day, how was it that you immediately concluded building seven was going to completely collapse? That doesn't make sense. Is it the result of terrible journalism?

"One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a 'bulge' in the building and he was 'pretty sure it was going to collapse.'"

Can you provide us his name and where he is quoted as saying that? Also if that quote was from a subsequent interview that still leaves the question unanswered. Who was the source that told you building 7 was going to collapse, which led to the first of your premature reports, which then led to Jane Standley reporting it?

Your not answering the question. All your doing is providing non-answers.

WHO WAS YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCE?

· Jonathan wrote:

Has anyone reading this thread actually watched the building fall? If not, please do so now. I'll wait. Just go to YouTube and search for WTC7, or click my name above.

Now, can you possibly say that a building with a "bulge" or other structural damage can fall uniformly straight down? Have you ever played Jenga? What happens when you lose? Buildings fall OVER, not DOWN, unless they are DEMOLISHED.

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

[Sid Walker]

Below are a few more comments to Porter's latest 'rebuttal' (Part of the conspiracy? (2))

I repeat them here because IMO they are worth reading - and the BBC clearly has problems archiving its own material.

If anyone wishes to see the collapse of WTC-7, it's

_____________________________

· Eric wrote:

HERE IS THE POINT --

1. Several buildings were on fire that day, however, only one of them which did not get hit by a plane collapsed -- WTC 7.

2. Why would _any_ news organization report that a given building, out of the THOUSANDS of buildings in NYC, and the DOZENS on fire that day, had 'collapsed' when in fact it didn't?

3. Someone got the rumor floating over an HOUR before WTC 7 collapsed. The point is that the rumor just happen to GUESS the ACTUAL building out of DOZENS of buildings that could have collapsed? The statistical probability of this is astronomically low. Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is that the person(s) who got the rumor going an hour beforehand had foreknowledge of the event. The BBC needs to find out who planted this information with the press!

· jmk wrote:

Come on Richard. No story here? I take it you are a bright fellow, so obviously you can't possibly be serious.

First you publish severely biased 'conspiracy files hit piece' that is bloody far from decent journalism. It was that bad that it alone counts as some level of conspiring against general public. Now, after that fiasco you come here telling that all 9/11 tapes are mysteriously lost and basically confirmed that BBC one way or the other had prior knowledge of WTC7 coming down (event that no-one in the 100 year-old history of steel frame buildings could not expect). Event was that improbable that it has taken more than 5 years for several organizations to come out with even a semi-plausible explanation for. Now, let's look at the Occam's Razor: I can explain every single thing experienced on site by controlled demolition in 15 minutes without NIST or FEMA.

We all know well who's political agendas 9/11 served best. Now, if there indeed is no conspiracy, prove it. Provide as much hard evidence as you can and present it in a unbiased quality documentary. Would be really nice if you could start off from the criminal investigation conducted by US government and end it with a proper explanation on why the towers fell (all of them) that takes into account basic newtonian laws of physics. Ask Steven Jones to contribute. He would probably love to.

Please don't make BBC another Fox News. We already have enough of that crap with strictly political agendas.

· Winston Smith wrote:

You explanation is right out of Mr. Orwell's book. 2 + 2 = 5 and the laws of physics were suspended because we must have faith in our institutions.

· Eric wrote:

WTC 7 had fire damage to a single corner of its structure. This infers the building should have collapsed into that corner in a terribly asymmetric way. However, the building collapsed in a perfectly symmetric way by falling directly onto its footprint. The huge steel supports and columns in the 3/4 of the building that were NOT on fire completely failed at the same exact time as the 1/4 of the building that was on fire. This cannot be. And I don't even think FEMA can ignore this. I think the final report (due out later this year) will blow the door open on this, and we'll finally know the full story.

· Rowan wrote:

"I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story."

How arrogant. You are supposed to represent your viewers, us. We'll decide when to end the story thanks. You can choose not to engage if you wish, you haven't for the last 5 years.

· Scott Page wrote:

As Mr. Chavez said: Smell the sulphur folks. BBC is no longer a source we can look to for the truth. The Fox News virus has infected a once trusted resource. As an architect I can only tell others that buildings don't normally explode like volcanos, unless helped.

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Is the apocaplypse here?

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Is the apocaplypse here?

Note, on the above post,

The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF?

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Is the apocaplypse here?

Note, on the above post,

The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF?

OOPS,

When I saw it before logging in the time on the post was 1:52 AM and the time on the quote was 2:52 AM

Then after logging in the times coincided. Sorry

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Is the apocaplypse here?

Note, on the above post,

The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF?

OOPS,

When I saw it before logging in the time on the post was 1:52 AM and the time on the quote was 2:52 AM

Then after logging in the times coincided. Sorry

Did the times just reset for dalight savings time?

