Thursday, March 01, 2007



Dear BBC,

The head of your division, Richard Porter has just given the world a disgraceful response to a matter of enormous importance and seriousness.

The fact that your New York reporter said that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) had collapsed a full 20 minutes before it had, with accompanying graphic, should be cause for a thorough investigation of how that information came to be in the heads of your personnel. This investigation does not appear to be in evidence. No serious effort, apart from allegedly asking the reporter to recall, seems to have taken place.

Next, in the realm of absurdity beyond belief, your department head claims that the BBC has LOST the tapes of September 11th coverage!

This might seem more plausible if the BBC hadn't been pressuring Google Video to remove the clip all day yesterday. No. This seems like a flat out lie designed to cover up your original "cock up" whereby you told the world that a building had collapsed even though it remains 'in the shot' behind your reporter's head. That particular "cock up" actually has evidence to back it up, unlike the claim by Richard Porter that this particular bit of footage has mysteriously disappeared, with no back up copy available.

What utter nonsense.

1) Is it BBC policy to keep only 1 copy of your reports?

2) What sort of backup regime do you employ?

3) What OTHER tapes from September 11th 2001 New York are allegedly missing as of today?

4) Where are the reporter's notes and scripts from that report? What other data exists that bears upon the report that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed as of 5:00pm on 9/11?

5) What data exists regarding your New York reporter's live feed dropping off 5 minutes before the ACTUAL collapse of the WTC 7 building?
In closing, independent investigators haven't accused the BBC of participating in a "conspiracy" as your irresponsible head, Porter, misrepresents. We have focused on the evidence broadcast as a possible indication that there existed a conspiracy to deliberately demolish building WTC 7, and other buildings, and that a "cock up" revealed prior knowledge by some parties of this building's demolition.

If Richard Porter cannot differentiate between factual claims and persecution, then he probably is not qualified to run an important news organization like the BBC. His reliance on an anonymous sarcastic remark from Youtube as a source in this matter is shocking and revealing of bias and a pathetic resorting to non-factual arguments.

If BBC employs an Ombudsman or Inspector General, please forward this matter to them immediately for a fair and honest look at what really happened, devoid of "the dog ate my videotape" excuses, and infantile sarcasm.


BBC World wrote:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an article published online.

The notion, as suggested on such websites, 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.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations




Your response is ludicrous.

1. The "collapse" of the building in question exhibits 11 characteristics of controlled demolition. Not least of which, it ended up in its own footprint in a neat pile. Other collapses are not so neat and precise.

2. This is most certainly NOT the first time the BBC has heard about this matter. When the event occurred, right outside Jane Standley's window, they would have been alerted to this matter RIGHT THEN. So, your response is false and not to be believed.

3. Your "best information available" is what we are trying to discover. Where exactly did this information originate? Your tactics are designed to obfuscate and ignore this demand by viewers. We want an investigation into how that information arrived at BBC. That is not a difficult concept to comprehend.

4. "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."

This does NOT explain how your report can predict future events that have not occured yet. See #3 above.

5. Your on-air reporters trusted this information without qualifying that it was unreliable or preliminary (as they had done with many other reports that day). The anchor at one point says "Indeed it has [collapsed]." Thus confirming the report for viewers, falsely.

6. Google video had been pressured to remove this video clip on Monday this week -- as soon as it was posted there -- because of copyright. This leads directly back to BBC. This is evidence of the suppression of the information.

7. Your news director claims that BBC LOST THE TAPES, which would be very difficult considering BBC policy for keeping multiple copies in multiple locations. Are you still sticking with this story, or have the tapes suddenly been "found?"

8. When will a FULL INTERNAL INVESTIGATION be conducted by the BBC OMBUDSMAN?

9. It is the hysterical behavior of BBC employees that makes people suspicious. A line from Shakespeare seems relevant here: "Me thinks he doth protest too much."



We are demanding the OMBUDSMAN investigate this. Mr. Porter's responses are deliberately vague, hostile and untrrustworthy. No attempt has been made to get the documented evidence which was the source of the broadcast announcement.

Instead, we are to believe that because CNN said somethinhg SIMILAR, though not the same thing at all, that it is okay, and that we should just trust Mr. Porter.

CNN said that the building may have collapsed, and qualified the statement. BBC did not qualify the statement, instead repeating it multiple times as an authoritative statement of fact.

If CNN did it is an excuse, then why do we need a BBC at all? Is CNN the source for all of your reportage?

"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." -Richard Porter

Well that's just not good enough. This is an attempt to pin blame on unnamed other parties without a shred of evidence. This answer is insufficient, and the Ombudsman needs to go back and search through the documented record as to the actual, not the "believe"d source. Your head of news division is basically arguing that BBC broadcasts unsubstantiated rumors with no accountability, no documentary record, and no one bothers to keep track of the sources of stories.

If that was the case, the BBC would never have gained prominence as one of the top news organizations in the world. I do not believe this excuse, nor do many millions of others at this point.

I implore you to have the Ombudsman go back and search through the data that exists.

This answer is unacceptable.