evidence and facts about what? ever heard of motive? so the bbc misplaced a tape, that doesn't make them dishonest or prove anything. the bbc is the biggest news gathering and broadcasting organisation in the world. if they misplace a tape amongst millions, so what.

the trouble with conspiracies like 9/11 is that it would require too many people, to be on it, to pull it off and keep it secret.

my questions aren't stupid, you've just got a bad attitude.

The BBC did not simply misplace a tape. They did more than that.

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

2. Later, they state the tapes had been sitting in their archives.

Let me explain what this means.

It means one of the following is true about BBC staff:

a) no effort was made to search for the original tapes. (BBC staff is lying)
b) insufficient effort to search for the original tapes (BBC staff is careless and lazy)
c) BBC still does not have all the missing tapes (BBC staff is lying)
d) BBC staff always knew they had the original tapes. (BBC staff is lying)

It proves that the BBC staff, involved in this, are one of the 2 following options:

1. the BBC is careless (important historical tapes placed into wrong location), lazy, and unreliable (can not reliably retrive information from their own archives). It also means, dont assume what the BBC tells you is all true because the BBC has a history of making incorrect statements about matters which are 100% under their control (ie. misplaced tapes inside their own archives).

2. Liars.

If the BBC had simply lost the tapes and never found then, then you could reasonably claim that they are simply careless about storing tapes.

But instead, initially, BBC denies that they have the tape. Then, later, states that the tape actually had been sitting in their archives.

In many courts, you can be charged with "obstruction of justice" (a crime) for failing or refusing to hand over evidence, in your possession, to the police. Stating that you misplaced the evidence and had a hard time finding it, is not a 100% solid defence against obstruction of justice charges. any thing other than promptly handing over evidence could mean obstruction of justice (in law). If you even just slightly hinder the process of handing over evidence then you are engaging (in a small way) in the obstruction of justice.

That's why I have little respect for the BBC. They obstructed private investigations into 911 by denying that they had the tape and/or by lying about it. It's legal to obstruct private investigations into criminal matters but what the BBC staff did is immoral to me.

Speaking of "lost tapes" wasn't it the original moon landing tapes that went missing for a long while, then found last year by NASA? These things happen.

Like I said, anyone that thinks that ANY news source is not biased one way or another, is simply dreaming:


We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BBC-News.html
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.




BBC report damns its ?culture of bias?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1942948.ece
THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...el-442150.html
The BBC was in court yesterday fighting over the public's right to know. But the Corporation was not battling to bring information into the open. Instead it has paid an estimated £200,000 in legal fees to keep the report secret.

The Corporation is trying to persuade the High Court to overrule a decision by the Information Tribunal that an internal report into the BBC's Middle East coverage should be made public.

It puts the Corporation in the awkward position of arguing that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply in this case, although their journalists have previously made free use of the Act to prise information from the Government.






Seriously.... WAKE UP. No matter what your views on any issue are... you really should be aware that all sources have bias, and therefore you should seek out sources whose bias goes in either both directions in order to make informed decisions.
.:2 cents:

If the NASA says "we no longer have the tapes" and the tapes are found outside of NASA property, then NASA speaks the truth.

If the NASA says "we no longer have the tapes" and the tapes are found on NASA property, then NASA is misleading us or lying to us.

The main issue is not whether they lost or found the tapes. The issues are: what did they say about it? Did they cooperate? Or did they ignore/hinder/block/deny/refuse/lie?

Did they quit searching even though they knew the tapes are probably in their archives somewhere? Did they ask for help in searching their archives? Did they allow outsiders to search their archives to confirm the tapes are not there?

Imagine if you ask me to turn over the murder weapon, and I say "I no longer have it". Some time later, I say "I found the murder weapon. It was in my possession the whole time. Sorry".

What if Nixon had said "the tapes are missing". And later changed his statement to "we found the tapes". Would you assume that Nixon was telling the truth? Dont' you think it should be illegal to delay or fail to hand over evidence by not thoroughly searching for it?

BBC has not been ordered by any judge or gov agent to hand over tapes, so they have not broken any laws. But still, I think what BP did was immoral.

Your your brain for half a second. When groups attack Israel based from inside Iran it's never "officially" the Iranian govt.. meanwhile the govt does little to stop it because that's how they operate.

They use this method as away to keep their hands clean.. If a nuke ever went off in Israel or where ever from Iran. It wouldn't be Iran's govt that did it on the front side, it would be one of these groups operating inside Iran that their govt uses to do it's dirty work.

This does not mean that Iran wasn't be behind it, but they would be able to deny it much like they do with every other terrorist attack that sponsor.