[Sid Walker]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Well, Peter, you do take all this in a good-humoured way, don't you?

It is a joking matter, isn't it?

Some 3,000 people were murdered on the day; the ensuing wars have costs hundreds of thousand of lives; our civil libeties are in shreds; now the neocons openly plan nuclear war.

Amusing?

One is reminded of the dancing Israelis who also had a sense of humour not shared by most of us.

However, the good humour of long-suffering BBC viewers is wearing thin.

Here is a third and final batch of comments to the BBC article Part of the conspiracy? (2)

_____________________

· Daniel wrote:

BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY

Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_i...cy_overview.htm

"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 · All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use

· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes · Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media"

How can you possibly loose (at least) three copies from this historic day? It's even stored at two separate sites! If the case that it wasn't archived at all; what about the Broadcasting Act?

"03-01 All media and metadata must be stored securely in the correct conditions to minimise damage and degradation, following industry best practice"

Has this been done in this case, and if not, why? If has been done, how come you made a 'cock-up'? What can be learned from this incident to prevent this from happening again in the future?

"04-01 All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use"

You say that "the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days"

Why doesn't 04-01 apply to this?

Even though you may not want to answear this questions, I hope you will publish my comment at least for others to see.

Hello Mr. Porter,

You're a good bloke to give it another go here.

There's a few things I notice in all the damage control blather. I hope you don't mind if mention some of it.

1. You keep denying the BBC is part of the conspiracy. I'm happy you realize there was a conspiracy in play on 9-11-2001. If I were you, though, I'd stop shouting quite so loudly that you weren't part of it. Nobody was thinking that before. They might start, though, if you keep protesting so much!

2. You spend a good bit of time in this second blog to prove that folks other than the BBC had foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse. We knew that already! The recently unearthed BBC video just cements the knowledge. It's irrefutable evidence. So, you don't have to present hearsay evidence to convince us. What you could do, though, is help us source the information. Yes, other news agencies besides yours got the "memo" too. And yes, we will ask them too, about where they got it. My guess is we'll continue to ask you, too, until you tell us.

3. As for your comments about BBC policy regarding saving output... last blog you said you had "cocked-up" and lost the footage. Now you are saying you never kept it anyway because you didn't have to and anyway there were lots of other bits of footage still about you could look at. So, uhm, which is it? A cock-up? Or a normal discarding of redundant footage?

4. I do appreciate the time you've taken over these last few days to investigate whatever it is you've investigated. It's certainly better to have some sort of response instead of none whatsoever. But I take issue with your last sentence, "There's no story here." The events of 9-11-2001, taken in bits or as a whole, comprise the biggest story in my lifetime so far, and that's more than half a century. You may determine you will say no more, but good sir, you are not the decider when it comes to determining whether or not there is a story here.

I have one final question. How does it make you feel to know that your fine organization was just another tool in creating the official public myth about 9-11? I don't know, sir, but if it were me, I think I'd be mad as hell.

· Valerie wrote:

Mr. Porter:

Thank you for your follow up to all these inquiries. I am unable, however, to dignify your response with my own follow up. I can only say that if I was "on the fence" about a 911 Conspiracy before this huge karmic payback, the BBC and CNN have most assuredly put me on the side of the "Truthers." so...Lightworkers, Onward and Upward we go!

· Mabalz es Hari wrote:

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Who told the newsdesk that WTC7 had collapsed?

· Eloy Gonzalez II wrote:

Your explanation still doesn't cover why Google Video and YouTube have been fighting like mad to keep the relevant clips of the BBC's blunder off the Internet. And as far as I can tell, there has been a media blackout on this issue, even from your rivals, when it should have been big news to begin with.

· Pavel wrote:

"you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has"

Where is the qualifier in this iron clad certainty-filled statement? The "it seems" only applies to the explanation, which is so much in line with the later official version. You are being dishonest here, Roger, don't you think? The real question was and still is, who were your sources? Why do you try to avoid answering it at any cost?

· Joe wrote:

Mr. Porter,

No one is suggesting you, nor the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," as your strawman argument suggests. We'd just like to know what news agencies or wire agencies your reporters/producers got the false information from, and then from whom they got the information, and so on... I thought all newsfolk were naturally curious. Does following this incorrect information trail not stir some interest in anyone in your organization? You say you've spent your whole week on this issue. I assume you mean spending your time defending the BBC. Why not spend some time as an actual reporter investigating the questions behind the issue at hand, rather than acting as a public relations representative?

[Peter McKenna]

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse.

How's that for prescient reporting!

Well, Peter, you do take all this in a good-humoured way, don't you?

It is a joking matter, isn't it?

Some 3,000 people were murdered on the day; the ensuing wars have costs hundreds of thousand of lives; our civil libeties are in shreds; now the neocons openly plan nuclear war.

Amusing?

