Pathetic five paragraph blog rebuttal does not answer questions as to source of report that Salomon Building was coming down, BBC claims tapes lost due to "cock-up" not conspiracy
February 27, 2007
The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing
their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it
fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing,
and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance"
in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.
Here is the BBC's
response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed
yesterday, with my comments after each statement.
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.
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings
were going to fall down." If this is true, then how on earth
did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened?
Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming
down, just like the firefighters,
police, first responders and CNN
were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for
making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy
who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming
the BBC are "part of the conspiracy," but their hideous
penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even
a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling
us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report),
is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes
to 9/11.
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.
How do "chaos and confusion" explain how
the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that
happened "unexpectedly" according to their Conspiracy
Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the
BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of
the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their
information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source
telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not,
how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have
access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day
of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events
seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly,
she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did -
like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of
what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being
told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds
and wires services.
Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously
didn't make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting
had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfotunately,
for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility,
"she doesn't remember" just doesn't cut it as an excuse.
BBC included
a screenshot of yesterday's Prison Planet article in their brief
response.
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.
We are asked to believe that the world's premiere
news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the
biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether
they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn't want to
verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they
know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead
to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is
standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed!
This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints
while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines
the BBC's credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy
Files debacle.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it
had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.
As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy
in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that
totally proves conspiracy... "
So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist
the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of
issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals
they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include
the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic!
Answer the question BBC - what was your source for reporting on
multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had
collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman
to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened,
an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years
later.
If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it
happened would that have been just an error too? This "error"
translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry
Silverstein - I'm sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested
to know the source of your "error." In addition, two
seperate sources reported that Secret
Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse
of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the
"error" that led to your correspondent reporting the
building's downfall in advance?
|