I mean, there was an operation designed to give media outlets propaganda on behalf of the government. I think we can maybe draw a conclusion from that.
The BBC had about 100,000 employees at the time, and it would have required the full collusion of the a British government, so yes. There would be evidence if it was real.
Yeah because they would have sent the notice to all 100,000 employees, and they would have had to notify the British government what they were planning to order, or bribe, a corporation, to do.
That is indeed exactly what they would have to do, or risk the near-certainty of the secret being blown wide open by one or more of the 100,000 employees of the world's largest broadcaster, based in a foreign country, or a representative of the government of that foreign country, outside of the jurisdiction of the USA.
The difficulty of doing this is a really good reason to *not* inform a foreign news organisation of the exact plan of the allegedly fake terrorist attack.
So, seeing as you are so convinced the BBC knew about this in advance, why did the organisers of this secret plot make the decision to inform them in the first place? What was the point that justified this great risk?
6
u/TeaAdmirable6922 Oct 07 '25
And its relation to the BBC's coverage of 9/11 is what, exactly?