Richard Porter from BBC responds again.

[Twist_U_Up]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

and once again he takes a beating in the comments section.

[BuyingThyme]

1. I want to know how long ago he realized the "tapes" were missing.

It seems that he came to that conclusion immediately after somebody else found them. You'd think he'd say, "We haven't yet found the tapes."

Nope. Gone.

[mhatrw]

2. Thanks for clearing up where this report came from and why

you don't have your own 9/11 coverage.

NOT!

This is a supposed to be the head of a news organization?

[Grateful for Hope]

3. kick n/t

[astralroamer]

4. Porter can't get it together...

The BBC -- supposedly one of the finest journalistic institutions in the world -- doesn't seem to be able to clear up any of the mysteries associated with its exercise in precognition. Would it really be so difficult for Richard Porter to identify the sources of the psychic story, and offer a full accounting of precisely what happened? He appears to be stalling and stonewalling, and has succeeded in pouring gas on the flames on conspiracy speculation about 9/11. Consult a few major blog search engines for the trendlines.

The mainstream media have contributed to the eruption of conspiracy suspicions by refusing to take any notice whatever of the controversy. At a bare minimum, the story would logically be mentioned in the mainstream media even if only for its novelty news value. But apparently what occurred at the BBC on 9/11 is so sensitive that it must be covered up completely.

The first moments after a major incident like this are the most telling -- Richard Porter has behaved like a guilty party, not as someone who is eager to get all the facts on the table. He's still struggling to put together a plausible cover story days after the intitial revelation.