Open Letter to BBC from the Board of Directors at 9/11truth.org

[StrictlyRockers]

Open Letter to BBC

To: Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC
From: The 911truth.org Board of Directors
Re: BBC World report of 4:57 pm EDT, 9/11/2001
Mr. Porter:

In light of the recent controversy regarding the BBC World report referenced above, which inaccurately reported that WTC 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it did, and the unfortunately inadequate response (see www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html) you have offered thus far to the controversy, we at 911truth.org must ask that you answer the following pertinent questions:

1. It appears very unlikely that your reporter in Manhattan, Jane Standley, would have been the original source for the story, since she would not have seen any 47-story building collapse on or before the time of her report. So who or what was the source of the claim Standley reported, that WTC 7 had collapsed?

2. According to BBC Head of News Richard Porter's statement,

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.
If this is true, please tell us what work was done by the BBC to confirm this specific claim?

3. If the BBC could not establish the veracity of the claim prior to air time, why was the claim taken to be authoritative?

Surely BBC World can understand that the best way to reduce ungrounded speculation in the case of inaccurate reporting about a controversial event is to answer openly and all questions pertinent to the inaccuracy. We certainly hope that BBC World is interested in clearing up this embarrassing matter, and await your timely reply.

The 911truth.org Board of Directors

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. Be sure to correct their "mis-spellings" when you get a reply n/t

[JackRiddler]

2. Text just passed spell-check...

Please specify spelling errors. Any such should be corrected. Thank you.

[Bryan Sacks]

4. I thought the same thing, but he means to trivialize the letter. Witty. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. I was referring to StrictlyRockers confusion over British English

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=144140&mesg_id=144631

Please re-read what I said.

[Bryan Sacks]

5. the condescension of the impotent

Much ado about nothing, right, Anarcho-Socialist?

These aren't important questions. Calling for accountability when the corporate media-constructed reality falters for a moment hardly matters. Makes much more sense to trivialize it, since embracing accountability means having to align myself with those nutter CTs.

I frankly find your position repugnant. Of course no one thinks that demanding an answer by itself will "do anything", beyond calling for what is decent and right. But it's in part a matter of self-respect. An answer should be supplied, and if an adequate one is not given in a timely fashion, it must be demanded. That's different than a completely impotent stance that "I know none of this matters without even looking into it further". Bullshit.

Have you seen this page? Notice how many "ordinary" Brits support the questions in the 911truth.org statement. They don't agree with you that this is trivial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

The establishment left ought to be embarrassed that it has not pressed for answers here. So WHAT if it turns out that nothing conspiractorial is afoot? When a major broadcasting company gets caught with its pants down, we must AT LEAST demand that due diligence be done and a full explanation be offered. Many seemingly ordinary Brits seem to care very much that the BBC do the right thing and reveal their sources. Why don't you?

It's what known as a teachable moment - a chance to show, once again, that what passes for standard operating procedure in the corporate media is an ugly corruption. That is certainly needed, every chance we get.

Or maybe you don't think so. Maybe I give you too much credit.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Who do you claim to speak for?

The British people? Rightly or wrongly, 9/11 inside job cultists are considered 'whack-a-doodle' by the left and right media here. It certainly does appear that British people on the whole hold the same position. There is no grass-roots 9/11 truthiness movement here.

I am very entertained by this whole 'BBC knew!!!111' business. If 9/11 Truthiness-seekers wish to chase leaves in the wind (as each new 'smoking gun!!111' is trotted out week-by-week) I reserve my intention to be amused by these happenings.

[JackRiddler]

8. So you speak for the British people, do you?

Funny how those remarks on the BBC page - most thoughtful, very few evincing wack-a-doodle mentality or grammar - say something else.

Have any representative opinion polls you might want to cite? I bet one-third of the British are 9/11 skeptics.

Oh, and you also speak for anarchists... and socialists. Right.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. I live here, so I do hold an appreciable understanding

of British culture, politics and society. 9/11 Truthiness does not appear on the political RADAR here. 9/11 truthiness conspiracism equates with "moon landing hoax" and FDR assassination theories in the public consciousness.

9/11 Truthiness is intrinsically about American exceptionalism. No one can't attack America without Americans being involved.

