Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BBC responds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
truthpowertruth Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 01:59 PM
Original message
BBC responds
Richard Porter
27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthpowertruth Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. My favorite parts:
1) Bye bye original tapes..just a "cock-up".

2) Source from "youtube commenter". LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
52. Exactly.
You have GOT to be kidding me with this response!

"We're not part of a conspiracy."

Why in the world would you say something as stupid as this to start off? Who accused you of being part of a conspiracy? Independent investigators are sticking to the facts, and we requested some kind clarification. This blanket denial of involvement in 9/11 is just lame.

This is like a parent asking, "Johnny, do you know why the house is flooded?" and the little kid saying, "I don't know anything about the broken faucet in the kitchen! I didn't leave the hammer under the sink!". Jeeze, I don't think the Beeb was "in on it", but could you guys possibly issue a denial that makes you seem less guilty? Ugh!

What ARE you hiding? It is totally irresponsible for the head of BBC World to misrepresent independent investigators' claims. He should be sacked. We will continue to focus on the evidence. They can keep issuing denials if they feel it is appropriate.

Next.

"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."

OMG! What a complete gem!! WTF??! We KNOW that they were told in advance that WTC 7 was going to fall down. So was CNN. To deny this is just plain ridiculous. If, say, the fire department thought that WTC 7 was going to collapse, or that the ceiling was going to fall, then they might very well release a public statement. Some of them may have talked to reporters and that information got back to the BBC.

The point is WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE TOLD IN ADVANCE. But the BBC doesn't make that claim. They claim that they have lost all their 9/11 tapes and that they never received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse ahead of time. Then how did they know to make the announcement over and over again that it had collapsed? Clearly it had not. Are they trying to get us to believe that the two reporters in the video just magically came up with this information on their own? WHAT??!

You lost the original tapes??! Ya rite, buddy!!

What a load of shite.

Lastly, their final defense to all of this is to quote "some guy on Youtube"???!!! Some anonymous poster on Youtube is their go-to guy for a defense regarding evidence of an insider conspiracy on 9/11? Who are these people and why do they think we will let them get away with this nonsense?

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. BBC is teh evil111
So who will the 9/11 Truthiness movement go after next? The Guardian?

How dare the BBC not believe in mini-nukes, space beam weapons, "dustification", controlled demolition, holographic planes and all that shite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The DU September 11th forum is 95% belly laughs
There other reasons of fascination, especially the concept of the "inside job" cult which has grown out of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. This one ranks with White Plastic Chairs for bewildering stupidity.
And, I hoped we would never see the like of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Actually
I think the white plastic chairs are smarter than some of our resident conspiroids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. "When you walk through a storm...
...hold your head up high, and don't be afraid of the paradigm" - Gerry and The Pacemakers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. ...
"Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows" - Lesley Gore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:59 PM
Original message
"If you are being run out of town...
...get in front of the crowd and make it look like a parade" - unknown
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
67. "If half the things ever said turned out to be a lie,
how will you know the truth?"

-Prince.

"Answer: Critical thinking and liberal doses of skepticism"

-greyl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yeah, but making fun of "dustification" was losing its sporting appeal.
Unfortunately, this one will die down in a couple days.

(I started to continue the "stupid as" lines, but thought better of it.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. But, you are amusing, nonetheless.
There are treatments for the queasy feeling.

See your physician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-04-07 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
87. I know! This response is a riot! I'm still waiting for the third try. Hilarious stuff so far!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
59. Who said anything about that stuff?
Is that what you believe in? You are ridiculous for trying to taint the movement by association with the wack job theories you are presenting here.

That is a lame, childish tactic.

But if you want to contribute something substantial, rather than only spouting off about your wacky ideas, the floor is all yours...

Let me guess, crazy is all you got.

Oh well.

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #59
65. You do realise...
...that there are supporters of those whack-job theories in this forum don't you? People who consider them to be "TRUTH!!11"

In fact it is most refreshing to know that you think they are whack-job theories too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #65
70. I do realise (sic) that.
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 03:15 AM by StrictlyRockers
I do realize how to spell realize, too.

