BBC's Jane Standley?

[crunchy5]

Maybe 7 was scheduled to be "pulled" half an hour or so earlier but the demo team had a problem when falling burning debris cut an important circuit. When the coordination team left building 7 they were unable to draft or hand out new press briefings to accommodate the change of plan, the BBC were unable to react to the obvious change of circumstances because they were unaware that 7 was still standing as they didn't recognise it in the background. Unlike the yank stations who were given the same briefing but didn't run with it as they could see 7 standing.

i'd be surprised if most american reporters would recognise WTC7 either. in any case were that scenario to be true you'd have to also have the complicity of every journalist who received this report and didn't point out later that they were told in advance the building would collapse. at the present rate there will soon need to be more people in on the conspiracy than those being fooled.

Dude, I'd have thought you'd have recognised by my use of "pulled" and circuits cut by falling burning debris that my tongue was as firmly in my cheek as the arch funny man wuh.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Dude, I'd have thought you'd have recognised by my use of "pulled" and circuits cut by falling burning debris that my tongue was as firmly in my cheek as the arch funny man wuh.

Sorry, mate. It's just difficult to tell where the humorous parody starts with conspiracy theories at times.

 

[crunchy5]

Dude, I'd have thought you'd have recognised by my use of "pulled" and circuits cut by falling burning debris that my tongue was as firmly in my cheek as the arch funny man wuh.

Sorry, mate. It's just difficult to tell where the humorous parody starts with conspiracy theories at times.

Just look at wuh when he gives a speech, he's lovin it lovin it lovin it, all night long, that's where the parody starts.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

... at the present rate there will soon need to be more people in on the conspiracy than those being fooled.

Do you have hard figures for that, beyond the hyperbole?

what hyperbole?

Black Ops don't rely on everyone being in on the Op. They more often rely on a few well placed bods, feeding misinformation to the right people at the right time. Just to ensure that Public perceptions are pointed in the right direction.

Who actually informed the BBC that Salomon Brothers Building was about to, or had collapsed, some 23 minutes before it actually happened? How did they know, when not even the Fire brigade realised what was happening until they were 'pulled'? Perhaps, even the best organised inside jobs are prone to a few hiccups?

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources. Perhaps, 24 hour rolling news means less of a gap between receiving and broadcasting the info. and the anonymous, but authoritative, sources, were just a little bit too eager to ensure that their interpretation of the whole days events was put across seamlessly, so that a little nugget of factoid slipped through, ahead of schedule?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

...

... at the present rate there will soon need to be more people in on the conspiracy than those being fooled.

Do you have hard figures for that, beyond the hyperbole?

what hyperbole?

Black Ops don't rely on everyone being in on the Op. They more often rely on a few well placed bods, feeding misinformation to the right people at the right time. Just to ensure that Public perceptions are pointed in the right direction.

Who actually informed the BBC that Salomon Brothers Building was about to, or had collapsed, some 23 minutes before it actually happened? How did they know, when not even the Fire brigade realised what was happening until they were 'pulled'? Perhaps, even the best organised inside jobs are prone to a few hiccups?

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources. Perhaps, 24 hour rolling news means less of a gap between receiving and broadcasting the info. and the anonymous, but authoritative, sources, were just a little bit too eager to ensure that their interpretation of the whole days events was put across seamlessly, so that a little nugget of factoid slipped through, ahead of schedule?

Then you'd have to explain why the BBC, and only the BBC, seem to be informed. If multiple agencies were informed then why didn't they report it? If they didn't report it because of the evidence of their own eyes, that they could visually identify the building was still standing, yet were fed a line that it had collapsed and saw this happen some time later why has this story not been broken elsewhere before now? As I pointed out earlier the operation's success didn't require complicity during the operation but after it.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Then you'd have to explain why the BBC, and only the BBC, seem to be informed. If multiple agencies were informed then why didn't they report it? If they didn't report it because of the evidence of their own eyes, that they could visually identify the building was still standing, yet were fed a line that it had collapsed and saw this happen some time later why has this story not been broken elsewhere before now? As I pointed out earlier the operation's success didn't require complicity during the operation but after it.

No. You simply have to tell us who informed the BBC that the building had, or was going to, collapse. Because, quite obviously from the clip, they were so informed. I have no idea what other news sources were, or weren't told, so I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

...

Then you'd have to explain why the BBC, and only the BBC, seem to be informed. If multiple agencies were informed then why didn't they report it? If they didn't report it because of the evidence of their own eyes, that they could visually identify the building was still standing, yet were fed a line that it had collapsed and saw this happen some time later why has this story not been broken elsewhere before now? As I pointed out earlier the operation's success didn't require complicity during the operation but after it.

No. You simply have to tell us who informed the BBC that the building had, or was going to, collapse. Because, quite obviously from the clip, they were so informed. I have no idea what other news sources were, or weren't told, so I couldn't possibly comment.

Where they got the information from is only relevant if they were the only ones to receive it. If they weren't then you still have to give a plausible explanation for the scenario already outlined. Could you possibly comment on that or should a misappropriation of a tv catchphrase suffice?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Where they got the information from is only relevant if they were the only ones to receive it. If they weren't then you still have to give a plausible explanation for the scenario already outlined. Could you possibly comment on that or should a misappropriation of a tv catchphrase suffice?

No. No. You ask too much. At the moment we only know that the BBC received the information, prior to the collapse' from some source, or other, as evidenced by the premature report of its destruction. The rest would be idle speculation, until more information turns up.

You want to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed, quite possibly they were, you go find the proof. It would still be interesting to know who passed on the original information.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

No. No. You ask too much. At the moment we only know that the BBC received the information, prior to the collapse' from some source, or other, as evidenced by the premature report of its destruction. The rest would be idle speculation, until more information turns up.

You want to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed, quite possibly they were, you go find the proof. It would still be interesting to know who passed on the original information.

I'm not trying to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed. I'd have thought it pretty clear from what i've written that i'm suggesting they weren't. :?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

No. No. You ask too much. At the moment we only know that the BBC received the information, prior to the collapse' from some source, or other, as evidenced by the premature report of its destruction. The rest would be idle speculation, until more information turns up.

You want to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed, quite possibly they were, you go find the proof. It would still be interesting to know who passed on the original information.

I'm not trying to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed. I'd have thought it pretty clear from what i've written that i'm suggesting they weren't. :?

Then, why are you asking me?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

No. No. You ask too much. At the moment we only know that the BBC received the information, prior to the collapse' from some source, or other, as evidenced by the premature report of its destruction. The rest would be idle speculation, until more information turns up.

You want to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed, quite possibly they were, you go find the proof. It would still be interesting to know who passed on the original information.

I'm not trying to prove that other news sources were similarly briefed. I'd have thought it pretty clear from what i've written that i'm suggesting they weren't. :?

Then, why are you asking me?

Because you contested the point about the large number of reporters being complicit by not blowing the whistle.

 

[Mike_Pratt33]

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources. Perhaps, 24 hour rolling news means less of a gap between receiving and broadcasting the info. and the anonymous, but authoritative, sources, were just a little bit too eager to ensure that their interpretation of the whole days events was put across seamlessly, so that a little nugget of factoid slipped through, ahead of schedule?

You are assuming that there is some conspiritor sitting in a office with a script. I mean how stupid is that. Not only is there no need for it, it would be amazing that someone smart enough to come up with such a wildly ( and excessively) elaborate plan would know that no plan is perfect and would take steps to ensure this sort of mistake was not made.

Once again the conspiritors are infinitely clever and at the same time apallingly stupid. Its a wonder they didn't do the whole super-villain bit and announce their plan in advance.

 

[Anonymous]

In one of the biggest stories of the last 30 years and Standley cant remember what she said? Standley insists no one told here what to say, so this leaves a big gaping whole in who told her the building was getting demolished. If no one told her how did she (and the bbc) get the information?

Who told Standley? Only 3 people will know this, Standley , the "informant" and possibly the camera man . Who was the camera man? What does he know about the events leading up to the report?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

You are assuming that there is some conspiritor sitting in a office with a script. I mean how stupid is that. Not only is there no need for it, it would be amazing that someone smart enough to come up with such a wildly ( and excessively) elaborate plan would know that no plan is perfect and would take steps to ensure this sort of mistake was not made.

Once again the conspiritors are infinitely clever and at the same time apallingly stupid. Its a wonder they didn't do the whole super-villain bit and announce their plan in advance.