[Bryan Sacks]

12. Right church, wrong pew.

It is all about American Exceptionalism, indeed. But American Exceptionalism holds that the US only acts defensively in its projection of military power, and that while the US may be misguided or bumbling in its execution of this or that "military adventure", it is always undertaken with the best of intentions and on noble principles. That is abject bullshit, of course.

By extension, American Exceptionalism holds that the US would NEVER attack its own citizens, even if other countries would attack their own, because by definition that is not a noble or defensible act. Thus all discussion of the possibility of a 'false-flag' attack (or even the 'implicit welcome' of a foreign attack) is rendered out of bounds by the 'respectable' media.

[MervinFerd]

17. Honestly, 911 Truthiness isn't on the Radar on this of the pond side either.

Standing up for the Good Old USA here!

911 Truthiness is an annoyance and a distraction. Early after 911 the WooWoos contributed to the difficulties in getting legitimate criticism of the regime heard, but the Conspiracist Theories are now rejected by all organizations and publications of the Left (witness the location of the current discussion in "The Dungeon). Since the Great Truther Schism the movement is even more marginalized and ridiculous. If left unridiculed and undisputed it can fester into dangerous pustules--remember Timothy McVeigh--but at present it is not a part of the American political process.

The current BBC frenzy is driven by one Alex Jones, a Texas Right Wing Radio talk-show host. Jones manages to combine traditional American Paranoid Right conspiracy fantasies---fluoride in drinking water, World Government, New World Order, Masonic Order, vaccines, etc---with 911 Truthiness and some populist anti-elite rhetoric. He's obviously put together a following outside the traditional Far Right, Militia, Night Rider, KKK, John Birch Society population, but his bizarre theories limit his influence.

[Bryan Sacks]

10. what you say has nothing to do with the open letter, though.

The 'British People' spoke for themselves in the blog comments. Do I misconstrue the sentiment there? By my count it's running about 20-1 in favor of the view expressed in the 911T open letter.

I am affiliated with 911T, and I am no inside job cultist. The real inside job cultists hate 911T. We've been called "war criminals' by some of them - because we won't accept their unwavering vision of "the truth" about 9/11. But really, so what?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. blog replies aren't exactly indicative of wider opinion

9/11 Truthiness is at its most organised on the web and they reply in great number to anything they see as going against its position.

[Bryan Sacks]

14. Ok. But many respondents expressly indicated they are not 'truthers'

I don't say it's a scientific study of opinion, but the responses clearly show a broad, deep-seated concern about media accuracy and accountability.

[MervinFerd]

16. So, Bryan, what --IS-- your falsifiable hypothesis here?

Is there a point to this? Why, -exactly- is this important?

If, as you have agreed previously, the BBC is not part of The Conspiracy, what possible significance does this mistake have? ----Beyond the obvious, but rather minor, issue of journalistic accuracy.


Or, are you just pitching your tent with Alex Jones?

[MervinFerd]

18. You don't actually have one, do you? nt

[MervinFerd]

19. Nope. No hypothesis. Just Sinister Insinuation.

Insinuation, rumour, innuendo and nary a clear statement to be found.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. Read the other threads, Merv, where I've already answered what you ask

I've already said I don't think the BBC is "in" on anything sinister.

If you can't see the point on getting to the bottom of this rather bizarre situation, who cares? It's not for lack of my trying (or dozens of others on the BBC blog site trying) to explain it.

[MervinFerd]

21. Timothy McVeigh.

Yes, read the other threads.

How many of these posters would agree that: "I don't think the BBC is "in" on anything sinister"? Hmmmm?

Except for our intrepid crew of debunkers, the number is--one. That would be Bryan Sacks.

Journalistic integrity? Ha!! This frenzy is driven by Alex Jones and his Paranoid Right Wing fantasies. These are people who believe that a sinister, all-powerful, Secret Shadow Government dominates all things. For Jones and his fools, it is entirely reasonable that the BBC was reading from a script mailed from NWO headquarters.

Timothy McVeigh would be quite at home in this frenzy.

What are you doing here?

[Bryan Sacks]

22. Merv, you are something else n/t

[MervinFerd]

24. Very well, but you still haven't explained why you are tenting...

with Alex Jones on this issue.

[CJCRANE]

26. Why are you tenting with GW B*sh on this issue?

"Guilt by association". Nice tactic.

[MervinFerd]

28. Guilt by association? In this case, yes. It's a valid issue.

Let me explain.

This Truther Frenzy (c) is most certainly not about journalistic integrity. That's a ridiculous claim.

This frenzy is about the Right-wing paranoid fantasies of Alex Jones and his motley crew of WingNuts and Undergraduates.

And, in the midst of this frenzy, we have a nice fellow fanning the flames while claiming to be concerned only about journalistic integrity and pretending to be shocked (SHOCKED!) that there are any seriously unhinged individuals participating in this circus.

You stand in the middle of a shit-throwing mob, you don't wind up smelling like roses.

[CJCRANE]

31. Alex Jones is only one man. There are 1000's more asking about WTC7 n/t

[greyl]

33. How many people are in jail for white collar fraud, and

how many people were gullible enough to be suckered by them before they were caught?
How many Critical Thinking classes is the average high school student required to pass?

[CJCRANE]

34. You guys like to cover all bases.

If I agree with one man - then I'm just a fellow nutter.

If I'm in a group of 1000's then I'm just one of the ignorant mob.

[MervinFerd]

36. Alex Jones is a Right Wing demagogue selling lies and hate.

George Bush is -one- of the people he hates. At the moment.

Bush will be gone; the hate will find new targets.

[CJCRANE]

38. I am not connected to Alex Jones

and this story about the BBC did not originate from Alex Jones.

This story is all over the blogosphere (from trader's blogs to military blogs), Alex Jones doesn't own this story nor is he the prime mover in bringing it to people's attention.

So, stop with the obsession with Alex Jones.

[JackRiddler]

32. In this case, of course. You have no other tactic (except ad hom)...

And I'm tenting with Bryan, and I read many others - British people, even - responding to the BBC "we forgot we lost our archives" blog by clearly saying they don't think the BBC is "in on 9/11." This red herring is also essential to you, although almost no one in all these threads here is saying such a thing.

[MervinFerd]

35. If "the BBC is not 'in on 911'"; then, what -is- the point of this frenzy?

Is there another refutable hypothesis here?

Or are you and Brian "Just asking questions"?

You may be tenting with Bryan, but it is Alex Jones' BlueGrass festival.

[JackRiddler]

37. We're done.

[CJCRANE]

23. Nonsense.

Every "pro-truth" comment I've read on assorted blogs asks "who gave this information to the BBC?". That is the pertinnet question and you know it.

As for Timothy McVeigh - he was only the only terrorist to come out of Iraq (as a combat vet) to America. The whole "Saddam is the same as al-Qaeda" was another massive lie.

[MervinFerd]

25. Alex Jones is interested in Journalistic Integrity? Right.

Every post, very nearly, is convinced of PROOF (!!!) that the BBC was part of the vast conspiracy.

And, among those posters is the next Timothy McVeigh.

Depend upon it, sir.

[CJCRANE]

27. It's because of B*sh

that all these "crazy conspiracy theorists" predications about CIA torture, kidnapping, secret prisons etc etc have come true!

It's the B*sh regime that have created this nightmare environment.

[MervinFerd]

29. You confound "Conspiracy Theory" and "Conspiracy" again.

Think.

There is -no- coherent theory (plausible or wildly implausible) in which the conspirators would send the BBC advance notice that this building was about to be secretly demolished.

That makes zero sense, anyway you look at it.
It is SPHERICALLY IDIOTIC.

Bush is a nasty customer. He does nasty things. He does -not- do every nasty thing that every complete fool can dream up.

[CJCRANE]

30. Unfounded generalizations n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

3. n/t

[salvorhardin]

13. Question for you...

Are you one the 911truth.org Board of Directors? Did you write that letter? Or are you just pasting in stuff without attribution?

[JackRiddler]

15. It has an attribution: 911Truth.org Board of Directors...

Which refers to the individuals listed here as Steering Committee.
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20061014120445472#steering

People who are willing to put their name and self up for a cause.