Again, no one seems to be touting the wackenhut theories except the bonkers debunkers who try to play the guilt by association game.

Can we get back to the FACTS now PLEASE?

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. That's an ignorant American-centric attitude
Ever heard of Commonwealth English?

"no one seems to be touting the wackenhut theories except..."

Jeez, do you read the threads in this forum? There are plenty of CTers arguing for those kooky conspiracy theories. How are those for "facts"? I would conjecture that most regular "inside job" proponents who post here believe in at least one of those crazy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. HERE COMES.....................

What a joke
I guess if you tell a lie enough, it becomes the truth.
Get ready for this mantra to be played morning noon and night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. What an absolutely GLORIOUS response!!!!
This is truly brilliant.

File under "nothing to see here".

I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate

How about clairvoyant.

she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did

Someone send her the url for YouTube!

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

Bugger! A touch unlucky that.

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

Hmmm... ok.. whatever.

I love it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. If it's not an error, what is it?...
Really, give us a theory. Form an opinion. Make a statment.

Or are you just "asking questions".

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Come on, Sid. It's not an error. It is a FALSE REPORT.
They reported false information without checking it. An 'error' connotes a mistake made by the reporters. Calling it an 'error', which isn't wrong strictly speaking, obscures the particulars of the case and minimizes the gravity of the situation.

In this case, it is obvious that the reporter(s) never even bothered to check the facts, because anyone authoritative she checked with would have told her the building was still standing. So she/they did not care to check their facts. That makes them guilty of not doing their jobs. That's not an error, in the innocent sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I can buy that..
you can also call it irresponsible, shoddy journalism, unprofessional and incompetent.

But you can't call it intentional. The BBC (and CNN for that matter, Aaron Brown also reported building 7 "either has collapsed or is collapsing" well before the actual collapse) is not part of the imaginary conspiracy.

You might suggest they were duped by the conspirators, I'll continue to believe that in the effort to get it first, they didn't confirm, and they just got it wrong.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. "intentional" is the only issue here.
Otherwise, it is just a minor error in a day of confusion and horror.

The BBC made a mistake; hyping that mistake as of grave significance of -something- sinister is deeply dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Preach on, brutha...
you're preaching to the choir here.

:toast:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. Nope...
It was a fucking amazing piece of prescience!

But I guess OCTers are used to amazing stuff.

deeply dishonest.

Something is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. The Beeb got it wrong...
did they intentionally make a false report, or unintentionally make a false report.

Or did Marvin Bush tell report what they did?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. I don't believe it was intentional, but as you said,
the possibility remains they were duped. I simply want to know that they weren't. Shouldn't be difficult for them to prove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
77. Under even the most ridiculous CT, what possible reason would there be..
for duping the BBC into reporting an event 20 minutes early?

This is just another "anomaly", which means absolutely nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Bryan: And the implication of this ---IS---?
Are you buying the bug-fucking nuts crap about the BBC having a script? YES or NO.

It's a falsifiable assertion. YES or NO.

If NO, then what is your point?

This was a live report, labeled as live; there was NO CLAIM of fact checking. The subject building was -standing- in the background. It was a --mistake--. Threre is not further significance. Unless you are casting your lot with the bug-fucking nuts crowd.

Which is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. No script. Not an intentionally false report.
Re-read the BBC guy's explanation, Merv. He said:

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.


'Sourced our reports' and 'tried to check and double check' means either:

1. we checked and double-checked as always, and were confident (I'd say this is unlikely); or

2. Did not in this case check or double-check (in which case, I want to know: a] who was the source so authoritative that you did not feel a need to confirm it?

It does not appear the BBC didn't do anything sinister here, Merv. So calm your jets. But the BBC has an obligation to disclose the source of their false report. Who was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #42
76. Thanks for a falsifiable statement. Now, why are you aiding Alex Jones?
If "BBC didn't do anything sinister here", what --is-- the point of this frenzy?

Alex Jones and his associated "bug-fuckin' nuts" brigade certainly aren't in a lather about the journalistic integrity of the BBC. Jones is hyping a Right-Wing conspiracy theory in which "The Government" or "The Secret Shadow Government" or (in quite a few individuals) "The Jews" control absolutely everything and just about every employee of "The Government" or "The Media" was involved.

Sorry, but in the context of the frenzied nonsense about this error, even measured support of the story looks a ---whole lot--- like pandering t fools and bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. My theory is that it needs investigating alongside...
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 03:51 PM by The Lone Groover
...all the other stuff about WTC7.

You know... like the people who said the building was going to "blow up".

I also have a theory that it's potentially reverse reverse reverse reverse psychology and has been created by OCTers in some extreme bizarre mind game.

We are through the looking glass and have been for a very long time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Woot!
So in case your one goalpost isn't attainable where it is, you've got a Plan B location as default (OCT mind game)?

Get out of that looking glass! You don't know where it's been.

(please note proper use of apostrophe in the contraction of "it is")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Eh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. English: not your strong suit. Eh? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. I'm not a spelling facist if that's what you mean. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. And so it's investigated, and found that the BBC...
did indeed report that WTC7 collapsed before it really did. Now what?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. The Stock Market is down 500 points!! They -know- the jig is up!
It's all over. The Conspiracy is revealed. Bush will be impeached. Bin Laden will be exonerated and given the Congressional Medal of Freedom.

The Millenium will come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. That's not true.
(Careful - I have a black belt in stating the bleedin' obvious)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Bin Laden is long gone.
But al-Qaeda's financiers are sitting pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Then we move to the next step.
Which is find out why.

Simple really.

A bit like lots of questions about the OCT. You know like all those ones the Government ignored or didn't want to answer during the 9/11 Commission.

You remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. The "why" is staring you right in the face...
The Beeb fucked up and got it wrong. They reported without checking their facts, without looking out the window, without doing their homework. In the rush to report, they didn't verify.

What's the alternative?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Report what?
Who told them it HAD collapsed. Either they made it up or they were told in advance.

It seems some people on the ground knew it was going to "blow up".

Who was speading this shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Report that building 7 had collapsed...
and who knows who told them it had collapsed. Maybe it was Rupert from Hello Deli, who heard from his half-sister's best friend's brother.

You don't think there was any conflicting information or rumours floating around in the hours following the collapse of 1&2?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. "conflicting information or rumors floating "
A rumor that a 47 storey building had collapsed?

What?

Disingenuous?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. A rumour that there was an explosion at the Capitol Building?...
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 04:29 PM by SidDithers
I mean, that was also reported on the morning of September 11. Turned out to be just a tad incorrect.

Why aren't you touting that false report as evidence of the conspiracy? You're not engaging in, gasp, confirmation bias, are you?

Sid

Edit: Iraq? how did Iraq get in there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. What have false rumors got to do with this?
This isn't a false rumor, you don't have false rumors about the collapse of 47 storey buildings in an area where the worlds TV cameras are pointing.

Disingenuous?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Rumours sometimes get reported as fact...
both the BBC's report of the collapse of 7, and CNN's report of the explosion at the Capitol were false rumours that got reported.

Why are you reading more into one than the other?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Hence they could have used words such as "unconfirmed"
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 05:02 PM by CJCRANE
or "alleged". But the BBC stated point-blank that WTC7 had collapsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #48
79. They could have, and should have...
but didn't. Now, is that an error of omission, or proof of a conspiracy? I'll go with the simpler, and more likely, choice.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Either/or.
Debunkers always use that. Either it's this or that.

Have you read the BBC's official response? They did not state that it was an error of omission. They simply said it was a "mistake" with no further explanation. So the simplest explanation is that they received a press release and ran with it without checking the facts. Then the obvious question is who gave them the press release?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
57. Did a reporter actually report the Capitol had been bombed?
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 11:14 PM by Contrite
Whilst standing in front of it, unblemished? Followed 20 minutes later by a bombing of the Capitol?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
51. So the head of BBC World News is guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder?
Is that your accusation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. I think you are putting words in the poster's mouth.
In fact, I think you are putting words in a lot of posters' mouths.

All anyone seems to want, including me, is a plausible explanation of how in the world the BBC came to report that the WTC7 building had collapsed 20 minutes prior to the actual event. They say they "erred". That explains nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michael_1166 Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. The internet crowd only pointed the BBC
to a discrepancy between their reporting and a simple view out of the window, and the BBC responds with shouting "conspiracy!". Would it be a conspiracy too if the weather guy reports it's raining while the sun shines through the studio window? The weather guy would go check his sources, but the BBC responds with saying "we're victims of conspiracy theorists!". That's a new low for the BBC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. The issue is the implication. And you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michael_1166 Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Yes they're scared of the implication, that's
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 04:07 PM by michael_1166
why they chose the route of insulting the people who pointed them to their error.

Why are they scared? They just could say something like "Look, we got this info by fax/phone/whatever, but in the chaos of the day we didn't completely verify it and so we messed up. Sorry!" Instead they a) don't answer the question and b) insult parts of their audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
53. What is it that you gain by backing the MSM, or the official theory?
In reading the numerous threads here, it is apparent that it is necessary for you and a few others to staunchly refute any supposition that contradicts the official line. The information that is currently available to determine the true sequence of events is not accessible. With that in mind, I have just one question for you.

Seriously, what is the impetus to champion the Government's position?

Is it a need to be seen as more astute? Intelligent? Better equipped to eschew fallacies?

I ask because a closed mind is a dangerous thing, no matter which side you are arguing from. And the arguments I see, take on an authoritarian air that reeks of self-aggrandizement. Without comprehensive and unfettered information, we will continue to remain closeted to the real occurrences of Sept. 11th. This would be the greatest mistake of our lives. All the lies that we have been fed by this current mal-administration SHOULD warrant the utmost caution in accepting any theory or explanation proffered from the authorities.

So again I ask, why do you expend so much energy in defending the official position?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. The BBC are liars!!!!
Anyone who has followed the news in the UK this week already know it.

What they present to the British public is a sham.

They were caught this week transmitting a "live" program with phone-ins and it was in reality recorded the previous week.

They lie!

Have you got it yet?

MSM - Through the looking glass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocraticTruths Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. This is another thing that makes no sense.
Debunkers just go on and on no matter what anyone comes up with. I too thought this was tinfoil nonsense, but I looked into this a bit, and that is quite strange how the reporter said the building fell, yet there it still was.

But to me, this still isn't anything like the put options or how WTC7 appears to have been demolished in a controlled manner.

What is up with the career debunkers? All over the internet there are all these people who seem to spend quite a lot of time on forums and threads that they think are crazy. I could see them once in a while showing up for a peek and a comment, but it is outrageous how one can almost predict their arrival and what they are going to say. Why would anyone who thinks this is crazy stuff spend so much time posting on this and other topics??? I think it is up to the conspiracy theorists to debunk themselves. That is my philosophy. Debunking is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be quite good. However, most debunkers to me come across as paid robots. I'm not talking about the ones here because that is against the rules. Just talking about debunkers in general I have come across.

The put options, how the buildings fell, the Iraq War possibly shows motive for an inside job, all these debunkers, all the tinfoil by association strategy.... all this makes me tend to side with the ct's, the logical ones who dot i's and cross the t's.

I've also wondered about the woman from New Jersey who allegedly forged the drivers' licenses, and I don't understand what happened to the black boxes. One would think the put options would have been a way to get to the truth. Oh well, I guess I should be happy because the curse of the bambino ended.

Sometimes I wish I was a shallow wingnut or even some Democratic who would vote for Hillary over Kucinich. Paul Wellstone was a great man who made a lot of sense. That could be another ct that is true, but I won't hijack the thread anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. A most pertinent question...
Edited on Tue Feb-27-07 04:18 PM by The Lone Groover
What is up with the career debunkers? All over the internet there are all these people who seem to spend quite a lot of time on forums and threads that they think are crazy.

It really is.

They're busy today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocraticTruths Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Astroturfing
I was in the trenches at chemtrail forums. At the least, one has to admit that aircraft emissions are messing up our skies and accelerating the global warming. But what I also found quite interesting in addition to the chemtrail research and discussion was this dynamic of the psy-op. Companies like Netvocates are paid to post. I do not know who their clients are. I only use them as an example of the profession. It is now known by the lexicon astroturfing.

I do not know what the rules are here for discussing other forums, whether it can only be in general terms or whatnot.... I do not want to be banned. I believe in free speech. I now believe that all those chemtrail forums have been astroturfed.

I have already had two posters here seemingly averse to chemtrail discussions. I respect that.



I used to post a lot at HuffingtonPost when they first started. When they had the news stories and comments linked on the front page, that place was ripped apart by all different types of paid trollness. It's the gorilla in the room with internet forums. Astroturfing to me isn't mostly about selling products.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. Pretty darn revealing, I'd say.
Methinks they doth protest too much.

It is one of the most damning things about this whole mess...the extremem overreaction on the part of the bonkers debunkers contingent.

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
54. Damn. Wished I had read this prior to writing this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In any case. Yes. A most pertinent question. :thumbsup: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
49. mhatrw: Second thread on the BBC's response
Note the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmmlink Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
55. Well...that means it isn't a hoax...
Big screwup. If I was Larry (Silverstein), I'd sue the BBC for blowing my cover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-27-07 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
56. For some more "through the looking glass" news reporting


Check out the reporting from Oklahoma City on the day of the OKC bombing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim Howells Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
60. OK ... so lets see ...
They lost the tape.

The correspondent does not remember what happened.

They have not been able to view the tape (unlike the rest of us).

The correspondent merely "made a mistake" when she predicted in advance an event that had not yet occurred. Anyone who cannot accept this is a crazy conspiracy nut.

What a load of BS. What a disgrace.

Tim Howells
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Continue looking.
They lost the tape.


Irrelevant sinister insinuation. The BBC isn't contesting the authenticity of the copy posted on the internet. What incriminating evidence are you suggesting may be on the tape?
I'd presume that the tapes from 9/11 saw more use and transport than the vast majority of other tapes, thus more chance of losing them.

The correspondent does not remember what happened.


She isn't claiming total amnesia like you make it sound, and it's not surprising that she doesn't remember all of the exact details from her day. Can you recall every word you spoke that day? And again, she isn't disputing the digital copy of the video or the fact it makes it clear she made a mistake. Facts and rumors were coming in from all angles on a story like that, and there were many false reports that day.

They have not been able to view the tape (unlike the rest of us).


They aren't contesting the validity of the tape. They're assuming it's real, but coming out against the CT spin. They've been dealing a wave of ridiculousness since their 9/11 Conspiracy program last Sunday. Plus, I haven't seen the tape yet; I doubt I'm the only one.

The correspondent merely "made a mistake"...


Unless you're suggesting that all live broadcasts that day were devoid of vague reports and outright erroneous reports, you have no business questioning that a reporter made a mistake that day.


...when she predicted in advance an event that had not yet occurred.


Now that's a tortured use of hyperbole.
1. She didn't predict anything. She mistakenly reported it as if had already happened.
2.The fact that she reported that something had actually occurred while it was no more than many people making reasoned predictions that that something was going to occur isn't unexpected. Talk of WTC7's eventual collapse were broadcast in many places. The building had been burning for 7 hours. It's not magic.

Anyone who cannot accept this is a crazy conspiracy nut.


Where does it say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. We are talking about...
Unless you're suggesting that all live broadcasts that day were devoid of vague reports and outright erroneous reports,

...the collapse of a 47 storey building in an area that the world's cameras were looking at.

Where do you think she got the idea that it had collapsed?

Vague reports? Erroneous reports?

Humongous erroneous report?

Amazingly prescient report is more like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. Imagine a celebrity gets shot in the head backstage at the Oscars.
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 02:11 AM by greyl
Can't you see the probability that that simple fact would probably very quickly become rumors that so-and-so was shot and killed?

This BBC segment is like that story. It's not as though someone were shot in the foot and rumors began flying that they had been killed, the building had been burning for 7 hours and people on the scene as well as distant observers were talking about the possibility that it would collapse. The video shows plenty of smoke coming from the building, btw.

How does this episode fit into any kind of a conspiracy theory anyway?
The eagerness at which people from all angles of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement are gobbling up this morsel is both a sign of desperation, and an amazing example of the power of Confirmation Bias.

It really puts a button on the whole deal for me. Some have argued that the 9/11 Truth Movement shares no worldview, but this little experiment proves exactly otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
62. You are correct, Tim. It is a load of BS, a total disgrace indeed.
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 01:35 AM by StrictlyRockers
It is beyond embarrassing that there are still people who refuse to open their eyes to see this reality when it is right in front of them.

A total disgrace is a very accurate description of the situation with the debunkers and with the BBC's lack of any real explanation for the 23 minute early reporting.

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
64. BBC truthfulness is proved false.
BBC these days play fast and loose with truth. (They probably always have - but that's another story).

This week the BBC was found out broadcasting "live" programs with phone-ins that viewers had to pay for - that were in fact recorded a week before.

The BBC doesn't give a shit about truth or the British public.

The BBC tell lies!!!

FACT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. I haven't heard that story - have a link? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Are there any TRUE stories that you HAVE heard of:
I have yet to see evidence of ANY.

SR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
72. Link

Pudding War

The BBC has no integrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. My goodness
That truly is the smoking gun. Damn you, Eamonn Holmes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. Ah... the mockery ploy. That works.
The truth is AS that the BBC has no moral integrity and produces programs that sucker the public into handing over money.

It they can't be trusted in the small things why trust them on larger ones?

MSM - Through the looking glass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Suckers!
Edited on Wed Feb-28-07 07:45 AM by salvorhardin
The truth is AS that the BBC has no moral integrity and produces programs that sucker the public into handing over money.


You mean programs like The Power of Nightmares? Damn the Beeb, damn their cold bloody hearts to hell!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

Oh wait... And by the by, I thought the people of the UK supported the BBC (in a democratically approved fashion). The BBC is not suckering anyone into handing over their money. Unlike Alex Jones and Dylan Avery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. Oh yes they are.
It's big news in the UK.
Keep up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devon77 Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. Is google video charging now money? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. I don't know about Google...
...but the BBC have definitely been caught with their pants down.

Our MSM has no moral integrity anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
81. coincidence theorists in full effect with the ad homs..
just address trhe fucking OP without introducing dustification, blast rays, sasquatch, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. Coincidence "theorists"?
More like barnacles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
83. New introduction to the whole BBC shebang...
AN OVERVIEW OF WTC 7 HISTORY, COLLAPSE CONTROVERSY AND ALL ABOUT BBC VIDEO

"CLAIRVOYANT COLLAPSE"

& The BBC shows us
"How to Exacerbate Your Public Relations Crisis"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007022817315...

& NEW 3-MINUTE MINI-VIDEO COMPILATION OF KEY POINTS IN BBC SEGMENT

The collapse is noted again in the top-of-the-hour headlines, and Hayton gives a longer report at 5:10pm. <13:30 on the archive.org video> Significantly, the details are now revised, indicating Hayton has been given new information in the meantime: "Now more on the latest building collapse," he says. "You might have heard a few minutes ago I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has… It seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened in this morning's attacks." Thus Hayton is not only reporting on an event still 10 minutes into the future, but also accurately conveying how the authorities would explain that event, both then and for the next five years. He then introduces a live report from the network's New York correspondant, Jane Standley.

(...)

We presume the BBC was innocent and unwitting in presenting this report in advance of the actual event, believing the collapse had indeed already happened.

(...)

And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007022817315...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Groover Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Thanks JR - It just gets better and better...
...the BBC have a lot to answer.

But will the honest, fair and unbiased BBC do it?

Maybe they will address it in "Conspiracy Files - Final Cut".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 01st 2014, 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC