Revealing an edit-suite trail back to a potential conspiracy to cover up archival references to an explosion event as witnessed on floor 105, South-Tower at World-Trade-Centre on 9/11.

Here follows a report of how events orchestrated by senior editors & within BBC edit-suites during the handling of programmes produced for the 5th Anniversary of The World-Trade-Centre collapses can be read as an attempt at covering over for posterity, real events as originally reported by family member witnesses, at the WTC South-Tower, NYC, on September 11, 2001.

• Programme title:  'New York Reflections – five years on'.

As part of a Simon Mayo programme which was transmitted on Monday 11 September 2006 on BBC Radio 5 Live as part of the 5th anniversary of 9/11 schedule:
The testimony of Beverly Eckert, a 911 widow, once member of ' Voices of September 11':
The original programme transcript reads:
"I just wanted to crawl through the phone and hold him but …And there was an explosion and a loud crack and then a sound like an avalanche and that was the tower coming down and he was gone."

Archived audio versions of this programme at the BBC as may be made available in future for further listening or rebroadcast, though not usually being distributed into the public domain, or only in special circumstances, explicitly exclude mention of this recorded explosion or of its location in the region of floor 105, South Tower.

Adele Armstrong, Senior Producer, BBC World Current Affairs told me:

• "I assure you there is a very simple explanation of this. The words you heard were - as you say - broadcast on the Simon Mayo programme on Five Live. The transcript and the programme I have sent are what was broadcast on Radio 4. As I explained in my email of 3rd October, I didn't have a copy of the Mayo programme so I sent you the Radio 4 programme I produced instead. In that programme, we cut out the reference to the explosion simply because there was a sound on the tape like someone kicking the table. The decision was taken by me in the studio and I assure you there was absolutely no editorial reason whatsoever for doing this.
  I'm not sure what significance you read into the word explosion - but I didn't read that."
• From this e-mail I derived a number of points that need be clarified, not least of which responds to her enquiry as to the significance of the explosion:

1. Does 'a sound on the tape like someone kicking the table' give an entirely legitimate reason for editing out from the interview with Beverly Eckert, the only 3 controversial words from the original 59-minute show?
   It sounds rather more like a case of controversy surrounding a clairvoyant's session!
   Ms Armstrong of the BBC explained the edit away by qualifying BBC Radio-4 FM's standards as being so high that the sound 'like someone kicking the table' had to be edited out.
2. Floor 105, South Tower was right at the top of the building. Now why on earth would there be mighty explosions up there? What could possibly be stored at the top of the building, which would produce this major explosion? In the audio and program extracts it is clear that just subsequent to this literal explosion, the building came down. Replies made by the NIST team to Ms. Eckert infer that they could only suggest it was an exploding water tower.
   PLUS:
   There are a large number of references to floor 105 WTC2 in NISTNCSTAR 1-6D. In this document, the same mechanism of collapse, top down, is recreated word for word between the two instances of the two separate towers. In other words this conforms to NIST's own admittance that the understanding of the mechanism of collapse is largely hypothetical, based on computer simulation & eyewitness testimony.
   Given this, then why was Beverley Eckert's report 'swept under the carpet' by NIST.
   Beverley after all has been closely linked with the 9/11 Independent commission, actively campaigning for a re-appraisal of the events of September 11th.
3. Ms. Eckert's credentials & committment as a campaigner would seem to be impeccable -
   Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
   Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism.
   Given all this work, then surely her testimony should be held in some regard.
4. Armstrong apparently had not studied her calendar well, since the full-unexpurgated version of this programme had already been broadcast on Radio 4 as well as 'Five-Live'.
   That's where I first heard the 'explosion' & 'floor 105' references.
5. The final point is that an explosion at the top of the building would be the initiating event from which the collapse of WTC1 & 2 follows. Both these collapses have been analysed by numerous professional contractors as perfect 'top-down' demolitions. WTC7 on the other hand was a 'bottom-down' demolition. The description of 'master craftsmanship' was used.

• A short downloadable audio-extract taken directly from the full-length CD-ROM of the programme as maintained in the BBC archives is to be —
  found here:    (right-click»save as:) - 128Kb.
• A text extract in .doc file format, taken from the original unexpurgated programme transcript, as provided by the BBC. I have bold highlighted the allusion to 'an explosion' though it does not include any mention of its close vicinity to floor 105. It can be —
  found here:    (right-click»save as:) - 28Kb.
  A full-length unexpurgated 9,239 words version with the same bold highlights can be —
  found here:    (right-click»save as:) - 88Kb
• Actually, the reference to floor 105 itself was also edited out, but entirely. In both the transcript I received as well as the audio CD there is no mention of floor 105 being around the epicentre of the now, 'gone-astray' explosion. However it was included in the Radio-4 broadcast, & the Radio-5 broadcast previous to that no doubt. I remembered that, & queried Ms Armstrong and she replied:
• "Just to confirm, Sean Eckert was on the 105th floor.
  Best wishes,
  Adele"
• Click Sean Eckert [Sean Rooney] link, husband of Beverly Eckert, for 'Irish abroad' Biog.
  'Occupation: Aon Risk Management Services. Floors 92 & 98-105. WTC2. South Tower.
  Post: Vice President.

