The Story of Richard Porter

Campaign: WT7.net

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 is head of news, BBC World

---

Replies

• explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then
  
  seriously what was that about
  
  it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists.
  
  Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate no a propoganda machine for the state.
  
  
• Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.
  
  

• Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee.

  SERVE THE PUBLIC !!!

• If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

• BBC have been BUSTED well & truely & this your lame attempt at trying to explain it?
  This is karma for the hit piece you done the other week & yes you are accomplices to this crime for the communist style propaganda piece you pulled! BBC has lost all credibility & MILLIONS know it :)
  Doubt your let this message through your "censorship" but know this BBC you have been exposed well & truely 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TELL THE TRUTH!

• I dont think anyone is accusing the bbc as part of this. Its whoever gave the report to the bbc. What wire service sent this out?

• 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."

  So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

  "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

  An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done.

  WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, don't you think?

  Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 *rolls eyes*

• So...

  1. You lost the tapes of one of the most important events in US history? REALLY? The citizens of the UK should all stop paying their TV tax as this is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It is probably NOT TRUE as American broadcasters keep ALL FOOTAGE in controlled vaults/rooms.

  2. You anchor CLEARLY states that WTC 7 has collapsED while it is still in the shot. It is repeated. She even says that it WAS 47 stories.

  3. Your point "5" is a joke... just a mistake like:
  
  A. losing the tapes.
  B. The reporter NOT USING qualifiers such as "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" as you imply above.
  C. The feed getting dropped.

  Shame on you.

• If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collape with your reporter telling the public it had already collaped.

• Sorry, I am not convinced by this blog. I fail to see how it is impartial and crucial to the issue at hand..claiming to loose your own footage over an event like this doesn't seem to fit.

  I am not labelling you as anything other than unconvincing as regards the comments you've posted here. Thank you for your time, sincerely William.

• If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

• Finally, I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

  Of course the lowly BBC would not be "let in" on such a plot. You were simply used as pawns... mouthpieces and the evidence of this is in the "lost footage".

• BBC BUSTED AGAIN HAHAHA :D

• "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

  How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say "well this is not original footage so it's not reliable!" How utterly unpredictable. The very fact that you claim not to have the archive footage (which I'm sure you're required to keep for various legal reasons) is enough to prove that in fact the British Brainwashing Corporation IS in fact part of a conspiracy.

  Incidentally, as much as you'd like people to think otherwise, "conspiracy" is not a dirty word. The government conspired to convince us there were WMD in Iraq - which as you know there weren't. Conspiracy is an integral part of politics, and nothing would happen without it.

  But you're obviously missing the point. If you had reported the building as having collapsed before it did so, it in fact DOES prove you were part of a conspiracy - for there is NO EARTHLY WAY anyone, not least the BBC, could have known that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been hit by nothing, and there was no significant damage. And yet you knew it was going to collapse, and even WHY it collapsed - before it even did!!! Sorry, but your quoting some naysayer from Youtube is as weak an explanation as it is possible to give.

  You are the weakest link. Goodbye!!

• I don't think anyone is trying to imply that the BBC is "in" on anything.

  It is remarkable, though, that the BBC believed a building was to collapse in an unprecedented way, and the idea that there was advance knowledge of the collapse doesn't fit well with the official story.

  The clips are all over the net, finding them should be easy for a news network.

• Pretty weak explanation Mr. Porter. Only 3 buildings in history have collapsed from "fire" (all on 9/11/01) and your reporter happened to predict one's collapse 15 minutes before it happened. And mysteriously her live feed was cut just before the actual collapse. It is as if you reported on the collapse of the World Trade Centers on 9/10/01. You are involved in the cover up Mr. Porter. ALso, maybe you could explain how she knew it would collapse when NIST still cant figure out how it happened. Your explanation is actually that she made a mistake? 3 buildings in history collapse like that and she makes a "mistake" predicting one right before it happens? I dont think so. The police (if they had the guts) would call that prior knowlege of a crime. If i went to the police and reported a crime before it happened i dont think they would take "oops it was a mistake" as an excuse. Not from me anyway. Maybe from you

• Still no comments, Richard? Still waiting for SOMEONE to write a hit piece supporting your view and "discrediting" the obvious - that the BBC cocked-up on 9/11 and reported on something that hadn't happened before it happened and before the BBC could have KNOWN it was going to happen!!!

• Mr Richard Porter, were you there to see what information was being passed onto reporters? I would like to respond to your five points.

  1. The BBC does not have to be part of the conspiracy to have been given advance information that had been released too soon in error.
  2. They didn’t use words like “apparently”, they flashed up the following message on the screen,
  “The 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
  That is pretty definite, and 20 minutes before it was brought down.
  3. Are you trying to say that after the pictures from New York started going all fuzzy (i.e. when someone realised that the building was still standing), that the reporter did not remember five minutes later a 47 storey building collapsing behind her?
  4. I believe you. You can view it here http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
  5. The BBC gets its second opinions from YouTube now, does it?

  Serious answers are required from the BBC, not another whitewash. People are waking up all over the place that 9/11 was an inside job, yet the BBC still insists on trying to discredit conspiracy “theorists” left, right and centre.

  When the whole world has woken up to the truth about 9/11, will the Beeb still be denying it?

• Ok what credibility do you have? In 4 and 5 you imply you don't have the video to judge and then you admit to reading the comments about it on youtube?

  I guess those technical difficulties were just coincidence too? Whatever, go back to sleep.

• so the footage has been lost ? how convenient !!

  how can you people call yourselves journalists.

  you make me sick

• Dear BBC World,

  Do you really expect the world to believe you when you say:

  "We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

  Your credibility has been utterly annihilated!

  Time to come clean folks...

• To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.

• "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

  Errrr clearly you did. The reporter said the building had collapsed 20 mins before it collapsed. What was it, a guess? A premonition?

  Please stop avoiding the question.

  Jane Standley has nothing to do with anything, she was told the building had collapsed so she repeated that. If you watch the video in question it is reported that the building has collapsed before the anchor goes to Jane Standley.

  So you cannot pass this off as her mistake.

  Now please explain to the people how the BBC knew the building was going to collapse.

• Hmm, you lost the footage. It was there yesterday.