At the end of Mr. Porter's comment there is an invitation to respond, which I accepted. However, instead of posting my comment, the BBC responded to my response with the following notice {my comments in response to their notice are in curly brackets}:

Problems with comments

* Host
* 18 May 06, 12:51 PM

{Note that this message was actually delivered at around 2030 h PST on February 28, 2007, not on the date or at the time indicated above.}

At the minute, we've got a bit of a problem with comments not appearing promptly.

The number of comments you see after each post (and on the right hand side of the main blog page) is the number of comments that should be on each post. But we have some technical problems which slows this process...

{Actually, I saw no numbers, but it doesn't seem as though they meant a whole heck of a lot. Or not so as you could tell from their explanation, anyhow.}

Here's why it happens.. (you may have seen this explanation before, on Nick Robinson's blog..)

{Who the Dickens is Nick Robinson?}

"The difference is due to the way that the content of the blogs is published. Without going into too much heavy detail, when a blog is updated, certain bits of it are rebuilt and certain bits are automatically changed. These rebuilt sections are then transferred across multiple servers. Sometimes due to the heavy load on bbc.co.uk some of the bits find themselves stuck in a queue waiting to be published. The rebuilt bits can take longer to arrive than the others... and so there is sometimes a disparity between number of comments 'totals' and actual published numbers."

{Phew. Glad they didn't go into heavy detail.}

We are looking into a solution.

{That's great, but just in case the BBC loses my astute comment before they find the solution that they're "looking into," or "certain bits" of it (my comment that is) are "automatically changed" while transferrring "rebuilt sections across multiple servers", causing a "disparity" between what I said and what the BBC might eventually publish, here's what I said, which is pretty much what I've said before. But it seems to make a good point}:

The problem for the BBC is this. It cannot explain how it announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 in advance of the event without admitting that that the collapse was known in advance. But the collapse could only have been known in advance if it was the result of human intervention: that is, if it was a controlled demolition.

In fact, we know it was a controlled demolition because the building's lease owner, Larry Silverstein, bizarrely stated as much in the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America."

However, until this point, the fact that it was a controlled demolition has not entered the 9/11 story as recounted by the mass media. Having blundered by pre-announcing the demolition, the BBC in effect demolished the official 9/11 account. But it did so, only for those few people whose attention has been drawn to the BBC blunder by a thousand or so blogs.

So how does the BBC respond. With some fatuous comments on a blog site. In this way, the story remains out of the mass media and will likely so remain. And if you doubt it, search Google News for WTC7 +BBC and see how many mainstream news sites have covered the story (to date, 2030 h PST, February 28, none).

And this is a most significant fact. Many 9/11 "conspiracy theory debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.

But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will simply not mention the subject.

So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.

POSTCRIPT

So even though Mr. Porter admits to a BBC "cock-up" (weird the expressions the British use), he's actually handled the situation quite deftly. The BBC admitted it "cocked-up" (if one can verbify a cock-up), but it won't go public with the story, as in an announcement on a major news broadcast. And so, the truth, although known, will not be widely known. For whether it is "catapaulting the propaganda" or simply informing the public, it's the mass media that still does the heavy lifting. Yep, it isn't for nothing that Mr. Porter is Head of News at BBC World.

9/11 News the Corpo Media Won't Cover
Search Google News for "WTC7 +BBC" this morning (1000 h PST) and you get one hit: see next item but one. Search blogs for the same terms and you get 1,186 hits. And that does not cover hundreds maybe thousands of other news-following web sites (such as this one) that also covered the BBC's psychic advance announcement of the demolition of the World Trade Center Tower 7.

What's with the corpo. media? Are all their employees castrated as a condition of employment, or what?

In any case, this is the real smoking gun. If there was an easy way to dismiss the evidence that the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 more than 20 minutes before it actually fell, you can be sure that The Globe and Mail, the National Putz, the Guruniard, Murdoch's Times, WaPo, the NYT, the Jerusalem Post and all the other rubbish papers that people so strangely pay good money to read, would obviously have dismissed it.

