Mr Porter - Looking back, not in Anger, but in error. The 5 minute clip that shook the world. The lie exposed.

Richard Porter is head of News, BBC World. This is what he posted (in black) - 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM comments in blue

Part of the conspiracy?

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

The 9/11conspiracies are not "pretty well known" even the best informed have fragmentary knowledge of most - some are plainly plainly loopy - laser holograms planes hitting the Twin Towers etc., Information in the public domain is limited, but it increases every day like silt and a solid body of evidence is developing. Public perceptions are remarkably stubborn - people cannot conduct mobile phone conversdations from aircraft flying at 550 mph and 35,00 feet cannot but few people grasp that simple fact and persist in the belief about fights, red bandanas, cutting tools etc.,

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.

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down." - did you ;
1. Make it up ?
2. Guess ?
3. Have a chat with Mystic Meg ?

"We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening" -
1. Have you been back to check ?
2. When did you check ?
3. Who did the checking ?

How can you explain the repeated reference in the past tense to the Salomon Bros building collapsing - i.e not exploding, falling ? Somweher, somehow there is an explanation and only people within the BBC can provide that explanation.

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.

Forgive me, I didn't hear any caveats - simple bald statements without any qualification.Period.

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.

So Jane Standley has just found out that she was talking garbage today ? You mean between 9/11 and today nobody at the BBC has noticed this remarkable ability to forecast 47 story buildings colapsing ? An event seared on her mind ? She has never looked back and thought .. Merde, Zut alors ... c'est incroyable ?

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.

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs, you've no longer got the news tapes for the biggest news event in the history of BBC TV ?

Do tell us, what was the cock - up? Somebody taped a Benny Hill show over it ? ... and you ask for a recording and it's all over the web ? Bollocks Mr Porter. Well the WWW have a copy and unless you want (in the absence of your copy) to tell us it is a palimpsest, a forgery, a fraud, or in some way corrupt, we can all SEE and HEAR what the BBC put out that day.... and it was no slip of the tongue, error, mistake, technical problem.

Simply. The BBC put out a news Bulletin and had live coverage that told the watching world a building had collapsed (not exploded or fell over ) 20 minutes before it did. That is not an error Mr Porter.. and if you believe it is, you are a bigger cunt than was first apparent.

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... "

Richard Porter

"an error - no more than that" I can't wait for Gary Lineker to tell us the final result at half time, or Brian Moore tell us that France will score three tries at twickers next weekend - or even better the winner of the 3.00 at Newmarket at 2.30.

Now if you had said. Crikey this is incredible , because if true it would provide huge support to the people who believe that Larry Silverstein did have the building pre loaded to demolish it ( 2 weeks of a job the experts say) and decided to "pull" it.

I will put all the resource we can behind finding out how Jane Standley and that nice man who read the News at 10.00 was given a script with autocue feeed, to tell us WTC 7 had collapsed.

If that nice but ineffectual man who is called the Director General , close friend and best man of Geoff Hoon, a Cabinet Minister decided to tell us all that you had his support in this endeavour.

If Jane Standly (who looks like a good and efficient pot thrower ) said,"how the hell was I fed such bollocks and now made to look so fucking stupid - somebody had better find out what went wrong!" ... "and pretty bloody quickly!" Then we might begin to believe that you and the PR wallahs / politicos / media spinners at No 10 etc., were not trying to spin us a line.

Because until that happens, everyone who sees that clip, everyone who reads the blogs will think you are talking shite.

Unadulterated. 100% copper bottomed at Lloyds. Perfect. Shite.

PS. Mystic Meg tells me that you will be wearing your balls for a bracelet if you fuck this up for the Gubment, Alastair Campbell , etc., .... and we don't want anything to divert attention away from hauling in the guilty in the CASH FOR CORONETS saga do we ?

What Mr Porter put on the blog is probably copyright of the BBC - it is probably illegal to reproduce blah , blah, blah - hey Mr Porter, we don't give a fuck..... and you can also tell Fraser Steele to go fuck himself as well if he sticks his nose into the affair.

PPS - Have you any ideas Mr Porter who might have put some pressure on Google / You Tube etc., to "pull" as they say in the business the BBC clips - lawyers crying Copyright maybe ? Toni Fabuloso here is a teensy weensy bit suspicious that someone in the Metropolitan Gubment media nexus may have had a hand in it... nothing of course to do with the fragrant, beautiful, sparkling, intelligent, ex Governor Lady Pauline Neville Jones and her Fan Club perchance ? (They were after all in town at their latest gig at the RUSI today )
Just look where they meet - right in the heart of Gubment, near where the spooks hang out.



Update Wednesday 28th 8.00am GMT

What is most remarkable is that Google News reports the story from Uruknet (very good point by point analysis) and Axis of Logic not a single media organisation has covered the story. There are two forums with heavy traffic here and here and Dutch Zapruder here .

One gets the numb feeling that this will just slip away and the BBC will say ... oh! that cock up - one of many that day, that chap Porter dealt with that....for God's sake let's move on... now what do you think of Hazel Blears as the next ....have you seen the Jictar figures for "Naked acrobatics by celebrities on ice" ? ,,, did yuo see what Mark Thompson has done to stop that crazy fucking idea about moving Sport to Manchester ....