Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The BBC responds! with utter contempt for our intelligence

My response to the BBC's contemptuous reply:

"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."

You did not get told in advance that the building was going to fall down? Then how did you report, from detailed talking points, that the Building had collapsed, what caused it to collapse, that people had been evacuated etc etc? BEFORE it had happened? clairvoyance? Tarot cards? Time Machine? This is BBC world service, not some two piece amatuer wacko news like FOX or SKY! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU NOT EVEN LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW AND SEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS STILL STANDING??? Your excuse is not good enough by a long shot! The news crew obviously picked the information about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing from somewhere and had talking points prepared and even had the news ticker saying that the Solomon Brothers Building had collapsed. This all happened BEFORE the building collapsed.

"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."

There where no "qualifying words" in the ticker. The additional information that was discussed were void of the kind of qualifying statements that should have been used too, considering that the building in question was clearly visible over the reporter's shoulder. This was a pre prepared set of talking points presented as established fact. Who would prepare these talking points before the building had actually collapsed, and WHY? Were there also talking points prepared for any of the other buildings in the WTC complex, for just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? How could they have known in advance that the building would collapse? and how would they know the cause in advance too, when NIST still have not decided how wtc 7 collapsed over 5 years later?

"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."

You have just contradicted your point in number 1. Either you were being told or you were not. Which is it? and if so, who by?

"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."

You can get copies that are flying all over the internet. If the BBC was engaged in any serious genuine investigative journalism, that should not be a problem. Why not recruit a proper journalist, like Mike Rivero, or Alex Jones? They have more footage of that day than the BBC do apparently.

"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... ""

An error, sure, but who gave you the detailed talking points before the building had collapsed? How did they know it was going to collapse?

This is the key point here. That many many first responders, police, fire fighters, emergency workers, amblulance workers have all come forward and told that they where told that they were going to 'bring the building down' Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted on PBS that they decided to pull the building. It may be this news that was misconstrued and reported mistakenly as fact, before the building was pulled, BUT the point is, this shows pre-determination that the building was to be brought down. How long does it take to do that? was the building wired up before 9/11 to be brought down?

WTC 7 was quite a long distance from the two towers. There where other buildings between the two towers and wtc 7. No plane hit wtc 7. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to, or since 9/11. Even large skyscrapers that have burned for days and days have not collapsed.

All this information added together is VERY suspicious, and for the BBC to try to brush this under the carpet and dismiss it, instead of investigate is just staggeringly unbelieveable. The last part where you quote some loon from youtube is just beyond a joke. I could quote some nutter from youtube saying that 9/11 was caused by aliens, would that automatically make it true?

Your defence of this is far from satisfactory, and in fact is bordering on contemptuous. Enquiring minds want to know the truth, as the official version of what happened that day, the Government and mainstream media backed version is a wacky conspiracy theory that has been massively debunked. Why cannot the BBC take this seriously and actually investigate?

Is the BBC too scared?

No comments: