Part of the Conspiracy? (2)

Part of the conspiracy? (2) -

Richard Porter, 2 Mar 07, 04:43 PM

So how did the BBC report that Building 7 at the World Trade Centre had collapsed around half an hour before it did so? My earlier posting on the subject has attracted a lot of interest so we've been doing more investigating within the BBC to put together the sequence of events.

Five and a half years have passed so it's quite difficult to answer every outstanding question. But we do know quite a bit more than we did on Tuesday, as a result of checking the BBC archives and what other media were doing at the time. I've also read through some of the reports published after 9/11 to help put together the sequence of events.

Back to 11 September itself. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Other buildings were known to be damaged. Building 7 was on fire. But this was also a very confusing picture - remember we had started the day with reports that a light aircraft had struck the first tower, and at one stage there was talk of ten hijacked jets in the air. It's in the nature of rolling news that events unfold in front of you and confusion turns to clarity. It's important to remember that context when looking more closely at what happened between about 4.10pm (EDT) and 5.20pm when Building 7 finally collapsed.

CNN's chronology of events published at the time confirms they reported the building on fire and a clip from a CNN bulletin, widely available on the web, hears from a reporter at about 4.15pm EDT, 9.15pm in the UK, who says: "We're getting information that one of the other buildings... Building 7... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing... now we're told there is a fire there and that the building may collapse as well."

Other American networks were broadcasting similar reports at this time and the reports from FEMA and NIST both make it clear the building was on fire during the course of the day.

One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a "bulge" in the building and he was "pretty sure it was going to collapse". During this time, our staff were talking directly to the emergency services and monitoring local and national media… and there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse. Producers in London would have been monitoring the news agency wires - the Associated Press, Reuters, etc - and although we don't routinely keep an archive of agency reports, we're sure they would have been reporting the same as the local media.

At 4.27pm, a BBC reporter, Greg Barrow, who is in New York, appears on our radio news channel, BBC Radio Five Live, and says: "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He then responds to a follow-up question by saying "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed but the report we have is talking about Building 7."

At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World (according to the clips available on the web) presenter Phil Hayton says: "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon brothers building in NY right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed."

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.

At 5pm, News 24 repeated the news in its top-of-the-hour headlines sequence and then at about 5.10pm (again according to the clips on the web), Phil Hayton on BBC World says "More on the latest building collapse in NY - you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has... it seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

Some of the respondents to my earlier blog have suggested this must mean he had inside knowledge - that not only did he know the building had collapsed, he knew why.

Well in one sense that's true - for about an hour, it had been reported that the building was on fire and in danger of collapse. But he did qualify it by saying "it seems" and once again I think there's a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour.

Of course, with hindsight we now know that our live shot showed the building still standing in the background. But again I point to that confusing and chaotic situation on the ground - the CNN reporter who had talked about the building "either collapsed or is collapsing" also had it clearly in shot behind him, but he acknowledged he couldn't see very clearly from where he was standing. As we know, the building did collapse at 5.20pm, with the first pictures of that being broadcast on News 24 at about 5.35pm.

So that's what we know we reported. To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.

I've spent most of the week investigating this issue, but this is where we have to end the story. I know there are many out there who won't believe our version of events, or will raise further questions. But there was no conspiracy in the BBC's reporting of the events. Nobody told us what to say. There's no conspiracy involving missing tapes. There's no story here.

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

The BBC Has Never Been At War With Eurasia.

Eurasia has always been our ally.

Show "Fuck off Porter you lying piece of shit" by drunkhorse

That's interesting...

Does NIST have any other SW corner pics in the report? Do you have more pics to back this up? As far as I an tell the NIST damage is not visible on any videos...


that's the only pic NIST

that's the only pic NIST released... and interesting enough, that's the only picture that i could find that shows the SW corner... this article analyses another pic of WTC 7, yet shows he pic that i pointed out and only glances over it, yet this picture is the important one

Yea, one of these is definitely fake

and NIST have demonstrated their non-loyalty to the truth already.

That you got voted down was definitely a tragic example of herd mentality :-(

who the fuck gave me

who the fuck gave me negative points for my comment? wtf? [my first comment was at -4 at one point]

You need to read Jenny's

You need to read Jenny's blog about this--just click on my name, then my latest blogs.