But the story cannot be dismissed, at least not on the basis of the truth, without admitting what is known on other grounds to be the case: namely, that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which many people, not just one reporter at the BBC, were informed about before the event. And if that is admitted, then it is clear that for five years the U.S. Government has been lying about WTC7, for the obvious reason that, if it is admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it makes controlled demolition a more plausible, indeed the most probable, explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

The failure of the corpo. media to touch this story, no, let us say the determination of the corpo. media not to touch this story, is enormously revealing for another reason.

Many conspiracy theory "debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.

But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will simply not mention the subject.

So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.

Which leaves a fascinating question to resolve. How are the media controlled? How do they exercise such discipline?

A free subscription to the Canadian Spectator for the fist correct answer. Send your answer, together with a $10.00 contest entry fee too ...

U.K. More on the British Broadcorping Castration 9/11 Coverage
Time stamp Confirms BBC reported WTC 7 collapse 26 minutes before it actually happened. ...
Prison Planet

Other amazing instances of precognition about WTC7
It has now been discovered that BBC 24 also reported the Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. ...
Jones Report

Actually, this isn't so amazing. Larry Silverstein, lease owner of the Trade Towers and Building 7, admitted during the PBS special "Rebuilding America" that they decided to "pull" Buidling 7: "and then we watched the building come down." So of course the collapse of the building was known in advance.

The only problem for the U.S. government is that it has been lying about the collapse of Building 7 for five years. And if it admits now that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demo, then the main argument against controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2, namely that there was no way the buldings could have been prepped for demolition in advance of 9/11 without anyone knowing about it, collapses like the towers themselves.

BBC: The Bizarro Broadcasting Corporation
Ooooh I can't wait until the poor bastard tasked with moderating the backlog of comments on this blog post gets into work tomorrow.

That's the post where the head of BBC World News tries to explain how his channel seems to have been able to report WTC7's collapse twenty minutes before it actually happened.

I say seems because he has been unable to confirm that is what happened, as the BBC has lost its own archive footage of the broadcast.

So, consequently, in a post that seems to come straight out of Bizarro World, we have the head of a major news unit within the Mighty BBC admitting that he had to watch coverage from his own channel on You Tube of all things.
Stef

There are days, surely, in the life of every blogger when they wonder why on earth they bother. Then something weird or wonderful that the mainstream dare not touch flashes around the Internet and brings delight to every heart. The meltdown of the BBC's reputation as a serious news agency has just made for one such truly joyous occasion.

9/11 Precognition: Part II
The Amazing Foresight of Jerome Hauer
On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax. .... "
Winter Patriot

Accidental precognition at the BBC
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.... "
Richard Porter of the BBC



Another advance annoucement of the fall of WTC7
Over an hour before the WTC 7 demolition at 4:10pm, Aaron Brown reports - "building 7, in the wtc complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing."
YouTube



BBC 9/11 Rebuttal Rebutted
How the BBC faked audio clips, provided fascinating details about Dylan Avery's laptop, gave a guided tour of Jim Fetzer's basement, and failed to explain how they knew WTC7 was coming down twenty minutes before it happened (see next item), and in general failed to deal with anything remotely relevant to the case for an inside job.
video.google.de/

Sere gute. The Germans really do understand bullshit better than most people. But then they have more experience of its disastrous consequences.

BBC Reported WTC7 Collapse 20 Minutes early
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. ...
Prison Planet

There's actually nothing specially amazing about the BBC having advance knowledge of the collapse of WTC7. Larry Silverstein, the leasehold owner, announced on the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America" that WT7 was "pulled". So obviously there were people who knew in advance that the building was coming down. The BBC just mistook the plan to pull the building with the actual event.

However, what this BBC balls-up will help do is focus the public mind on the fact that if WT7 was already wired for demolition on 9/11, there can no longer be any doubt that WTC1 and 2 could have been wired too. As, in fact, they must have been for how else could human bone fragments have been blasted hundreds of feet onto the roof of adjacent buildings.

How come the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 23 minutes in advance
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed. This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST. ...
LiveLeak

The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.

Please address correspondence to .