The head of your News 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!
"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage..." -Richard Porter, BBC World News Editor, 2/27/07
This might seem more plausible if the BBC hadn't been pressuring Google Video to remove the clip all day this Monday on copyright grounds, after an independent researcher had uploaded it there:
"Please make sure that you have all legal rights to use the content you wish to submit to Google." --911veritas on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 4:14pm.
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.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:
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? A BBC-24 report at "21:55" British time -- or 4:55pm New York time -- repeats the same claim about the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) having already collapsed.
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, Jane Standley'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 news 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.
Part of the conspiracy? (2)
Richard Porter, 2 Mar 07
click here
------------------------------------
Dear BBC,
WHY IS RICHARD PORTER ALLOWED TO CONTINUE COVERING UP THIS WTC7 DEBACLE?
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.
-------------------------------------
