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.

KEEP COMPLAINING:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/index.html#email

http://www.bbcworld.com/Pages/ContactUsDepartments.aspx