Advance Warning - 9/11 was US Conspiracy

[Teddy Bear]

Get ready for what promises to be the BBC's attempt to show 9/11 as an American conspiracy, and not part of a Muslim terrorist strategy.

The BBC blurb on the upcoming programme can be found here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm and it initially appears that they will merely pouring scorn on this notion. However, reading their Editors Blog on the subject (posted below), I have a very different impression.

The acid test will of course be seeing the programme, but I'm willing to go on record now as saying the Beeb will do its best to exonerate the extremist Muslim culpability in this tragic act of war.

What's the bet?

9/11 questionsMike Rudin 14 Feb 07, 11:10 AM

Lots of questions have been raised about 9/11:

Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall so small and why was there so little damage to the outer wall?

Why does it look like there is no plane at the crash site in Pennsylvania where flight United 93 came down?

Why did a building called World Trade Centre Building 7 collapse even though it was never hit by an aircraft?

And why was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?

Through the internet and the media generally, allegations of complicity by the US government in the 9/11 attacks are intensifying.

We've just finished a new series called The Conspiracy Files which will start this Sunday on BBC Two at 9pm with a programme about 9/11.

We’ve talked to a number of the people who question the official version.

Dylan Avery, the 23-year-old film-maker behind the internet film Loose Change says the US government “will willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.”

Alex Jones, a Texan nationally syndicated radio talk show host, tells the programme “9/11 is an inside job… a false-flag terror operation.”

Jim Fetzer, former US marine and retired university professor, who helped found a coalition of academics called Scholars for 9/11 Truth repeats the Sherlock Holmes quotation “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

There has been an official fightback of sorts.

President Bush is on record imploring people to reject conspiracy theories: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th” which he said were “malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.”

The US State Department has a website to debunk conspiracy theories – not just about 9/11 but a whole range of stories circulating on the internet.

But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities.

Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Trying to prove or disprove these alternative theories is not easy.

Officials are loathe to engage, thinking that any response will only fan the flames of popular conspiracy theories, and yet no response seems to be worse still.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States investigating the allegations and talking to witnesses wherever possible.

Ultimately you can’t beat speaking to eyewitnesses, such as the local coroner at Shanksville, Wally Miller.

Wally Miller tells the programme how comments he made about the wreckage at Shanksville have been misquoted on the internet by people who do not “take the trouble to come here and ask me about it.”

Miller is quoted as saying, “I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there”; yet he also said it was perfectly clear that the manner of death was a plane crash, and the point he was trying to make was that it had become a large funeral service.

The Conspiracy Files also talked to Senator Bob Graham who co-chaired the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 which detailed the failure of the CIA and FBI to use intelligence it had received about Al Qaeda before the attacks.

Senator Graham told us there was a “collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.”

“Within 9/11 there are too many secrets” adding that “withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence’ in security”.

And crucially we may not have learned about that conspiracy without the questioning of every aspect of the official version.


Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files

[Teddy Bear]

A host of complaints about the proposed broadcast have already been received by the BBC even prior to airing. You can read them after the article here www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/911_questions.html

[steevo]

Hi Teddy, hope you've been well. Been going through some times, haven't come here often. Glad you're staying with it.

As you can imagine we have our nuts in the States. It doesn't matter what you tell them. Of course with the Beep, they know better, but America has to be evil if their own sordid left-wing agenda is to succeed.

Thought I'd leave you this link, its quite a read so... Its one of the most comprehensive undertakings debunking this ridiculous claim.

Thanks for posting the warning. Take good care... Steve

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[Teddy Bear]

Cheers Steevo, good to see you here matey - come back soon.
Thanks for the link below, though I have no doubt already who was behind 9/11.

I'm imagining how would the BBC lambast Fox if for example they produced a programme giving credence to 7/7 being a British conspiracy.

Little Green Footballs has also included this story in their blog, and in particular one very insidious comment that was allowed to remain on the BBC site, despite many complaints, though has now been finally removed. Clearly someone with an agenda and we all know who that would be. You can recognize a mile off, they always state spurious and absurd hypotheses as facts.

[Teddy Bear]

Something I just found out, it appears the BBC has also been part of a 9/11 conspiracy. Apparently reporting on the collapse of buildings before they did, and then 'mysteriously ' losing the tapes of the broadcast. Can you believe it? Worth reading the comments to this BBC editors blog as well.

Part of the conspiracy?

Richard Porter 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
< Previous Main Comments Post your comment
1. At 06:09 PM on 27 Feb 2007, gregor aitken wrote:
explain that tragic piece of journalism on sunday then

seriously what was that about

it was a joke an absolute joke, when you do progs like that about such a serious issue it leaves us to wonder that either you are in on it or just bad journalists.

Mr. Porter, put your house in order, the bbc is a public service and fourth estate no a propoganda machine for the state.

Complain about this post
2. At 06:13 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Tom wrote:
Sorry but this is nowhere near an acceptable explanation. I suggest you look into this further and provide us with a more detailed explanation of hoq this has happened to stop incriminating yourselves. What a pathetic response.

Complain about this post
3. At 06:22 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Nick Hatton wrote:
Sorry that doesn't wash, and I'm disgusted that you are publicly funded via a licence fee.

SERVE THE PUBLIC !!!

Complain about this post
4. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell the public who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you are looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

Complain about this post
5. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, justin wrote:
BBC have been BUSTED well & truely & this your lame attempt at trying to explain it?
This is karma for the hit piece you done the other week & yes you are accomplices to this crime for the communist style propaganda piece you pulled! BBC has lost all credibility & MILLIONS know it
Doubt your let this message through your "censorship" but know this BBC you have been exposed well & truely 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TELL THE TRUTH!


Complain about this post
6. At 06:25 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Eric wrote:
I dont think anyone is accusing the bbc as part of this. Its whoever gave the report to the bbc. What wire service sent this out?

Complain about this post
7. At 06:26 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Simon wrote:
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done.

WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 *rolls eyes*

Complain about this post
8. At 06:30 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve Emsley wrote:
So...

1. You lost the tapes of one of the most important events in US history? REALLY? The citizens of the UK should all stop paying their TV tax as this is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing I have ever heard. It is probably NOT TRUE as American broadcasters keep ALL FOOTAGE in controlled vaults/rooms.

2. You anchor CLEARLY states that WTC 7 has collapsED while it is still in the shot. It is repeated. She even says that it WAS 47 stories.

3. Your point "5" is a joke... just a mistake like:

A. losing the tapes.
B. The reporter NOT USING qualifiers such as "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" as you imply above.
C. The feed getting dropped.

Shame on you.

Complain about this post
9. At 06:32 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collape with your reporter telling the public it had already collaped.

Complain about this post
10. At 06:33 PM on 27 Feb 2007, William wrote:
Sorry, I am not convinced by this blog. I fail to see how it is impartial and crucial to the issue at hand..claiming to loose your own footage over an event like this doesn't seem to fit.

I am not labelling you as anything other than unconvincing as regards the comments you've posted here. Thank you for your time, sincerely William.

Complain about this post
11. At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Justin Ross wrote:
If there was no conspiracy on your part, then tell us who told BBC News that WTC7 fell down before it actually happened. The video you're looking for will show the building before collapse with your reporter telling the public it had already collapsed.

Complain about this post
12. At 06:34 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve Emsley wrote:
Finally, I do not think you were WILLINGLY part of a conspiracy... you were just fed information off a wire and repeated it.

Of course the lowly BBC would not be "let in" on such a plot. You were simply used as pawns... mouthpieces and the evidence of this is in the "lost footage".

Complain about this post
13. At 06:35 PM on 27 Feb 2007, justin wrote:
BBC BUSTED AGAIN HAHAHA


Complain about this post
14. At 06:38 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Laz wrote:
"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

How convenient!!! So of course when you DO get hold of the footage, you can say "well this is not original footage so it's not reliable!" How utterly unpredictable. The very fact that you claim not to have the archive footage (which I'm sure you're required to keep for various legal reasons) is enough to prove that in fact the British Brainwashing Corporation IS in fact part of a conspiracy.

Incidentally, as much as you'd like people to think otherwise, "conspiracy" is not a dirty word. The government conspired to convince us there were WMD in Iraq - which as you know there weren't. Conspiracy is an integral part of politics, and nothing would happen without it.

But you're obviously missing the point. If you had reported the building as having collapsed before it did so, it in fact DOES prove you were part of a conspiracy - for there is NO EARTHLY WAY anyone, not least the BBC, could have known that WTC7 was going to collapse. It had been hit by nothing, and there was no significant damage. And yet you knew it was going to collapse, and even WHY it collapsed - before it even did!!! Sorry, but your quoting some naysayer from Youtube is as weak an explanation as it is possible to give.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!!

Complain about this post
15. At 06:41 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Deep Fwoat wrote:
I don't think anyone is trying to imply that the BBC is "in" on anything.

It is remarkable, though, that the BBC believed a building was to collapse in an unprecedented way, and the idea that there was advance knowledge of the collapse doesn't fit well with the official story.

The clips are all over the net, finding them should be easy for a news network.

Complain about this post
16. At 06:42 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Tim Zeiders wrote:
Pretty weak explanation Mr. Porter. Only 3 buildings in history have collapsed from "fire" (all on 9/11/01) and your reporter happened to predict one's collapse 15 minutes before it happened. And mysteriously her live feed was cut just before the actual collapse. It is as if you reported on the collapse of the World Trade Centers on 9/10/01. You are involved in the cover up Mr. Porter. ALso, maybe you could explain how she knew it would collapse when NIST still cant figure out how it happened. Your explanation is actually that she made a mistake? 3 buildings in history collapse like that and she makes a "mistake" predicting one right before it happens? I dont think so. The police (if they had the guts) would call that prior knowlege of a crime. If i went to the police and reported a crime before it happened i dont think they would take "oops it was a mistake" as an excuse. Not from me anyway. Maybe from you

Complain about this post
17. At 06:43 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Laz wrote:
Still no comments, Richard? Still waiting for SOMEONE to write a hit piece supporting your view and "discrediting" the obvious - that the BBC cocked-up on 9/11 and reported on something that hadn't happened before it happened and before the BBC could have KNOWN it was going to happen!!!

Complain about this post
18. At 06:48 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Stewart Cowan wrote:
Mr Richard Porter, were you there to see what information was being passed onto reporters? I would like to respond to your five points.

1. The BBC does not have to be part of the conspiracy to have been given advance information that had been released too soon in error.
2. They didn’t use words like “apparently”, they flashed up the following message on the screen,
“The 47 story Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.”
That is pretty definite, and 20 minutes before it was brought down.
3. Are you trying to say that after the pictures from New York started going all fuzzy (i.e. when someone realised that the building was still standing), that the reporter did not remember five minutes later a 47 storey building collapsing behind her?
4. I believe you. You can view it here www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
5. The BBC gets its second opinions from YouTube now, does it?

Serious answers are required from the BBC, not another whitewash. People are waking up all over the place that 9/11 was an inside job, yet the BBC still insists on trying to discredit conspiracy “theorists” left, right and centre.

When the whole world has woken up to the truth about 9/11, will the Beeb still be denying it?


Complain about this post
19. At 06:59 PM on 27 Feb 2007, comeon wrote:
Ok what credibility do you have? In 4 and 5 you imply you don't have the video to judge and then you admit to reading the comments about it on youtube?

I guess those technical difficulties were just coincidence too? Whatever, go back to sleep.

Complain about this post
20. At 07:07 PM on 27 Feb 2007, tom wrote:
so the footage has been lost ? how convenient !!

how can you people call yourselves journalists.

you make me sick

Complain about this post
21. At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Michael wrote:
Dear BBC World,

Do you really expect the world to believe you when you say:

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."

Your credibility has been utterly annihilated!

Time to come clean folks...

Complain about this post
22. At 07:14 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Chris wrote:
To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so.

Complain about this post
23. At 07:18 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Steve wrote:
"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down."

Errrr clearly you did. The reporter said the building had collapsed 20 mins before it collapsed. What was it, a guess? A premonition?

Please stop avoiding the question.

Jane Standley has nothing to do with anything, she was told the building had collapsed so she repeated that. If you watch the video in question it is reported that the building has collapsed before the anchor goes to Jane Standley.

So you cannot pass this off as her mistake.

Now please explain to the people how the BBC knew the building was going to collapse.

[steevo]

It is absolute nutsville!... and a little scary at that as so many are screwed up. But serves the bastards right. Any cause that questions their motives as journalists can't be all bad. I do enjoy their matter-of-fact answers that of course, should be accepted, right?

[Teddy Bear]

I agree - it's good that they get a taste of their own medicine for a change. I'd like to see them getting a bellyful.

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC World head of news is having to spend quite a bit of time refuting compilicity in the 9/11 attacks. While I personally doubt they did in fact have any involvement directly with events causing this terrible carnage, as some are acccusing them, I would definitely agree that much of their pro-Islam bias has helped the enemy to bring about this deed.

However, considering that 9/11 is probably THE defining moment of this millenium, and perhaps the last 60 years, when you read the following report from one of the BBC editors trying to explain how it was the BBC reported the collapse of buildings in advance of their actual collapse, this defines the quality and integrity of the BBC for the following reasons;
1. Even while the very shot of one of the reporters reporting the collapse of the building, the very building was shown clearly still standing behind him.
2. That they subsequently 'lost' the BBC World tapes that showed this broadcast.
It depicts the very poor standards employed by the BBC, for all their money, and reporters working for them.

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

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC World head of news is having to spend quite a bit of time refuting complicity in the 9/11 attacks. While I personally doubt they did in fact have any involvement directly with events causing this terrible carnage, as some are acccusing them, I would definitely agree that much of their pro-Islam bias has helped the enemy to bring about this deed.

However, considering that 9/11 is probably THE defining moment of this millenium, and perhaps the last 60 years, when you read the following report trying to explain how it was the BBC reported the collapse of buildings in advance of their actual collapse, this defines the quality and integrity of the BBC for the following reasons;
1. Even while the very shot of one of the reporters reporting the collapse of the building, the very building was shown clearly still standing behind him.
2. That they subsequently 'lost' the BBC World tapes that showed this broadcast.
It depicts the very poor standards employed by the BBC, for all their money, with little gain for the number of reporters they employ.

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