Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.
The notion 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
Sorry, but that does not come even close to an acceptable reply. I have not ever at any point suggested in this question that the BBC were part of a conspiracy on the day and for you to suggest this is both offensive and beneath contempt.
Your response to this may lead people to suggest that you have become part of the cover up, however.
> The notion that the BBC has been part of any
> conspiracy is patently ludicrous.
I agree!
> We reported the
> situation as accurately as we could, based on the
> best information available.
Not True, you did not check the story at all, nor did you offer any attribution.
> 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.
Check the video of the day? Oh you can't, you LOST them! (in breach of your own procedures!) download a copy from the internet then!
> 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.
IF? The building was clearly standing behind her! there is no IF in this. However I do accept that reporting this was a genuine error, now what we want to know is, how, exactly, did this error occur? It is obvious from the video that an error occured, that is NOT the issue here, the issue is HOW?
I have several very reasonable questions that the BBC, for some unknown reason, is refusing to answer.
1. How did you get the report that the WTC 7 had collapsed (past tense) before it happened?
2. Who prepared the detailed talking points about the collapse?
3. Were talking points prepared for the other (closer to to the two towers) buildings in the WTC complex, just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? Why only for this building?
4. Why was this news rushed to air live? without attribution or qualification, but presented as factual? I thought the BBC had a duty to check it's stories OR Attribute them. on this occasion they did neither.
5. Why has the BBC not complied with it's own obligations with regards to keeping copies of it's broadcasts?
6. What was the cause of the dropped feed 5 minutes before the building collapsed?
7. What did the correspondent in Manhatten think as the building actually collapsed? and what did she think once she realised it was the building that she had already described in detail collapsing, before it collapsed?
These are serious questions that, for some reason, the BBC refuses to take seriously, or answer. So far the BBC has lied and contradicted itself in response to valid questions of it's handling of a very serious story on a very significant day.
9/11 is a day so infamous that barely a news day goes by when it is not trumpeted as the cause of many major national and international policies, from ID cards, to immigration, to detention withoout charge or trial, to participating in multiple theater wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, paid for out of our taxes.
Why, then, are you taking such a cavalier and condescending approach to people asking very reasonable questions about the BBC's conduct on his day?
I have been trying, seriously, for 5 years to dis-prove the notion that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded. I have failed to PROVE this.
I can state that it may be plausable that it looked like WTC 7 might be compromised to some people and they thought that it MIGHT fall over. These are unqualified people who were going off their gut instinct, however this story may have been changed, in a chinese wispers effect to become 'has collapsed' (instead of 'may collapse') and was passed on the wires and unquestioningly reported as fact by the BBC and CNN, but this still does not explain, why you reported as fact without attribution or source or checking, a surprise collapse well before it happened. Nor does it explain why the BBC lost the tapes from this day.
NIST has not helped, by only adding supposition to their conclusions. FEMA has not helped. Larry Silverstein did not help by saying that he had the building 'pulled'. Many fire fighters have written sworn affidavids that they were told that the building was to be "brought down". Add this to the fact that no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire, the building collapsed in a way that was fully consistant with a controlled demolition, molten metal has been reported at the site. WTC 7 was further away from and behind two other buldings, so was unlikely to be compromised by the two towers collapsing.
Add all this and more together and the whole, "we accidentally broadcast an un-attributed claim of a demolished building, without it being checked, 25 minutes before it actually fell", and it begins to look very much like someone (who? and how?) knew it was going to collapse in advance. How else could you have repoerted the collapse 25 minutes early? How did they know? Whilst this does NOT prove forknowledge, it IS VERY suspicious.
IF this building was so badly damaged, by the collapsing towers, that for public safety reasons, it had to be deliberatly brought down, then that is a reasonable conclusion, given what had happened that day. However therin lies the problem.
How long does it take to wire up a 47 story building for a controlled demolition? A lot more than the few hours that they had had that day. This would mean that the building had to have been prepared before 9/11. That would mean more than forknowledge of the attacks. It would mean a deliberate involvement in the instigation of these attacks. Complicity!
The public who are paying for the multiple wars with their hard earned taxes, the people whose international reputations are going down the drain further with every innocent child bombed because of 9/11 has a right to have these VERY SERIOUS questions answered.
This has NOT been seriously investigated by anybody except the 'oddball conspiracy fringe'. NIST has not covered this properly, FEMA hasn't, the official 9/11 commision didn't. and now the BBC parrot without question the 'official line'. WHY CAN YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THIS?
You mention it has been five years since the attacks, very true. Why has it taken so long for this to come out? Because the mainstream media has (and largely still does) completely refuse to touch the WTC 7 story with a barge pole. Why? Because when people see that building come down, the obvious conclusion people (including demolition experts with 40 years of Controlled Demolition experience) draw, is that this WAS a controlled demolition.
This needs to be investigated. We need an answer that stands up to close scrutiny. We have had years of the Bush and Blair administration lying to us about WMD and Iran's nuclear ambitions and so much more. We have also had years of the BBC parroting these false and demonstratably fraudulent claims as fact. Without any investigation whatsoever, the BBC has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government.
It is time the people were represented and it is time you gave an honest account of both yourselves and of WTC7.
There are still too many if this happened and if that happened then that means that, on both sides of the debate. EVERY version of what happened that day, including the official one backed by the BBC, is a 'conspiracy theory'. None of these theories stand close scrutiny, they all have holes in them.
We just want the truth!
Ken Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment