BBC RESPONDS (with arrogance) Send another complaint.

BBC World wrote:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an article published online.

The notion, as suggested on such websites, 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



Your response is ludicrous.

1. The "collapse" of the building in question exhibits 11 characteristics of controlled demolition. Not least of which, it ended up in its own footprint in a neat pile. Other collapses are not so neat and precise.

2. This is most certainly NOT the first time the BBC has heard about this matter. When the event occurred, right outside Jane Standley's window, they would have been alerted to this matter RIGHT THEN. So, your response is false and not to be believed.

3. Your "best information available" is what we are trying to discover. Where exactly did this information originate? Your tactics are designed to obfuscate and ignore this demand by viewers. We want an investigation into how that information arrived at BBC. That is not a difficult concept to comprehend.

4. "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."

This does NOT explain how your report can predict future events that have not occured yet. See #3 above.

5. Your on-air reporters trusted this information without qualifying that it was unreliable or preliminary (as they had done with many other reports that day). The anchor at one point says "Indeed it has [collapsed]." Thus confirming the report for viewers, falsely.

6. Google video had been pressured to remove this video clip on Monday this week -- as soon as it was posted there -- because of copyright. This leads directly back to BBC. This is evidence of the suppression of the information.

7. Your news director claims that BBC LOST THE TAPES, which would be very difficult considering BBC policy for keeping multiple copies in multiple locations. Are you still sticking with this story, or have the tapes suddenly been "found?"

8. When will a FULL INTERNAL INVESTIGATION be conducted by the BBC OMBUDSMAN?

9. It is the hysterical behavior of BBC employees that makes people suspicious. A line from Shakespeare seems relevant here: "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

This answer is unacceptable.

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 27 February 2007 22:34
To: BBC World
Subject: Comment from BBC World website

name: John Doraemi


country: United States of America

programme: BBC WORLD 9/11

comment: Dear BBC,

The head of your 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!

This might seem more plausible if the BBC hadn't been pressuring Google Video to remove the clip all day yesterday. 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.


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?

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'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 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.

If BBC employs an Ombudsman or Inspector General, please forward this matter to them immediately for a fair and honest look at what really happened, devoid of "the dog ate my videotape" excuses, and infantile sarcasm.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this

BBC complicit in the 9/11 operation

"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."

Come on BBC, who do you think you are fooling here? Someone at the BBC knew ahead of time that another building would be destroyed. The video proofs that fact. How did the BBC know that WTC 7 was going to come down?

BBC: Please tell the truth now, or get hurt by the truth. The damage that this video is going to do to the public perception of your (already) tainted journalistic integrity - when people realize what this video footage shows - is beyond your and my imagination. The BBC will go down into history as the public funded media corporation that was directly complicit in the 9/11 operation. Oh and yes, the sad irony of this media betrayal just days after your propaganda 'documentary' on the 9/11 attacks. Don't you see that you are only digging a hole for the whole media company with all of its hard working employees that were not part of these treasonous media crimes? Come clean now!

Was it that Jesuit trained director (more info), Mark Thompson, that got the BBC into this conspiracy crime? Perhaps a combination of that and your funding partners and MI5/6? Start bracing yourself for real investigative journalism, into the full depth of the BBC's complicity in the 9/11 false-flag operation.

ONE OF the public funded media corporations...

Don't forget PBS which brought us the NOVA documentary that introduced us to the pancake theory of buildings, and also America Rebuilds, the source of Silverstein's pull it confession.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Contact the BBC.

Contact the BBC. regarding this above issue. copy and paste if you must...

A very indignant response!

Keep the pressure on. They sound as if they feel as though they do not have to answer to anybody. Who do they think they are... Fox news!?!?

Someone within the BBC organization knows the truth. Someone needs to go on record with what happened. We need a whistle blower to come forward.

Meanwhile, CNN needs to issue a statement about who alerted them that the WTC was about to be "demolished" (control the language). So far, they have remained mute on the issue. We need to turn the heat up on CNN and Aaron Brown. What's he doing nowadays anyway?

Can somebody track down Aaron Brown?

Oh, the Mind-Bending Insanity!

"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."

Well that just begs the question: How the Fuck Did You Know It Was Going to Collapse In the First Place?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


I found him!

Phone: (480)965-0161
Title: Rhodes Chair
Department: Barrett Honors College
Building: Irish A
Affiliation: Visiting Faculty
Employed with: Arizona State Univeristy


On another note, here's the non-reply, reply I received from the BBC regarding their 9/11 hitpiece a few weeks ago. Funny thing is... I've forgotten all about that now!


Thank you for your e-mail regarding 9/11: The Conspiracy Files
broadcast on 18 February.

Since other people have also contacted us about this and raised further
points as well, it has been passed to this department for reply.

We are sorry that you felt that the programme did not answer your
particular concerns about 9/11. Mike Rudin, Series Producer, The Conspiracy
Files has written a blog which we hope will outline the difficulties in
producing a programme on such a controversial topic. It is located

We would like to make it clear that we must ensure that our replies to
everyone explain the BBC's position accurately and consistently, and
therefore if different people contact us with identical or very similar
points the BBC's response will naturally be the same in each case.

Nevertheless, thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC
with the strength of your views which have been registered and made
available to the programme makers.


BBC Information

You wrote:
{Date:} 22/02/2007
{Feedback Type:} Complaint

{Title:} Mr.
{First Name:} Chris
{Last Name:} Rose

{Programme Name:} 9/11 Conspiracy Files
{Transmission Date:}18 - 02 - 07

I believe the program 9/11 Conspiracy Files was factually inaccurrate
and blatantly biased.

For example, the theory that the WTC collapsed in a pancake fashion has
been proved to be scientifically impossible. Such a collapse would have
taken 45 seconds at least by the most conservative estimates. Plus, the
NIST organization has also refuted the pancake theory. This is but one
example of many inaccuracies, but this is perhaps the most glaring.
{Reply:} yes

I emailed Brown on this

I emailed Brown on this subject and will blog my letter and his reply if there is one.

New comment from Porter

found that in the comments on
(link below)

From: Richard Porter-news []
Sent: 01 March 2007 18:01
To: Steve
Subject: RE: A track record to be truly proud of, BBC


The policy for keeping tapes from BBC News channels is different - we are obliged to keep them for 90 days only and after that we only archive a portion of each day's ouptut. That's in line with Ofcom regulations. Quite obviously, though, we should have kept the 9/11 stuff for ever.

Reading some of the official reports after 9/11 today, it's clear there were many warnings and concerns about the state of the WTC7 building. But I guess that doesn't suit your theory.

By the way, exactly how do you suggest I've "refused to talk" until I'm "cornered"? If you work in the media, is that how you talk to colleagues?




My reply to Richard Porter:


Looking through the BBC media management policy document, it clearly states:

Intended Audience: Global. All areas of the BBC need to ensure they are archiving relevant material.

It also says:
1.2 Selection criteria for long-term archiving

· All scripted fiction (drama and comedy)

· All major documentaries

· Award-winning programmes

· Events where the BBC played a unique and distinctive role in broadcasting to the nation (e.g. wars, royal weddings, state funerals, major sports events etc).

· Content covering the following areas:

¨ Historical. Material of events (actuality) covering all subject areas, including politics, foreign affairs etc. Includes content generated by News.


4.1 What to archive

· All transmitted programmes, whether in-house or independent productions

· The longest version of each news item transmitted per day, plus a compilation of items from continuous services such as News 24.

(Emphasis mine...)

So hold on Richard, are you now saying that the BBC didn't LOSE the footage, but that you destroyed it??? That would seem quite a departure from your original story! For on your blog you quite clearly state that you "lost the footage" and that it was due to "cock-up rather than conspiracy". And yet, from the sections of the media management policy I have outlined above it would seem to suggest very clearly that news footage, especially important news footage, is archived along with everything else. And if THAT is the case it would suggest that multiple copies are stored at multiple locations. Meaning that the only way the footage could have been "lost" would have been if it was deliberately destroyed. If that is the case then there should be a record of the destruction, as the phrase "In all cases a record will be kept for ever which documents the disposal/destruction process." would seem to suggest. Therefore it would be appropriate if the BBC displayed this record of destruction on its website, so that the British TV Taxpayers can see that the BBC did, in fact, go out of its way to destroy footage which should have been kept. If you cannot display the record of destruction then you must still have the footage. Logic would seem to dictate that it can only be one or the other. If the footage was lost from one location, you can retrieve it from the archive at the other location, and restore the lost archive. If it has been destroyed, there has to be a record.

If there is a different media management policy which applies specifically to BBC News, could you please supply me with a link to it?

And originally you claimed that the BBC had lost its footage from BBC World News. I take it then that you still have the archive footage from BBC News 24? And if so, kindly inform the public of the location of this archive footage so that we can watch it ourselves.

Kind Regards...


And send in your complaints. We have to get AROUND Porter.

Also, how about a Digg for 9/11 Press For Truth?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Ask for their SOURCE!

That's the only crucially important thing.

WHO told them WTC 7 had collapsed?!?

Whoever told them was in on it for SURE.