Welcome to the "loudmouths at 911Blogger".

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

getting voted down is nothing to swear about

I did not vote down your comments but your repeated cursing is getting tiresome and I would guess it makes people more inclined to vote you down.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Yup, fake it is.


A simple question:

Can you confirm the time of these photos to prove that these photos were faked? In other words it could have been before the 2nd tower collapse.

There are other questions as well: can you prove this is a shot of the same part of the building?

You need more evidence to prove this claim.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Time of photos

Both photos show the sun on the west face of Building 7 - so they'll have been taken after the collapse of both towers.

Use your logic

the damage could not be done beforehand.

Only they were not from the Twin Towers collapse.

One of them is a fake. Sure.

We need more evidence

My point is relevant: can you prove that the photo wasn’t taken before the collapse of the second building? It looks like a pretty obvious explanation to me given the fact there is more damage in the NIST photo.

Can you explain the motive for faking a small amount of damage to a small part of the building? I mean if you are going to fake something at least make it look like the building is going to fall down.

We don’t have all of the photos of building 7. We need stronger evidence than this.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

1984 at last "In times of

1984 at last

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

Uh oh

What about this story? Eurasia declares Bush 'doubleplusungood'

I guess we'll have to call Winston Smith and have him scrub the Internets to make sure we can clear all this up!

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

#1 Most Viewed on YouTube

But move along... "there is no story here".

P.S., This is going to be bigger than Dick in the box!

And Youtube has censored the viewcount

frozen, for a LONGGG time @ 178,551 views, and so we can assume that it's recieved possibly twice that many, or more, and the liveleak one has recieved over 170,000 I think, so by the end of next week over a million people will have seen it. And everyone of course has an immediate and direct, or indirect, influence, on ten times as many, through family, friends, corworkers, acquaintances etc.

All in all, not a bad week for us, and a very bad one for the credibility of the BBC, particularly in the wake of their recent hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement's findings.

Why is it that these things ALWAYS seem to backfire on them..? Every time they step in and do an attack piece, they serve to dramatically expand the sphere of our movement in the order of millions, or even tens of millions of new converts.. ;-) I just can't WAIT for the release of LCFC in theaters, and there again the backlash in opposition to it, will only serve to further expand "the sphere" yet again.. [yawn] ;-)

Soon it will no longer even be possible for an objective and impartial independant investigation because by then the jury of public opinion, both in the USA, and globally, will have already rendered the verdict.

I do hope that some among us who are still in college become history professors, and write innumerable books on this chapter of modern history, which begins and ends with 9/11 as the first/last cause in the whole sick affair.

Nothing to see here, move along

Heaping lie upon arrogant lie. BBC reserves the right as they interpret it to selectively represent our common history. No one reprimanded over this , Jane still blissfully forgetful of the details of that day? Now I KNOW he is trying to bait us. However I think his smug confidence is unfounded.

Take it a step further

The BBC reserves the right to decide what is and isn't true, and how you should think about it. Any non-conformity will not be tolerated, such commentary will be banned forthwith, and ungroupthinkers will be immediately sent to joycamps.


Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

The 5 comment is disgusting!

If he can put this shit up, where's mine?


The main point is that WTC7 was a perfect controlled demolition.

See Danny Jowenko, the leading durch demolition expert commenting:

There is no doubt about it:
First the Eastern Penthouse fell 2 seconds before the rest. Then explosion lightnings traveled the building up- the middle cracks downwards, and then it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, absolute symmetrically on its own footprint. And the dust! To archieve such a beautiful demolition you have to blow up the inner core columns first.

There is just no way that this building fell due to fire or the damage from the WTC1,2 debris. No 6.6 seconds, not symmetrically, not in its own fottprints (more likely toppling-over if ever)

"There are bombs in the building-start clearing out."

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

And then the molten metal in the basement, see Fema Appendix C
, the high temperature sulfidation-oxydation, that no one had an easy explanation for, the NYT Glanz called it the "deepest mistery", and most likely the result of the use of Thermate, a highly incendiary explosive.

And then your foreknowledge, like Giuliani and the OEM before the Twin Towers fell.

And the media oblivion regarding WTC7. Heck, I have friends still denying a third building collapsed that day, they never heard of it.

No mention in the 911 Commission Report.

No result by NIST till today.

Don't we have every reason to be suspicious?

I'm split between whether

they published this to try and weasel out of real accountability, or just so they could get some "pro-official" conspiracy people in there to make the comments look better.

As of now, none of my comments on either of these BBC stories has been published, despite my brevity and politeness. Maybe I shouldn't have ended the last one with "May God have mercy on your souls."

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times:

Your's is on now

Good Job! Most on our side.

you are being way too polite to these people(Porter)

They don´t deserve being nice to.
the Murder of 3000+ does not call for anyone to be polite or nice.

Porter is just a paid mouth a soulless tosser.

A very long way of saying...

... "We screwed up, and we don't know the source of
the information about WTC 7 collapsing before it did."

Exactly, Alex. Throwing

Exactly, Alex. Throwing excessive verbiage at the problem gives the illusion that the question has been answered. If he loses his job over this, I'm sure NIST would love to have him. 

Part of my letter, which has also failed to appear:

As to this:

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.

Well, now, Mr. P., we get to the heart of the matter, although it is buried in your text.  Are you suggesting that this can't be tracked down and verified?  That neither you nor the on-camera readers can discover where the text that appeared on the teleprompters came from? You don't know which feeds you were receiving that day?  One would think an organization stocked with journalists could muster the intellectual curiosity and skill to get to the truthful bottom of this matter. 

And for heaven's sake, please stop using the tired, transparent straw man argument that either you or your organization have been accused of foreknowledge or a part in a 9/11 conspiracy.  A sentient human recognizes that you are using it to sidestep the larger, important mission: to discover who indeed fed the BBC this erroneous information, accompanied by a ready-made physical explanation which defies the experts to this day.  

There were other buildings in the WTC complex with greater fire and impact damage, but they were not reported as having entirely collapsed.  You are now asking people to believe in the "coincidence theory" of broadcast journalism, which is ironic considering the BBC's recent attempt to squash theorizing -- and London's own coincidence problems with the 7/7 bombings.   

The questions being put to you are not simply brushed away with a "fog of war" or "stuff happens" excuse.  Can't someone in this Gordeon knot known as 9/11 finally do the right thing?  Why can't it start with you?  You would be an overnight international hero the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. I'll swear to it.



"And for heaven's sake, please stop using the tired, transparent straw man argument that either you or your organization have been accused of foreknowledge or a part in a 9/11 conspiracy. A sentient human recognizes that you are using it to sidestep the larger, important mission: to discover who indeed fed the BBC this erroneous information, accompanied by a ready-made physical explanation which defies the experts to this day."

BINGO! To me, that approach by the BBC dude speaks volumes. Thanks for how you so eloquently stated it.

A better video of foreknowledge

(Please excuse this re-posting of a comment from the previous BBC clip discussion just as it petered out. I offer it again in case some find it still relevant.)

I agree this clip is a little gem, and as a way to draw more attention to the collapse of Building 7 may indeed prove useful. So by all means let's spread it around.

Having said that, how important is it in comparison to other evidence of complicity? This might get the movement some attention (although that's now coming anyway by other, more potent routes), but at the end of the day what are we left with? The BBC got it wrong. CNN was also confused. Firefighters had been told all day WTC7 was going to collapse.

What is it Chomsky likes to dismiss the debate with? "These people don't understand the nature of real evidence." This would be a case in point if people start insisting this proves government complicity. Hopefully we won't be that irresponsible as we rightly spread this interesting piece of the circumstantial puzzle around.

A far more potent piece of "real evidence" that could be effectively used in court to pry open the tin of worms is Rudy Giulliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission where he testifies (under oath, I believe---correct me if I'm wrong, because that's crucial) that they were warned the Towers were going to collapse, and dutifully abandoned their command post at a time the Commission says none of the fire chiefs thought there was any chance of collapse. Now that would be a video worth locating and spreading around.

Can anybody find the C-Span footage of Giulliani's testimony?

(Sorry if you already noticed this post and it's being repetitive. I just can't see how it amounts to much more than an attention-grabber for WTC7--which is certainly useful, but perhaps not worthy of distracting too much of our own attention.)

A good sign

Just to add that the good work people have been doing on this really has done us a favor as can be seen from Porter's response. Somebody upstairs certainly does seem worried by all this attention! Shows how far the movement has come.

Ya aint seen nuth'n yet!

If all goes as planned, throughout this summer and into the fall, there is going to be a veritable 9/11 truth FRENZY over the release of Loose Change, Final Cut, which I understand is to debut in over 70 UK theaters! Their 9/11 hit piece will then have served us as nothing more than free advertising, to prep the public and pave the way for that release! teeheehee ;-D

Once the Brits see LCFC in the theater, they're going to be shocked to discover the extent of BBC's deception in that hit piece of theirs.. which serendipituously, and synchronistically, seems to have kicked off this whole uproar. Note too how Google Video and Youtube were pulling all videos of this on Tuesday, and then, once again synchronistically, just today it is announced that a joint venture has been struck between Goolge Video, Youtube and the BBC!

The wonders never cease! ;-D

“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

Here I am watching the Daily Show rerun

from Monday the 26th, with Craig Newmark from "Craig's List," and they're talking about how easy it is just to create new sites when others like YouTube get bought out (and possibly censored).

Has anybody thought that if we can get some of the people who created YouTube (and are ostensibly rolling in cash) on board with the 9-11 truth movement, that we could counter any possible "censorship" that may eventually arise?

Just a thought. OTOH, they might be too busy "having their balls dipped in gold," as Jon Stewart said.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times :

I wonder

if Dylan Avery will re-edit LCFC to include the new BBc material?

I would think so, but if

I would think so, but if not, it'll make a good conversation stoker for the publicity tour, eh?

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Indeed it seems

Richard Porter distorts the semantics of what the anchor said:

Richard Porter wrote:

But he did qualify it by saying "it seems" and once again I think there's a danger of reading too much into what I believe was a presenter merely summarising what everyone had been saying during the previous hour.

No he didn't qualify the collapse itself, in fact he used the word 'indeed' about the collapse.
He used the word 'seems' about speculations over the 'reason' for the collapse.

Here is what the anchor Phil Hayton said:
" you might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has... it seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

Richard this is dishonesty on your part, and it clearly shows that you're not prepared to participate unbiased in this discussion.

It goes to the heart of the matter that the anchor did NOT qualify his statement that the building had already collapsed - he emphasized it!

Good analyzes, thanks!

Good analyzes, thanks!

Btw. if you wiki Phil Hayton you will learn he resigned early, allegedly also in protest of teaming up with new bitchy colleague. This man might be of reasonable stock - somebody should try to locate him and place a call..

Hayton's bio:


PS Hey Richard Porter, I know you will try to call him first you dodo..

Show "No story here" by haverman

Ya ya, "the planes hit, the bulidings fell"..[eyeroll]

I don't think it would have worked, bringing down those buildings the way they did, absent the plane strikes as the misdirection and fake causal connection, obviously done so as to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of their destruction not long thereafter. Heck even most of the reporters who were reporting the events live did not think for a moment that the plane strikes and fires were the actual cause of those buildings total near free fall destruction.

We're onto you regarding this particular spin. It's very crafty.

Show "No spin here, Sir." by haverman

It was a Psy-Op

they needed a new kind of shock and awe.

Bombs in Buildings? Lame. But smashing Boeings into the WTC and a total collapse afterwards was quite right for their plans.

More than Hollywood could imagine.

So your circumstancial denial leads to nothing. Everything is explainable with the Inside Job hypothesis.

The best for the motive:

We have an excellent political analysis on the perps:
Too bad Griffin forgot to mention the philosophy background, the "Noble Lie" concept, the "Big Lie" concept, the connections of all Neo-Cons to thinkers like Leo Strauß, Carl Schmitt, Niccoló Macciavelli, Platon.

Hey, Hollywood imagined the Lone Gunmen Pilot.

To quote Mr. Porter: "To me it paints a consistent (and reasonably conclusive) picture."

Oh, it does, indeed. Hollywood must have been clairvoyant through error. Nothing to see here, move along...

That was Capricorn One in reverse.

Follow the evidence and the facts

There is much more credible and certain evidence pointing to a controlled demolition. There is virtually no credible evidence supporting collapse based on fire from jet fuel. The fact is, no steel and concrete building has ever collapsed due to fire. Certainly not in a matter of a few hours.

Dubious personhood attributed anyway

“there was a fairly consistent picture being painted of Building 7 in danger of collapse”


Now who could possibly have figured that out from the small fires in Building 7?

Steel framed buildings DO NOT COLLAPSE from fire. And if this person (I had a real hard time restraining myself there) has seen the video of that building going down, and still refers to that event as a “collapse” then is he blind as well as daft.

The windows

I am curious about the windows of WTC 7.

When did the windows blow out? I remember reading some time ago that just before the building fell, there were explosions, etc. and that THAT is when the windows blew out.

This point is very important as I do not believe that any fire could be hot enough to damage a steel-frame throughout the building, but NOT blow out the windows.

This is also a big point with the collapses of Towers 1 & 2. It is easy to see in the videos of these buildings that the windows remain intact until the buildings begin falling.

To me, this is extremely strong evidence that the fires in the Towers could not possibly have been hot enough.

If the same is true for WTC 7, the same reasoning applies.

If anyone knows or has photos or quotes from eye-witnesses, please let me know.

Thanks, Alvin

Not to mention People seen waving

in the gash from the planes and other broken windows for some time after, could they withstand temperatures that can supposedly melt or or cause central steel columns to break?
It is significant that all these lies rely on the "inferno" hypothesis of apocalyptic fires suspending physics temporarily.

"There is no story here."

So am I supposed to shut my computer off and go watch tv? What is he trying to do... the Jedi mind trick???

Next I expect him to say ; "We must never tolerate these

outrageous conspiracy theories...."

... malicious lies that

... malicious lies that shift the blame away from the real terrorists" or something like that.
Well, Bush is absolutely right !
But the "WE" are we, aren't we ! ?


Listening to Bush speak about 911 or anything for that matter , you get the feeling that it's an inside joke because when he speaks of terrorists who hate our freedom he knows he is speaking about the Bush Administration. Remember his statements about terrorists placing bombs in towers?

Once you have this concept

Once you have this concept in mind, watching/reading/hearing the soulless NWO murderers becomes even creepier, because you actually see just how intentional they are about shoving your face in it. They do it precisely for the reason Clinton gave for his dalliance with Monica: because they can.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

I believe not because they truly can

but because they want to make us think they can. Mimicry. We'll show 'em how that pans out.

My post to the BBC:

Richard, are you not curious about the collapse of WTC 7?

Why would a 47 floor, steel-framed building collapse after a few hours of isolated fires? Why have NIST had to hypothesise about “possible” damage to interior columns on the south side? Why do NIST not publish any photographs of this “possible” damage? How could such asymmetrical damage result in the building collapsing symmetrically and at freefall speed? Why is there still no official explanation for the collapse?

There is video evidence of workman walking away from WTC 7 – immediately prior to the collapse – and saying that the building is “coming down soon” and about to “blow up.”

How could the collapse of this building be predicted so accurately?

Why are we shown images of the smoke on the south side of Building 7, but we are never shown the images of the fires raging in Buildings 5 & 6? These two buildings were across the street from WTC 7 and were very likely responsible for the vast majority of the smoke.

Why are we shown fires coming from just a few windows of WTC 7 and then told that the building was a raging inferno. The windows showing fires were only a very small percentage of the total.

Are you not curious, Richard?

Has anyone considered...

That wtc 7 may have not been part of the original plan, but a crime of opportunity... a sub-conspiracy if you will? Considering the nefarious occupants of building 7 it's likely the place was rigged to blow by design if for no other reason than to keep it from falling into 'enemy hands'. Perhaps someone thought that during the confusion it would be a perfect opportunity to take care of a few loose ends. Obviously in the aftermath both factions would work to keep that covered up because if one fishy aspect arises then people are going to start digging and likely find the rest.

Just speculating.

Anyway, I find this latest 'response' to be as ridiculous as the previous ones, the bbc seems to be digging itself deeper and deeper.

sounds interesting Mr.Fetzer

sounds interesting Mr.Fetzer ;-)

I've considered it

and consider it worthy of further consideration.

I find the "fall into enemy hands" scenario

to defy credibility. A building in NYC, or possibly NYC altogether, falling into...whose hands, exactly?

Also, I'm quite convinced that noone could have possibly rigged WTC7 within 7 hours minus the time it would have taken to respond to the event and get to work in the first place. And then proceed to do it without being spotted by any eyewitnesses. I say no way! As we know, people like Rockefeller were privy to the event in some way, and I believe the inbreds just had 7 serve as a giant upperclass dirty laundry disposal.

Compartmentalization in more ways than one.

What I find interesting about the proposition above is the idea that different groups may have been acting somewhat independently on the day, each with their own motives and goals -- some of them piggybacking their efforts onto the actions of others.

I think you could almost make an argument like that for the Pentagon, as well. Let's say two things were known in advance and there were groups with the means to take advantage of this foreknowledge. The two things were: planes will crash and buildings will come down (in reference to the Towers.) Then someone might have thought

a) well, this would be a good opportunity to be rid of Bldg 7 -- after all, if buildings are going to be collapsing that day, it will just fit in...


b) well, this would be a good opportunity to get rid of those accountants in their section of the Pentagon -- after all, if planes are going to be crashing that day...


but having multiple self-beneficial motives at play doesn't imply independent groups, only a larger group. Larry got his bonus for selling his soul, Rummy got his bonus for selling his soul - I don't think they refused anyone who had something of substance to contribute on top of his soul.

Do not forget the SEC and all the fraud case files...

Free Image Hosting at

Including Enron amongst many others...

To me, this was the main reason, along with what might have gone on in Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt - floor 23.

This was planned well in advance in my opinion.

interesting speculation

Actually, those speculations aren't bad, in my opinion.
Perhaps in the case of WTC 7 with its special occupants, the building was rigged for the purpose you say. The cover up could be for the usual reasons : to hide incompetence, ' national security ' ( NIST ) etc.
There has to be a reason 7 came down like it did, i.e. as the result of some intervention.
As for the BBC, I just can't see why everyone is shouting ' Aha caught you ". The same sources apparently led CNN to report the building down or coming down, much earlier. ( It must be the Conspiracy Files show, which I agree was awful and insulting. People must separate that from this thing though )
I also like your hypothesis because it counters the widely held belief that the collapse of 7 was ' the same ' as Towers 1 and 2 . Just LOOK ! These two came down totally differently from 7.

  As for the BBC, I just

  As for the BBC, I just can't see why everyone is shouting ' Aha caught you ".

 Well, let me help you out: it's not so much that the Beeb itself was in on it, as it is evidence the Beeb is getting fed info as you say from a common source.  That right there is proof the MSM is so compromised it isn't even bothering to check info with a phone call to NYC.  Now this source leads them to report a building has collapsed that hasn't.  It rolls right along the bottom of the screen, while we can see the building fine from the live feed. What the hell kind of new report-age is that?  Who was sacked after this phenomenal cock-up? 

As for your CNN reference, if true, two forewarnings do not make an absolution of suspicion;  if anything, suspicion is strengthened--the bastards were pulling this shite with everyone, making sure the same story would be told, but jumping the gun a bit. 

Now you do know that there are no leaders at 911Blogger, don't you?  And the negative points on this forum I've taken away from casseia and others will not be taken seriously, considering?   

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

This is what I posted... Hope it gets published.

Mr Porter, the reason why this whole fiasco is important is this:

The perpertrators of 9/11 Reichstag Fire had to build a "Public Myth", and convince the public that the building came down solely due to fire and not for any other reason.

They had to associate, in our minds, the planes crashing into the buildings with the buildings later collapsing.

In order to do this, they needed to push their explanations right from the beginning, into the mainstream media (includint the BCC) that the building came down due to structural failure and fire, and not for any other reason.

When this explanation is repeated time and again, especially in the moments very soon after the attack when people are mentally very 'open to suggestion', it becomes part of the accepted 'myth' and difficult to challenge. It is an accepted psychological technique.

That is why it is jarring to see videos of BBC reporters, amongst others, as soon as the buildings collapsed, try to explain (having obviously been briefed) how and why the buildings came down, referring in unnatural ways to structural failure, fire and design and so on.

We're not saying that the BBC or its reporters were in on the conspiracy, but we are saying that they were used and abused, like other media outlets, by those responsible in order to push an 'official narrative'.

That's what it's basically about. That and your dismissive and arrogant ad-hominem attacks, and your weak expanations (we lost the tapes, really gov!) are reasons why we are angry.