One is reminded of the dancing Israelis who also had a sense of humour not shared by most of us.

However, the good humour of long-suffering BBC viewers is wearing thin.

Here is a third and final batch of comments to the BBC article Part of the conspiracy? (2)

_____________________

· Daniel wrote:

BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY

Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_i...cy_overview.htm

"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 · All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use

· A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes · Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media"

How can you possibly loose (at least) three copies from this historic day? It's even stored at two separate sites! If the case that it wasn't archived at all; what about the Broadcasting Act?

"03-01 All media and metadata must be stored securely in the correct conditions to minimise damage and degradation, following industry best practice"

Has this been done in this case, and if not, why? If has been done, how come you made a 'cock-up'? What can be learned from this incident to prevent this from happening again in the future?

"04-01 All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use"

You say that "the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days"

Why doesn't 04-01 apply to this?

Even though you may not want to answear this questions, I hope you will publish my comment at least for others to see.

Hello Mr. Porter,

You're a good bloke to give it another go here.

There's a few things I notice in all the damage control blather. I hope you don't mind if mention some of it.

1. You keep denying the BBC is part of the conspiracy. I'm happy you realize there was a conspiracy in play on 9-11-2001. If I were you, though, I'd stop shouting quite so loudly that you weren't part of it. Nobody was thinking that before. They might start, though, if you keep protesting so much!

2. You spend a good bit of time in this second blog to prove that folks other than the BBC had foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse. We knew that already! The recently unearthed BBC video just cements the knowledge. It's irrefutable evidence. So, you don't have to present hearsay evidence to convince us. What you could do, though, is help us source the information. Yes, other news agencies besides yours got the "memo" too. And yes, we will ask them too, about where they got it. My guess is we'll continue to ask you, too, until you tell us.

3. As for your comments about BBC policy regarding saving output... last blog you said you had "cocked-up" and lost the footage. Now you are saying you never kept it anyway because you didn't have to and anyway there were lots of other bits of footage still about you could look at. So, uhm, which is it? A cock-up? Or a normal discarding of redundant footage?

4. I do appreciate the time you've taken over these last few days to investigate whatever it is you've investigated. It's certainly better to have some sort of response instead of none whatsoever. But I take issue with your last sentence, "There's no story here." The events of 9-11-2001, taken in bits or as a whole, comprise the biggest story in my lifetime so far, and that's more than half a century. You may determine you will say no more, but good sir, you are not the decider when it comes to determining whether or not there is a story here.

I have one final question. How does it make you feel to know that your fine organization was just another tool in creating the official public myth about 9-11? I don't know, sir, but if it were me, I think I'd be mad as hell.

· Valerie wrote:

Mr. Porter:

Thank you for your follow up to all these inquiries. I am unable, however, to dignify your response with my own follow up. I can only say that if I was "on the fence" about a 911 Conspiracy before this huge karmic payback, the BBC and CNN have most assuredly put me on the side of the "Truthers." so...Lightworkers, Onward and Upward we go!

· Mabalz es Hari wrote:

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Who told the newsdesk that WTC7 had collapsed?

· Eloy Gonzalez II wrote:

Your explanation still doesn't cover why Google Video and YouTube have been fighting like mad to keep the relevant clips of the BBC's blunder off the Internet. And as far as I can tell, there has been a media blackout on this issue, even from your rivals, when it should have been big news to begin with.

· Pavel wrote:

"you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has"

Where is the qualifier in this iron clad certainty-filled statement? The "it seems" only applies to the explanation, which is so much in line with the later official version. You are being dishonest here, Roger, don't you think? The real question was and still is, who were your sources? Why do you try to avoid answering it at any cost?

· Joe wrote:

Mr. Porter,

No one is suggesting you, nor the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," as your strawman argument suggests. We'd just like to know what news agencies or wire agencies your reporters/producers got the false information from, and then from whom they got the information, and so on... I thought all newsfolk were naturally curious. Does following this incorrect information trail not stir some interest in anyone in your organization? You say you've spent your whole week on this issue. I assume you mean spending your time defending the BBC. Why not spend some time as an actual reporter investigating the questions behind the issue at hand, rather than acting as a public relations representative?

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

[Sid Walker]

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Peter.

If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.

I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!

I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.

Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

[Peter McKenna]

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Peter.

If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.

I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!

I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.

Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

Apparently,

Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.

Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.

I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.

So what?

If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?

A tempest in a teapot.

[Peter McKenna]

Well Sid,

First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans.

I don't buy it!

Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11.

Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was.

There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Thanks, Peter.

If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it.

I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view!

I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke.

Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing.

Apparently,

Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that.

Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used.

I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont.

So what?

If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify?

A tempest in a teapot.

Anyway, Sid,

My writing style is kind of how I talk.

As if we were having a beer in a pub so to speak.

I tend to joke around now and then.

Sorry if that offends you.