From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2007-03-06 11:51:13
They didn’t even censor my comments!! www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/… So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so? My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest so we’ve been doing more investigating within the BBC to put together the sequence of events. Five and a half years have passed so it’s quite difficult to answer every outstanding question. But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. I’ve also read through some of the reports published after 9/11 to help put together the sequence of events.Back to 11 September itself. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Other buildings were known to be damaged. Building 7 was on fire. But this was also a very confusing picture – remember we had started the day with reports that a light aircraft had struck the first tower, and at one stage there was talk of ten hijacked jets in the air. It’s in the nature of rolling news that events unfold in front of you and confusion turns to clarity. It’s important to remember that context when looking more closely at what happened between about 4.10pm (EDT) and 5.20pm when Building 7 finally collapsed. CNN’s chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: “We’re getting information that one of the other buildings… Building 7… is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing… now we’re told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well.” Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day. 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“. During this time, our staff were talking directly to the emergency services and monitoring local and national media
and there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse. Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires – the Associated Press, Reuters, etc – and although we don’t routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we’re sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media. At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: “We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse.” He then responds to a follow-up question by saying “I’m not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7.“At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme’s presenter, Fi Glover says “25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago.” At 4.54pm, the BBC’s domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: “We’re now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed… it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building.” And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: “We’ve got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed.“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. At 5pm, News 24 repeated the news in its top-of-the-hour headlines sequence and then at about 5.10pm (again according to the clips on the web), Phil Hayton on BBC World says “More on the latest building collapse in NY – you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has… it seems this wasn’t the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.” Some of the respondents to my earlier blog have suggested this must mean he had inside knowledge – that not only did he know the building had collapsed, he knew why. Well in one sense that’s true – for about an hour, it had been reported that the building was on fire and in danger of collapse. But he did qualify it by saying “it seems” and once again I think there’s a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour. Of course, with hindsight we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background. But again I point to that confusing and chaotic situation on the ground – the CNN reporter who had talked about the building “either collapsed or is collapsing” also had it clearly in shot behind him, but he acknowledged he couldn’t see very clearly from where he was standing. As we know, the building did collapse at 5.20pm, with the first pictures of that being broadcast on News 24 at about 5.35pm.So that’s what we know we reported. To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture. I should also mention the missing tapes. As you’ll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn’t made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery… ). Some of you find it hard to believe we didn’t keep the BBC World tapes… but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we’d kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn’t… and I don’t know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week’s events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample – and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or “rushes” – ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons – such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event. I’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. Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World < Previous Main Next > Comments Post your comment 1. At 05:35 PM on 02 Mar 2007, John wrote: Nice try Richard, but this doesn’t add up…..So now your ”news” are based on other news channels, without daring to verify the validity of the said news….very professionnal, sir. This is a pathetic dammage control lie, and you shpuld be ashamed of yourself. I wonder how can you sleep at night, I really do….. Complain about this post 2. At 05:52 PM on 02 Mar 2007, gregor aitken wrote: you are bang on right there is no story in the missing bbc tapes and thank-you for doing your best to find out what happened. The real story is the inability of the bbc to look into 9/11 and 7/7 and do a proper investigation. The real story is where are the bbc?where are the journalists? From reading these comment boards a lot of people are very unhappy with the newsmadia, the gatekeepers of the newsagenda dont want this story, for whatever reasons. If you take any news outlet to task on this you get ridiculed and sidestepped. yet more and more people are asking questions. Mr. Porter why does the bbc seem to only report news rather than seek truth. please explain Complain about this post 3. At 06:12 PM on 02 Mar 2007, PeeVeeAh wrote: “There’s no story here”…. I have always believed that to be the case, Richard! There were only frantic ‘rushes’ at the time – little corroboration and everyone in a tabloid panic to scoop the breaking bites and footage. There was absolutely ‘no story’ at the time. No vetting, no editing just ‘splash it all over!’ in the interests of instant messaging. There is no craft in 24-hour TV News reporting, it’s become a race against time – and better judgement. I think the 9/11 ‘asynchronisms’ were the most illuminating wxamples of breaking news gone wrong – with nothing more sinister than that. However, much should be learned from the peril of on-the-fly composition of reports that will inevitably be engraved for posterity – in peoples’ minds if not in recoverable local archive. I cringe almost every time I see the ‘Breaking News’ banner caption! Perhaps 24-hour news should be completely ‘bannered’! 😉 Complain about this post 4. At 06:23 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Justin L wrote: okay Richard,Let’s say this dubious but unquestionable report isn’t more spin. A smal fire, no outstanding structural damage to that building, not when you see other buildings that stood after a much a worse pounding from the 2 towers debris. Prior knowledge that the building was going to collapse, an hour before it happened, yet no sense at all that either tower was in imminent danger of coming down…who were the specialists that made the assesment of building 7? Why were their skills not applied to monitoring the two towers? the only 3 skyscrapers in history to collapse due to fire did so that day…. The fact that you yourself clearly state that the American government agencies are not releasing information that would help everyone resolve the issue….this amounts to the American Government toying with people’s emotion for political ends, morally irresponsible behaviour that our own Government defends These issues should make you cringe as a journalist when imagining your report equates to much more than dsinformation, get it right and research deeply or take your childish kaleidoscope away from real issues, save your inanities for the dwellers of lala-land, that’s your true audience Complain about this post 5. At 06:38 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Matthew wrote: Well said Richard, Hopefully, I can get some supporting information in before you are once again flooded with nonsense Many conspiracy fantasists will go on about the FEMA report (which was premilinary and which led to the more detailed NIST report which will be published later this year) saying that the collapse initiation due to diesel fires had “a low probability of occurring”. They take this to mean that it wasn’t obvious that the building was going to collapse. It means nothing of the sort. The signs of the collapse developed over a long period – they were the bulge, the flames and smoke, and the creaking and leaning of the building. What FEMA is talking about is the events which led to these signs. It was obvious to the FDNY fire crews at the scene as the day progressed that the building was going to collapse. That is why they cleared an area around the building several hours before the collapse. Anybody who claims that the only people who knew the building was going to collapse must have been told by the people who were going to demolish the building has to include the firefighters in the subsequent cover-up. Regarding the initiating event – just because something is unlikely, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. By definition, accidents and disasters are unlikely, they are things that weren’t expected (otherwise they could have been avoided). As far as having the WTC7 building behind you when you say it’s going to collapse. Who, before 9/11, knew which building was which in the complex? Who even knew there were buildings other than the towers? Ultimately the fantasists want to believe so badly that they will continue to misrepresent and twist everything you say on this issue. You are quite correct to ignore them from now on. They’ll sit behind their keyboards and grumble and the world will carry one unchanged. There are some useful WTC7 links here: www.counterpunch.org… Complain about this post 6. At 06:43 PM on 02 Mar 2007, P. Numminen wrote: So you respond by saying you are incompetent idiots instead of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy? Well, I suppose we’ll have to stop seeing BBC News in either case. Complain about this post 7. At 06:55 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Kevin Ryan wrote: Just another in a long string of amazing coincidences related to 9/11 then, eh? How convenient for Bush and Blair, and yet so troublesome for those living on 90% of the world’s oil reserves. To get this straight, the BBC staff didn’t have time to look at the video of their own reports that day, but they did have time to scoure the airwaves for fuzzy statements from other network reports, finding one or two describing the possibility of the first ever fire-induced collapse of a tall building. They then decided to simply report those statements, repeatedly and confidently mind you, not as heresay, but as if they described an actual event that had transpired. And 25 minutes later, voila – they became true. Do you ever think about any of it? Complain about this post 8. At 07:00 PM on 02 Mar 2007, linn wrote: Everyone who finds this explanation inadequate should immediately: a) download and archive the footage (to hard drives, CD’s, DVD’s, etc.). b) download and archive this blog and its text. Complain about this post 9. At 07:02 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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? Complain about this post 10. At 07:08 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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?” Complain about this post 11. At 07:15 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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.stage6.divx.com/cont… 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” www.bbc.co.uk/foi/do… So where does the figure of 90 days come from ? Complain about this post 12. At 07:18 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Stardust wrote: Wait….you said no one told you what to say, yet in the same article you say: 1) 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. and.. 2) CNN’s chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin….Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day. Talk about Doublethink. Complain about this post 13. At 07:20 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Kevin Fenton wrote: 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. Complain about this post 14. At 07:22 PM on 02 Mar 2007, simple fact wrote: We all know the BBC isn’t exactly pro-Bush, but the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the BBC colluded in his plot to destroy the WTC and launch a war on Islamic countries and end democracy and freedom at home. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight Complain about this post 15. At 07:30 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Bryan wrote: I find myself in rare agreement with the BBC on this issue. The conspiracy theorists will not square up to a simple fact here: conspirators would not have had anything to gain by informing a news agency in advance that the building was going to collapse. On the contrary, they would then have had the strong likelihood of forewarned journalists snooping around while they were trying to surrepstitiously implode the building. There is no basis in logic here and no basis in fact. But I must say, Mr. Porter, that you are a master of understatement when you claim, “My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest.” I’d say that “a frantic tide of condemnation” would be closer to the truth. The conspiracy theorists know the BBC to be both contemptuous of the Bush administration and sympathetic to radical Islam and were no doubt fully expecting the recent 9/11 “Conspiracy Files” documentary to endorse their conspiracy theories. They feel that the BBC has let the side down and they are furious. There may, however, indeed be a conspiracy here – though on a much more minor key. Whoever “mislaid” those BBC World tapes could well have conspired to save BBC staff the embarrassment of having their monumental blunder on file for posterity. Complain about this post 16. At 07:42 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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.” Complain about this post 17. At 07:47 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 18. At 07:51 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Monsieur le Prof wrote: I’m sorry but your behaviour and commentary on this issue has been reprehensible and pathetic. No one is accusing you of having been part of the conspiracy to blow up WTC building 7, but covering for the people who may have is sickening. Do you not care about the nearly 3,000 victims of that day? May God have mercy on your souls. Complain about this post 19. At 08:01 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Ian H wrote: I read Richard Porter’s response hoping he’d be able to clarify the events in that confusing and frankly worrying video that everyone and his dog has shown me. I have always thought the conspiracy theorists to be largely attention-seeking paranoid Michael Moore wannabes, but this one just seems too difficult to adequately explain away. Mr Porter, you’ve dug yourself quite a hole. Better get looking for that “lost” tape. Complain about this post 20. At 08:12 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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? Complain about this post 21. At 08:17 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Jon wrote: I’m sure that this week has been eye-opening for you Richard. What can you take away from this experience? Well perhaps at the very least I can suggest that it indicates how poorly regarded your industry has become if so many are eager to accept that the BBC are involved in a cover-up. So much doubt and mistrust, how has it come to this? Also you might have come to the conclusion that there are a hell of a lot of passionate people in this world, ready to go to quite extraordinary lengths to get their point across. You should take heart on this however. Someone once said that people have become apathetic towards politics, I think they were wrong, don’t you? Complain about this post 22. At 08:19 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Prove me wrong. Complain about this post 23. At 08:23 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Michael wrote: Please stop invoking the “BBC is not part of any conspiracy” line in response to reader complaints. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that you are part of some larger conspiracy and to imply such a thing is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberately misleading. While you seem to have provided sufficient evidence that BBC World’s premature report of WTC7’s collapse was a simple matter of gross incompetence and nothing more, you have yet to provide answers to some very important questions: 1. Who is responsible for the ‘cock-up’ which led to the loss of BBC World News’ 9/11 footage? “I don’t know whether they were destroyed or mislaid.” just doesn’t cut it! 2. What are the circumstances surrounding the ‘cock-up’ which led to the loss of BBC World News’ 9/11 footage? 3. Who cut reporter Jane Standley’s live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01? 4. What are the circumstances surrounding the disruption of Jane Standley’s live feed from NYC at 5:18pm (EST) on 11/09/01? Sorry, Richard, there IS a story here! Complain about this post 24. At 08:49 PM on 02 Mar 2007, douglas herman wrote: Mr. Porter,You wrote: “But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time.” So do you, or do NOT, have the entire video archives from that time segment? Which is it? The 911 video with the time stamp of Jane standing there with the WTC-7 in the background—you have that? Is THAT what you checked? Either way, it doesnt look too good. Douglas Herman, USAF veteran and 911 critic of the cock-eyed cover up. Complain about this post 25. At 08:52 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Edward wrote: This is just more smoke and mirrors. You are waffling around avoiding the pertinent questions. The BBC was the ONLY station (or group of stations) that was reporting WTC7 “HAD COLLAPSED” before it did. You ALSO reported WHY it fell, unlike any other station. This is a question that even NIST *STILL* can’t explain properly. We are just asking you for the source and the original materials. Stop whining about being “part of a conspiracy” Complain about this post 26. At 08:55 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Jonathan Rothwell wrote: If it was just a one-off cock-up (which would be no big thing with the amount of stress on that day) we don’t need to worry. Many other news stations had reported the same, as Richard says. Basically, the BBC found themselves on the end of a Chinese whisper. Complain about this post 27. At 09:01 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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! Complain about this post 28. At 09:03 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 29. At 09:03 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 30. At 09:05 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 31. At 09:07 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 32. At 09:08 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 33. At 09:08 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Shawn wrote: These conspiracy theories are for idiots. Let them troll the internet and fantasise about the BIG conspiracy, which would have involved thousands of people, imaginary people, robots, time machines, remote control airplanes and on and on. Why bother trying to debunk them? Complain about this post 34. At 09:10 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Daniel wrote: BBC MEDIA MANAGEMENT POLICY Reference: www.bbc.co.uk/foi/do… “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. Complain about this post 35. At 09:11 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Neil wrote: Thank you for posting again and thank you for you explanation thus far. I think you would agree the subject of what happened on 9/11 is very important to many people for various reasons. I do not believe the BBC was part of any conspiracy but I do believe there is very much still a story here, although the BBC’s part in it is very nearly complete. There is one more piece of information required. You said that you “believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this”. Please continue your fine investigation to its logical conclusion, in the true spirit of investigative journalism that the BBC is so famous for, and find out: 1. Which news agency reported this or at least someone saying it?2. If possible exactly what was reported by the agency and when? I think the BBC will then be able to completely vindicate itself of conspiracy accusations, and show the world what fine investigative journalism it is capable of. Complain about this post 36. At 09:11 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Ennealogic wrote: 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. Complain about this post 37. At 09:12 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Eric wrote: Someone wrote in a post: “The conspiracy theorists will not square up to a simple fact here: conspirators would not have had anything to gain by informing a news agency in advance that the building was going to collapse.” My analysis indicates that Flight 93, which was shot down over Pennsylvania, was going to target WTC 7. This would have given the plotters the ‘evidence’ they needed to explain why WTC 7 collapsed. However, the plane never made it to its destination, and the building collapsed ANYWAYS, because of the pre-positioned explosives waiting to ignite. The plotters had to scramble to explain why the building would be collapsing despite the fact that no plane hit it. So the rumor is planted with the new agencies. Complain about this post 38. At 09:15 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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! Complain about this post 39. At 09:17 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Mabalz es Hari wrote: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Who told the newsdesk that WTC7 had collapsed? Complain about this post 40. At 09:19 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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. Complain about this post 41. At 09:21 PM on 02 Mar 2007, P. Durand wrote: Mr. Porter Here is what you have to do. Sit down, take few deep breathes and then, watch all the available videos on web of the controlled demolition of WTC7. Now, you will understand the reality. Then, plug back you automatic pilot and continue denying it. What append with investigative journalism? Oh yeah, I know, The Conspiracy Files… Complain about this post 42. At 09:24 PM on 02 Mar 2007, Veritas Dolere wrote: Somehow it is pretty convenient that the BBC reports today it has struck a deal with YouTube/Google Video. “Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members – although it would reserve the right … to have content removed … that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC’s brand.” See news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/… I have an idea of what you would like to see removed. Reminds me of my management class, chapter on crisis management: do take some action, publicize it with similar tags to shift the focus (and the debate). Textbook procedure. Nice try, but you cannot take over the Internet – if we live in a democracy, that is. I sometimes wonder. Complain about this post 43. At 09:27 PM on 02 Mar 2007, 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? Complain about(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
