Unequivocal

"I'm glad to reassure the people of New York that their air is safe to breathe." Christine Todd Whitman EPA Sept. 18th 2001

The BBC tells us “the official account (of 911) is unequivocal” ... and .. “found no conspiracy involving the government in Washington”.

Might it be appropriate for the government to lie in order to reassure the public? Could the US government be unequivocal but actually be lying?

Asked this question during a Court of Appeals hearing in Benzman vs. EPA, (Environmental Protection Agency) the case brought by New Yorkers exposed to toxic dust and sickened by the environmental hazards following 9/11, EPA lawyer Alisa Klein answered, "Yes."

Competing interests such as the economy or the "return to normalcy" [sic] might supersede that of public health, she argued. [Link]

Or perhaps interests for the "greater good" such as the Middle East, allowed the unequivocal statements from the White House on WMD and bin Laden links with Sadam Hussein. Statements we now know to be lies.

So the BBC reassuring us authoritatively that the US administration was “unequivocal”, in stating they had no involvement in the 911 attack, is both partisan and misleading.

How does this meet with the BBC’s Royal Charter obligations?

More on the WTC environmental disaster: [Link]