BTW: You should be interested to know the academic background of Philip Zelikow, the guy who was in charge of the 9/11 commission. His area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’ which he defines as ‘beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.’

Zelikow, in his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events (that) take on transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene….

See Wikipedia.

The "missing" BBC tapes.

I think an important point not mentioned is about the "missing" BBC video tapes.
Clearly anything that was broadcast is not lost, copies have been made by many people for various reasons. The tapes that would be of interest would be the raw feed from NY... especially the part immediately after the the signal to London is interrupted. A few minutes later the camera in NY would have captured the demolition of WTC7 from a very good angle. Details of the demolition that have not been revealed could be recorded on those tapes.
Those are the tapes that need to be subpoenaed.
Those are the tapes the BBC is hiding.


Here is an interesting tid bit of info

Which is suggestive, though not PROOF, that perhaps the BBC was indeed "in on it" (we can't let them use the term "conspiracy" to scare us off)

relayed from

In a related note which is of interest here, BBC World was (I’m reasonably sure) being run by a woman called Dame Pauline Neville-Jones in 2001. BBC World is also not funded by the British state, which many people won’t know, but is funded by corporate donations and other “sponsors.”

Anyhow, Dame Pauline once headed the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, a body which brings together the heads of the various British intelligence bodies with political leaders. She went from intelligence, to running the BBC World Service (radio) from which BBC World was spun off in 1995.

Since leaving the BBC World Service, she has taken up a role on the board of QinetiQ (a corporation spun off from the UK defense establishment, from the privatization of which the Carlyle Group recently made a killing). She is also on the advisory board of the Intelligence Summit – where she joins Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, Alrezi Jafarzadeh (the source of the U.S. “intelligence” on Iranian nuclear weapons programs).

I thought that might be of interest, but as for any broader implications, I have nothing to add.
A bit more on that:

(Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has quit the BBC board of governors a year early, after her links with defence firms supplying US forces in Iraq were exposed earlier this month.

Greg Dyke blamed Neville-Jones for helping to force him out as director-general following the Hutton Report. However, a spokeswoman for the BBC has denied that the departure of Neville-Jones is linked to her involvement with Qinetiq.

The calls for her to stand down came from backbench Labour MPs, including former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and Llew Smith.

Smith said: "It is completely inappropriate that someone so senior in the BBC should be leading a firm making huge profits from the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq.")
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth”
~ George W. Bush

another fraud

So now the BBC has clearly been outed as a corporate front just like Amy Goodman. I think that is the biggest barrier. A lot of people must think 9-11 denial is the only thing keeping us alive. If we admit it was a criminal element so well established among us that they own media, government and industry, then we admit we have been fools to allow it.

That's the eye-opening freshness of

Shows how damn few folks actually make decisions. Where the money goes, the trained masses go. Put a billion into and see how fast the world changes. But then would it be real change? Would the money corrupt even 911blogger?

Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK

Smoke coming from Building 6

The second photo shows that most of the smoke is not coming from Building 7, but from across the street; i.e. Building 6.

The smoke is hugging the south face of Building 7. There’s a breeze blowing south which catches the smoke as it drifts to the south-west corner – hence the west face is clear of smoke.

See following clip for fires in Buildings 5 & 6:

That appears valid

I don't know why people were voting it down? Of course he's referring to the corner of WTC7 on the far right.

Btw, the Winter Garden Atrium, in the foreground of the second photo, that was pummeled with steel beams half way across it's length, which means that outer steel perimeter framework was jetisoned up to 470 feet from the North Tower way across the street, which is about as far away as WTC7 I believe. If a dropping down pancake collapse is to be believed, then just how on earth did the steel beams fly that far from the building on such a trajectory..? Makes no sense, absent explosives.

(ignore "what caused these holes" beamer comment in the 2nd pic)

BBC on Archive up and running

Frede Farmand and Studie Generale

If anybody would have tapes of BBC World from 9/11 I would guess it would be Danish journalist Frede Farmand.He is running a secret organisation called "”Studie Generale"

For the last 35 years Frede Farmand has been taping tv and radio programs from Denmark and around the world tv channels. He has earned alot of money selling old recorded Danish tv programs back to the channels that originally broadcasted them,but no longer keep tapes of their own programs.Pretty smart guy...His archives are bigger than Danish national broadcastings.He's quite an eccentric..

He would be the man to contact.Actually, I am sorry I haven't mentioned him before,I just suddenly rembered him now.
"Frede Farmand is a freelance Danish journalist, researcher and broadcaster, most famous for putting his life at risk by infiltrating Danish neo-Nazis for a recent TV documentary"
Contact Frede Farmand:

911blogger should take contact to him regarding tapes from BBC and other broadcasting from 9/11 or any other date of interest.As I said, he would be the man to have them.And I think he might be sympathetic to our cause,since he's been giving speaches on who the real terrorist are..

I have contacted him pr email.Waiting for a reply.It could take some time,since he's always busy,involved in different cases,plus hiding from neo-nazis and the Tvind organisation..

Show "bbc IS THE FUCKING" by 911truthfamily

Time zones?

I thought it was shown elsewhere that BBC News 24 was in a different time zone than BBC World, ie that the former was 1 hour "behind" the latter. Is this so? What about the following, then? Please clarify.
At 4.53pm, on the same radio station, the programme's presenter, Fi Glover says "25 minutes ago we had reports from Greg Barrow that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago."

At 4.54pm, the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24, reports the same thing. Presenter Gavin Esler says: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed... it is the 47-storey Salomon Brothers building."

And then at 4.57pm on BBC World...

Collapse / no collapse

They always frame the discussion over whether the building could have collapsed or not -- as if it *could* have collapsed in under 7 seconds, which is about the time within which an object dropped from its roof would have reached the ground when falling through *air*!

If the building just "collapsed", the steel support structures provides virtually *zero* resistance to the collapse. They behaved just like... air.

Don't these BBC folks have *any* problem with that?

This one is a very good

This one is a very good comment over there. Sorry, I couldn't resist copying it here for everyone to share.

* 35.
* At 09:11 PM on 02 Mar 2007,
* Ennealogic wrote:

Hello Mr. Porter,

You're a good bloke to give it another go here.

There's a few things I notice in all the damage control blather. I hope you don't mind if mention some of it.

1. You keep denying the BBC is part of the conspiracy. I'm happy you realize there was a conspiracy in play on 9-11-2001. If I were you, though, I'd stop shouting quite so loudly that you weren't part of it. Nobody was thinking that before. They might start, though, if you keep protesting so much!

2. You spend a good bit of time in this second blog to prove that folks other than the BBC had foreknowledge of WTC7's collapse. We knew that already! The recently unearthed BBC video just cements the knowledge. It's irrefutable evidence. So, you don't have to present hearsay evidence to convince us. What you could do, though, is help us source the information. Yes, other news agencies besides yours got the "memo" too. And yes, we will ask them too, about where they got it. My guess is we'll continue to ask you, too, until you tell us.

3. As for your comments about BBC policy regarding saving output... last blog you said you had "cocked-up" and lost the footage. Now you are saying you never kept it anyway because you didn't have to and anyway there were lots of other bits of footage still about you could look at. So, uhm, which is it? A cock-up? Or a normal discarding of redundant footage?

4. I do appreciate the time you've taken over these last few days to investigate whatever it is you've investigated. It's certainly better to have some sort of response instead of none whatsoever. But I take issue with your last sentence, "There's no story here." The events of 9-11-2001, taken in bits or as a whole, comprise the biggest story in my lifetime so far, and that's more than half a century. You may determine you will say no more, but good sir, you are not the decider when it comes to determining whether or not there is a story here.

I have one final question. How does it make you feel to know that your fine organization was just another tool in creating the official public myth about 9-11? I don't know, sir, but if it were me, I think I'd be mad as hell.

Isn't it telling...

...when the BBC "allows" 209 comments on Porter's first blog on this issue and then only allows 47 comments on his followup?

My comment was silly, as I didn't even expect it to go through after an earlier failure (suspicious malicious comment control?). It's being held for review. haha

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

What's nice to see

in this and apologia number one, is the number of people commenting who've done the research.

And every day, thanks in no small part to the BBC, more numbers are joining our ranks, providing ever more "reinforcements" so that I can, at long last, sleep again at night, well, starting tomorrow night as it's now 4:30am EST (I think?).