Friday, 2 March 2007

Hell, apparently ...

… hath no fury like a conspiracist scorned.

The series producer of The Conspiracy Files, Mike Rudin acknowledged in his BBC Editors’ blog on 22 February that “it had to happen”. And it has.

Sites hosting 9/11 conspiracy theories – like this one – must by now be threatening pornography’s premier position on the web, if the scale of the blogging around The Conspiracy Files’ 9/11 programme is anything to go by. They’ve even camped on David Cameron’s website.

Blogger Mark Belam – a former BBC IT specialist – neatly brings the story up to date -- in brief, the new twist in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that the BBC was in on it.

Evidence? A Jane Standley 2-way on BBC World – which didn’t ‘come to light’ until 26 February 2007 – in which, the conspiracists say, she and anchor Phillip Hayton announced that a building on the World Trade Centre site – the Salomon Brothers Building or WTC7 – had collapsed before it actually had.

Indeed, the conspiracists say, the Salomon Brothers building can be seen in the background, still standing as Jane Standley was reporting its collapse … and continued to stand for a further 23 minutes.

This, conspiracy sites like this one, say is a “smoking gun” – proof that 9/11 was a Bush administration inside job, planned and executed meticulously even down to the preparation of press-releases setting out the intended sequence of events. By pre-empting the collapse of WTC7, the conspiracists say, the BBC blew the gaffe, showing at the same time that it was part of the conspiracy.

Adding to the conspiracy theory is the fact that the BBC hasn’t kept time-coded tapes of World output on that day.

News 24 tapes, which do have a time code, have been kept and extracts have now been posted on YouTube. Therse show that the news of the Salomon Brothers building collapse was reported on News 24 at 1655 New York time – a full 12 minutes before BBC World reported the same event and 25 minutes before the actual collapse.

I have a hunch – no more than that – that this might be where BBC World got the story from.

Poor quality grabs and recordings of BBC World output for the period in question – between 1657 and 1720 New York Time – have been posted on YouTube (though in line with all good conspiracy theories, Google have been accused of pulling them … which just isn’t true as you can see here, here, here ... etc; over forty posts in all. Though presumably, today’s announcement of a new partnership between BBC World and YouTube is more grist to the conspiracists’ mill)

By the end of February, the BBC’s inside knowledge was accepted as fact both on conspiracy websites but also in the responses on the BBC Editors’ blog and as random posts on other blogging sites about journalism and the BBC.

Doubtless BBC World Head of News, Richard Porter, knew he was on a hiding for nothing when he set out – about as frankly and openly as it gets – what was really happening in the BBC World newsroom and bureaux on that day; 209 responses and rising.

Unfortunately, saying “we’re not part of a conspiracy” as Richard Porter does, is proof positive of the opposite in the eyes of any conspiracist.

Which puts me well and truly in the frame. I was responsible for special 9/11 programmes on that day (I was Editor of WATO and PM then) and if there was a conspiracy that the BBC was part of, they’d forgotten to tell me.

I was in Canary Wharf when the attacks happened/conspiracy got under way – maybe I had been told but got the wrong high buildings on the wrong continent – and was first alerted by ever more agitated voicemail messages from my deputy.

Bit of a serious oversight, don’t you think? If we were all working to a script, the first thing you’d make sure of was that a) the people who mattered knew what it was and b) they didn’t go off it – and as every broadcast journalist knows from the event coverage that we do rehearse, no amount of preparation prevents the actual day being what is known in the trade as a “kick-bollock scramble”. Technical term.

Things go wrong in newsrooms. Journalists make mistakes. It happens. We’re not proud of it – but journalism, on a day like 9/11 is a rough, blunt, messy trade. Rumour gets hardened into fact before it vanishes without trace. Live and continuous news shares its verification processes with its audience, live and on-screen. Reporting a rumour as fact - often taken from wire services who are 99.99% reliable or from eye-witnesses whose view and understanding of events was, it turns out, less than perfect - isn't ideal ... but it would be a fool who thought it could always be wholly avoided on a day like 9/11.

The alternative explanation – that someone told journalists the script in advance – is utterly risible. Leading a team of BBC journalists, any journalists, is – to use the cliché – an exercise in herding cats. Their personal and professional pride resides in their wilful, cussed, cantankerous determination to find ways of not doing what their editor wants. Of proving him/her wrong.

As an Editor, I’m always hugely disappointed if at least one person in the team doesn’t tell me to push off with my rubbish ideas. I wouldn’t want it any other way nor to work with any journalist who could be told what to say. I never have. It’s BBC journalism’s greatest strength and protection against the thought control that the conspiracists assume in any organisation they don’t understand.

But here’s another unexplained mystery the conspiracists should be having a go at.

If you look back at the footage of the News 24 live coverage of 9/11, round about 1403 UK time – 0903 New York time – you can see the second plane approaching the towers. It’s a clear steady, shot … though a distant one. And yet, the female studio anchor can be heard saying that the approaching aircraft is a rescue helicopter.

I’d always thought she’d just made a mistake – though mistaking an inbound Boeing 767 for a helicopter isn’t that easy – under the pressure of trying to keep both a live 2-way going and live commentary on the pictures coming in, while reading the wires, sorting scripts and taking studio directions from the gallery.

But now I realise that a shady operative from BBC Conspiracy Central had, in fact, accidentally handed her a script from the pile marked Second Hour instead of the one marked First Hour.

An easy mistake to make and the real smoking gun that has now blown open this conspiracy which, apparently, involved thousands of people worldwide … not one of whom, curiously, has swapped their story for the, doubtless, millions of pounds/dollars that would be on offer for it

2 comments:

Cognito said...

Discerning patterns is a fundamental part of human intelligence, from playing chess to solving crimes.
Few sensible people would suppose the BBC's gaffe on WTC7 indicates some kind of direct complicity. CNN reported the collapse even earlier. This is almost certainly where the BBC got the idea. How likely is it that TWO channels independently made the same extraordinary mistake? (It is an extraordinary, unprecedented mistake however you look at it - to report a building collapse before it happens - especially when you consider that WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane and before 9/11 no steel-framed tower ever collapsed as a result of anything other than an earthquake.)

The pattern - which persists to this day - the BBC uncritically and without independent corroboration regurgitate factually erroneous information about 9/11 by parroting American media reporting.

Why did anyone suppose WTC 7 was going to collapse? If you look at the news footage and testimony from the day, you discover there was no doubt the building was coming down.
It was evacuated and an area was cordoned off in anticipation.

Fire Captain Brenda Berkman: "We had cleared an enormous collapse zone"
Firefighters and police: "Bombs in the building, start clearing out."
"keep your eye on that building that thing's coming down"
"the whole thing's about to blow up"
"we are walking back as the building is about to blow up"
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage."
BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing."

The owner of WTC 7 (and leaseholder of 1 & 2) claimed insurance on the basis that it fell entirely as a result of fire. The 571 page 9/11 Commission report makes no mention of the collapse. The NIST report into WTC 7 almost 7 years after the event has still not seen the light of day. Just a few patterns around one of the numerous troubling aspects of 9/11.

Investigate 9/11 - don't be put off by mainstream media bluff. They will not connect the dots.

Yeshiva said...

You ramble on and on, and yet a picture says a thousand words. I'm sure this one was floating around out there for years, while no one thought anything of it. My Dad is a Vietnam Veteran, with two purple hearts and a silver star medal. I respect him very deeply, but this link below is as smoking gun as it gets my friend. I am an american who has watched his president dodge hundreds of reasonable questions for the last eight years. Those of us who know him, know that he is covering up something for someone. We have to live with that everyday. We are the greatest superpower in the world; and we are corrupted! I'd like to tell you off, but I'd prefer you watch this FULL version of that BBC press release on 9/11. The New World Order has done this and they are not at all finished.

SMOKING GUN HERE