Ms Eckert has since been kind enough to contact me regarding this study & told me that during the days of the NIST investigation into the WTC collapse she made her own enquiries to the NIST regarding the likely nature or source of the above mentioned explosion.
She wrote me in May 2007 thus:

"I am responding to you because I do not in any way subscribe to conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks nor do I believe that the collapse of my husband's building (the South tower) was brought about by pre-set detonations from within. However, the source of the explosion I heard has never been explained to my satisfaction.
I asked NIST to address it in their investigation, but I don't believe it was mentioned. You might want to check their report to confirm either way. I know that I once asked Dr. Shyam Sunder (of NIST) personally about it.
He theorized that what I heard may have been the sound of the tower's water storage container on the roof exploding from the intense heat. If that were the case, it seems to me the floor just below the roof (where Sean was) would have also been extremely hot, since heat rises. Yet Sean was still calmly talking to me just before the explosion. Clearly, the area he occupied was not at furnace-like temperatures."

However, some previous comments made, back on June 24, 2002 by Eckert do raise questions about potential conflicts between these and the accuracy &/or impartiality of her testimonies, since according to a 'Fire Protection' report by Richard G. Shulte of Schulte & Associates, Evanston, Illinois, she is alleged to have been quoted on the Voices of September 11 Web site (www.voicesofsept11.org) as having reported:

“I wish the engineer and builder could have listened to my husband die the way I did. I wish they could have heard the sound he made when those lightweight trusses melted and those flimsy bolts sheared, and the floor fell out from underneath him. I wish that they could hear – just once – the sound that will haunt me forever.”

—————————————————————————
This is an issue for which I hope one day to receive some clarification from Ms. Eckert herself.
However it is not unknown for a recently bereaved widow, or anyone for that matter as I'm sure many of us could testify, to have made exclamations with a bias of some emotional content when faced with communicating with people, particularly officials who demonstrate an absence or distinct lack of empathy with our trauma of bereavement.

Nor may it be unknown for the second phase of grieving, namely denial following shock, to become an extended episode when evidence questioning the official explanation of our spouses' or other loved one's 'cause of death', comes to light. See for instance the case of David Kelly the UK's chemical, biological & nuclear expert in arms control, working as a weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, who is alleged to have committed suicide just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Despite widespread suspicions brought into existance from numerous sources that include revelations of conflicting forensic evidence gleaned from the scene of death, the widow refuses to accept any other possibility than that her husband committed suicide.
—————————————————————————

Shulte is condescending of the 9/11 widows & speaks superciliously of their right to contribute to the 9/11 independent commission & NIST enquiries belittling any input to the debate about skyscraper safety that issues from mere widows of the victims. This despite the significant & apparently ongoing work done by the compatriots & friends at 'voicesofsept11'.
Shulte - 'Opposing Viewpoints on the WTC Collapse':    (right-click»save as:) - 1,175Kb.

Returning to original theme of this essay. The edit-suite work done to the original recordings of Ms Eckert's voice is immaculate & leaves absolutely no hint of the previous existence of the phrase 'an explosion and..'. One could never even imagine it had ever been there in the first place. The unexpurgated version was however transmitted twice, live on radio only. Despite my attempts to have copies of that original made available again and subsequent promises of a mini-disk, cassette or BBC real-player 'listen-again' on-line version being provided for me, absolutely nothing was ever forthcoming! Come to your own conclusions!

So this is how I found sustainable evidence for my allegations of a cover-up culture at the BBC. This edit, may have been requested by one of the notorious 'moles' or stoolpigeons in the employ of Military Intelligence, that walk the corridors of Britain's media organs.
But why bother doing such a thing in the first place when the original programmes, with their 'explosion' & 'floor 105' references were heard by, perhaps millions?
A credible reason is that, when the whole 911 'conspiracy theory', as it were, is finally washed from our collective conscience or memory & vanishes into the back-roads of our cultural dialogue, then just as the Kennedy assassinations prove, the conjecture as to 'whom actually did it(?)' must be necessarily encouraged to lie down to die, and for a single piece of tangible evidence to 'go missing', which could otherwise inhibit this, helps the conspirator's cause a little.

If in such a scenario, and let's hypothesise that we still need it & are still seeking it, that is a reopening of a thorough scientific and methodical inquest into the events of 9/11 in say 25 years time & then finally an enquiry is to be opened; this otherwise undeniable piece of solid first-hand testimony, could be, in this instance, lost entirely.
More grit to the mill of the establishment debunkers, n'est-pas!
That's why we need to indict Bush's hawks & rogue militarists, much sooner rather than later!

Why would the British establishment want a cover-up? Only if it can be considered not unreasonable to suggest that our own Military Intelligence Services were somehow involved and that they have an interest in assuring that even the minutiae of the evidence does not persist.

It is certainly by good fortune, that the edit only finally takes place as the programme is being dispatched to the BBC archives, down in the Basement of Broadcasting House!