In the aftermath of the release of footage of BBC and CNN news reports on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, Head of BBC World News has publicly responded to the apparently prophetic reports and offers a less than convincing explanation.

Part of the conspiracy?

Richard Porter
Head of BBC World News

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.
Such claims are all well and good, but they must be backed up by the evidence if they are to taken seriously.
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.
Fair enough. The fact that the BBC was simply reporting information that it had obtained is not the issue. The issue is the origin of the report about the demolition of WTC7 that the BBC received somehow in advance of the collapse itself.
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.
A classic bit of sidestepping the issue. It doesn't matter what Ms Standley remembers, we have the precise details on tape.
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.
It's the BBC's lucky day! The footage is all over the internet.
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... "
An "error"? Well, I beg to differ. This was no mere common or garden "error", this was an unadulterated precognitive error! After all, what are the chances that the BBC would 'erroneously' report that building 7 of the WTC complex had collapsed, even though it was visible, standing proudly in the background of the BBC report, yet just 20 minutes later the BBC's report comes true!

What are the chances of something like that happening when there was absolutely no logical reason for anyone to think that building 7 was about to collapse because no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and on that day there were only two small fires in WTC 7.

What are the chances?

Mr Porter needs to understand that this is not an 'error'. This was something much, much bigger. But what was it? Obviously the important question is: who provided the data to the CNN and BBC reporters that building 7 had already collapsed long before it did? To answer that question we need to revisit the essence of the 9/11 event.

As we detail in our book, 9/11: The Ultimate Truth, Israel was the main conspirator in the events of that day, with the current Bush administration in the role of facilitator. The most important point to understand is that Bush and Co. were the victims of a double-cross - on the morning of 9/11, they thought they knew the minute details of what was about to transpire, but they were in for an unpleasant shock. The Bush gang fully expected Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon, and they did not expect the twin towers to be demolished in such a spectacular and frankly unbelievable fashion. Israel, as the chief architect of 9/11, deliberately orchestrated the attacks in such a way that glaring holes would be left in the official "Osama did it" story, holes that would easily fuel "conspiracy theories" - holes that Israel knew it could use to threaten, intimidate and blackmail the Bush gang into submission.

And that is exactly what has happened since 9/11. The Bush government and the US military have been rendered little more than extensions of the psychopathic policy-making arm of the Zionist government of Israel. I am not however suggesting that, had this Zionist 'sword of Damocles' not been hanging over the head of the Bush government for the past 6 years, world peace would have by now broken out - far from it, but there is a particular recklessness that is unique to the Zionist mind that puts even the warmongers in the Bush government to shame.

So, back to today. It is more than a little strange that on the same day, not one but two pieces of archive news footage from the BBC and CNN were released that punch yet another large hole in the Bush government's official story of what happened on 9/11. Furthermore, the story seems to have gone mainstream with the head of BBC World News apparently feeling compelled to publicly offer a rather implausible explanation. Don't they usually just ignore these 'crazy conspiracy theories'? What, we wonder, is the point of this? Who is behind it, and why now?

You may have noticed that, among the threatening voices being raised towards Iran over the past year, there is one voice that stands out for it aggressiveness and persistence? I speak, of course, of Israel. The Zionist regime and its associated lobby groups in the US have been figuratively peeing their pants about the prospect of an attack on Iran. Like a psychopathic pimp, Israel has been struggling to conceal the destructive principle that underpins the Zionist ethos as it calls for immediate action to ramp up the war on terror and for the American prostitute in chief to get active in 'stopping Iran'. The Zionists are not content with 1 million dead in Iraq. They want more, much more, and as I have noted, are in a position to get what they want, at least in the short term.

It is from this perspective that today's anomalous release of the two pieces of 9/11 footage should be viewed. These videos represent a continuation of the Zionist blackmailing of the Bush government and the American people that began with the 9/11 attacks. As the dancing Israelis made clear after they were apprehended whooping and cheering the demolition of the twin towers: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

But for the Zionist final solution to the Palestinian question to be implemented, Iran must be dragged into the fray, and today the Bush government has been given a gentle reminder that Israel wants war with Iran, and Bush and Co have no choice but to deliver. In their arrogance and wishful thinking however, the Zionists may be overlooking the fact that, no one likes to be blackmailed, even an American psycho, and in the confusion of war, 'mistakes' are often made.