The BBC Believes In 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
Wednesday, July 9, 2008

The BBC which just recently aired a hit piece on people asking questions about the events of 9/11, also posted an editorial by Mike Rudin on their web site attempting again to rationalize how they managed to report that WTC-7 had collapsed before the building actually fell. WTC-7 is the third building that collapsed on September 11th, 2001 at approximately 5:20 PM EST despite the fact that no plane crashed into the building. Amazingly, BBC reporter Jane Standley reported on the building’s collapse even though WTC-7 clearly stood in the New York City skyline while she gave her report. The editorial claims that the BBC received incorrect information from Reuters which lead them to report this news in advance of the collapse. Rudin doesn’t even question how this supposedly erroneous news report from Reuters managed to accurately predict a future event.

As a professional journalist, Rudin should know full well that this warrants further investigation. A statement Rudin quotes from Reuters has them citing a local news story as the original source of information but he doesn’t even bother to follow up and find the original source. According to Rudin, it is enough just to say that Reuters incorrectly reported the story even though this fails to answer a ton of questions. The bottom line is that there were news reports stating that WTC-7 had collapsed before the event took place meaning that the most likely explanation is that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. It is impossible to predict that a building is going to collapse before it does unless it is brought down intentionally.

(Article continues below)

Not only that, but the building came down in 6.5 seconds at close to the speed of gravity, had light fire damage prior to its collapse and there is no historical precedent for a building to collapse in its own footprint due to fire damage. Considering that it is impossible to load up a 47-story building with explosives in 7 to 8 hours for the purposes of demolition, explosives had to have been planted in advance indicating certain people had foreknowledge of what was going to happen on that day. Of course, the conspiracy theorists at the BBC are going to do everything in their power to make sure that all information they report fits in line with their 9/11 conspiracy theory that they blindly support.

What’s really interesting about this whole situation is that right when this news came out, the BBC claimed that they lost the video footage of Jane Standley’s report.

Here’s what Richard Porter from the BBC said about the missing tapes back in 2007.

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.

Amazingly a year later they have managed to find the tapes.

The following is taken from Rudin’s editorial talking about how they finally found them.

The mystery of the missing tapes didn’t last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They’d just been put back on the wrong shelf – 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

These people are a bunch of liars. How could Porter say that they didn’t have copies of the original material and a year later, Rudin makes an entirely different excuse saying that the tapes had been misplaced and put on the wrong shelf? Not only that but how does video footage of one of the most important events of the 21st century get misplaced on a shelf designated for 2002 rather than 2001?

The BBC has pretty much admitted that they were being dishonest about the whereabouts of these video tapes, so how can they be trusted to give an unbiased view on the events of 9/11? If they are not being dishonest, than they must be incompetent, take your pick.

Here’s what Rudin said about Reuters being the source of the information they used in Standley’s news report.

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

“On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen.”

Rudin doesn’t even think that it is worth following up on this to find the real source. What sort of journalist would stop there and not dig deeper? The most ridiculous thing about this is that Rudin proves what many have accused the BBC of doing which was reading off of a pre-packaged media script. He admits that the BBC retrieved this information from Reuters which gives validity to what many were saying about this news being planted in advance of the event.

This is just one aspect of the BBC engaging in an incredible amount of deception. As hard as this might be to believe, this is nothing compared to the insane amount of lies and deceit that is packaged in their new documentary “The Third Tower” that attempts to prove the insane conspiracy theory that WTC-7 was brought down due to fire damage. It is so incredibly biased and misleading that several articles if not a small book would be necessary to fully analyze the pathetic debunking attempts. Look for my complete analysis of the documentary shortly.

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

7 Responses to “The BBC Believes In 9/11 Conspiracy Theories”

1. Ralphio Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 7:15 am

   Hmm! I remember that night when we all ran round frantically trying to get hold of copies of that video, I wonder if Mr Rubin could point out why the video kept mysteriously disappearing from you tube & google video Did they loose them too ? R

2. mythicshadow Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am

   Here is the reason why Rudin didn’t check up on the original source of the supposedly erroneous report…HE’S NOT A JOURNALIST HE’S A P.R. REP FOR THE ROTHSCHILDS!!!!!!!!

3. Phishybongwaters Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am

   Lets recap…..

   First, BBC said it’s wasn’t a live feed, and the reporter was infront of a screen.

   Well, that was easily debunked

   Then they said they “lost the tapes” and had no backups
   Then they said they “misplaced” the tapes
   Now they say it was Reuters fault.

   See the pattern? Reminds me of another pattern:

   Saddam did 9/11
   Ok, no he didn’t, but he supported them
   Ok, no he didn’t, but he’s got nukes
   Ok, no he doesn’t but he has bio and chemical weapons
   Ok, no he doesn’t but he’s got small drones that can attack the US
   Ok, no he doesn’t, we’re there to liberate the people

   Same shit, different pile. This is how these liars work, just pile more lies on top of more lies, making them bigger and more exaggerated as they grow. Retractions? Never, doesn’t matter if it’s true or false, as long as it’s on the main stream news at least once, it’s job is done.

   BBC was complicit in the attacks, and played an active role doling out tidbits of the fairytale. They learned their lesson before 7/7, didn’t report that before it happened.

   So, we’re all crazy, but do me this 1 favor BBC. Please point me towards the clairvoyant working at Reuters that is able to accurately predict future events such as the first steel frame building in history to collapse due to fire, let alone collapse at recorded free fall speeds, into it’s own footprint.

   Here’s some simple logic about building 7. We know it was hit with debris, and small fires were present on a few floors. office fires can MAYBE get hot enough to degrade the steel, but it would take hours, leaving building 7 as the only building that “burned” long enough for this to actually happen.

   The problem is, it’s a perfectly symmetrical collapse, it kinks in the middle, falls straight down ignoring the laws of physics and conservation of momentum, and folds in on itself, barely damaging anything around it.

   Well folks, fires do NOT burn evenly. This means, wt7, if fire was the cause, should have buckled and collapsed unevenly, as fire burns and moves to a new location to consume more fuel. Fire simply couldn’t cause the collapse we all witnessed, even if you ignore the basic laws of physics and gravity, the fire simply can’t cause a symmetrical collapse like WTC7.

   but you won’t hear the BBC discussing THAT theory. No no, they reserve their airtime for the bogus theories none of us actually believe, but that’s the trick. It’s the same reason we’re being called anti-semites and neo-nazis. Ignore the discussion, assassinate the character of the speaker.

   As for the videos being removed from youtube, well, according to the note i got when i attempted to view one, it was taken down due to a dmca request by the copyright holder.

   that can only be the BBC. So if the bbc “lost the tapes” and was frantically trying to get source copies from other sources, why go on the offensive and try to make that video disappear? Are you that stupid to think you can “erase” it from the internet, and history?

4. Ken D. Webber Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   The title for this article is wrong. It should be “BBC knowingly supports Serial Killers” because we all know that what the media is doing is WILLINGLY supporting these scum and ARE these very same scum. They do it AND they know because no one can be that retarded about physics and fire temperatures and buildings “collapsing” into the path of MOST resistance! When do the crowds act? When do the nooses come out? We need those days now.

5. Jonno Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   Eric E. Schmidt became CEO of Google in August 2001 he also was an attendee of the Bilderberg meeting in Virginia 2007. Google owns youtube and Google video. So you can imagine being part of the club he’d allow removal of videos on youtube. Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch owns Myspace and the same applies to this. (They and also keep tabs on who’s posting them) The BBC is a state run organisation paid for by the people in the form of a TV Tax. BBC reports on the interests of the state this instance is blatant support of the real purpetrators of 9/11 and the supression of truth. They haven’t even given David Icke a second of air time in the Parliamentary elelction which is further evidence of their supression of truth.

6. 5 Dancing IsraelLIES Says:
   July 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

   Film librarian? I want to see proof this person exists, certainly she’s close-by, or was she mis-placed as well? He also says “One”…..doesn’t he mean “our”? If not, than that must mean you employ more than one film librarian? Keep up the lying, you criminal pigs.

   You filthy presstitutes are going to pay for your crimes, make no mistake.

7. Larry Wingo Says:
   February 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am

   What is a conspiracy?

   1. a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
   2. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
   3. a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

   Applying the above definition, ask yourself the following question:
   Was the attack on the World Trade Center, in 2001, a conspiracy?
   Because it was an illegal act and carried out in secrecy by some group of people, I’d say it fits the definition of a conspiracy and we should all agree that we are all thinking that it was a conspiracy

   Now, the only question is, Who did it?
   Did our government do it or did some guy in a cave do it?
   The evidence is clear, but all that evidence was removed swiftly by government
   Why would they do that?

   There are only two suspects, right? Government or a group of suspicious Muslim extremists

   Are there any other possibilities, other than the attack was either carried out by our own government or the buildings were wired with explosives and thalomite, including building #7 and NORAD stood down for a guy in a cave? No, there are no other conspiracies theorized to date

   Look at definition #2…………especially a political plot
   It seems that the dictionary is advising us to suspect government
   Maybe we should heed the advice

   We have a new president now and we need to open up this case and do a real investigation on it

   You should demand it and all of us should be talking about it, because we still don’t know how building #7 came down
   All we know is,
   1. No planes flew into Building #7
   2. Building #7 was loaded with incriminating documents about Enron and investigations of links between government and business
   3. It came down in the classic demolition style
   4. Larry Silverstein said he was advised to ‘pull it’, (demolish it with explosives)

   If it was a conspiracy, it was the sloppiest one since the JFK, broad daylight assassination and cover up by the FBI and CIA
   Where are all those videos, shot by people in the crowd and why did the FBI collect them and never release them to the public?

   Why did the FBI collect all the videos of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 and never release them to the public?

   Are we finally going to demand the release of this evidence?
   If some guy in a cave did it, why not release the evidence and let us see what the evidence tells us?
   Maybe the conspirators don’t want us to know the facts of this very important case

   Maybe it’s time to secede from the union and release the federal government, the FBI, the CIA and the IRS…………all in one fell swoop………because each one is another conspiracy to commit illegal acts

   Yes, we are all conspiracy theorists……..because there is clearly a conspiracy!

   Larry Wingo
   California, USA
   Phone + 1 760 843-9540