Don't you know any recent British history? How stupid is that?

The 'history' of the Troubles in Northern Ireland was littered with shadowy figures sitting in offices with scripts.

Often the BBC were their innocent dupes. The BBC is very Authoritative and believed around the World. A few words to the right source is worth a thousand proofs.

 

[crunchy5]

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources. Perhaps, 24 hour rolling news means less of a gap between receiving and broadcasting the info. and the anonymous, but authoritative, sources, were just a little bit too eager to ensure that their interpretation of the whole days events was put across seamlessly, so that a little nugget of factoid slipped through, ahead of schedule?

You are assuming that there is some conspiritor sitting in a office with a script. I mean how stupid is that. Not only is there no need for it, it would be amazing that someone smart enough to come up with such a wildly ( and excessively) elaborate plan would know that no plan is perfect and would take steps to ensure this sort of mistake was not made.

Once again the conspiritors are infinitely clever and at the same time apallingly stupid. Its a wonder they didn't do the whole super-villain bit and announce their plan in advance.

That's a bit of a strong response, when all Pietro said when informed of the mysterious broadcast was "how odd", surely no one can deny that this is indeed odd, that a BBC reporter should announce the strange collapse of a steel frame building in the biggest story of the new millennium when the only orthodox reason for the collapse was burning office supplies from next door. Especially given that the mysterious collapse happened 23 minutes later, the building being visible and standing strong behind her at the time she broadcasts.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... when all Pietro said when informed of the mysterious broadcast was "how odd", surely no one can deny that this is indeed odd, that a BBC reporter should announce the strange collapse of a steel frame building in the biggest story of the new millennium when the only orthodox reason for the collapse was burning office supplies from next door. Especially given that the mysterious collapse happened 23 minutes later, the building being visible and standing strong behind her at the time she broadcasts.

Thank you, crunchy5, your cheque's in the post.

 

[crunchy5]

For the agreed amount plus £2 per word, thank you. :lol:

 

[Jerry_B]

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources.

You'd have to prove such a claim, in order for your theory to work.

 

[Mike_Pratt33]

...

You are assuming that there is some conspiritor sitting in a office with a script. I mean how stupid is that. Not only is there no need for it, it would be amazing that someone smart enough to come up with such a wildly ( and excessively) elaborate plan would know that no plan is perfect and would take steps to ensure this sort of mistake was not made.

Once again the conspiritors are infinitely clever and at the same time apallingly stupid. Its a wonder they didn't do the whole super-villain bit and announce their plan in advance.

Don't you know any recent British history? How stupid is that?

The 'history' of the Troubles in Northern Ireland was littered with shadowy figures sitting in offices with scripts.

Often the BBC were their innocent dupes. The BBC is very Authoritative and believed around the World. A few words to the right source is worth a thousand proofs.

I don't dispute that there are people with hidden agendas. What I am doubting is that they needed to do so. Its just pointless elaboration. There is no reason why someone would be so desperate to announce the collapse of WTC7 that they would do it too soon. Would you even have heard about WTC7 if it weren't for the conspiricy theories. After all I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the conspiracy needed to demolish WTC7 in the first place.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I don't dispute that there are people with hidden agendas. What I am doubting is that they needed to do so. Its just pointless elaboration. There is no reason why someone would be so desperate to announce the collapse of WTC7 that they would do it too soon. Would you even have heard about WTC7 if it weren't for the conspiricy theories. After all I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the conspiracy needed to demolish WTC7 in the first place.

Yes it doesn't make much sense that they'd release information to the world's media when they were in the area, covering the wider story and going to cover this particular event anyway.

 

[crunchy5]

After all I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the conspiracy needed to demolish WTC7 in the first place.

Perhaps it was wired to blow, but the passengers on the third plane resisted and brought it down in a field, leaving WTC 7 with loads of explosives and no where to go, but down. The pearl harbour 2 theory

It was also the office space for various yank intel and securities organisations which fits into the big heist theory.

Also it was necessary to fit in with the law of three's which fits into the occult theories.

Whether you are convinced by the theories is immaterial but there's three off the top of my head.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The BBC would quite possibly have been reliant on the information being fed to them, over a telephone line, from fairly anonymous, but authoritative, sources.

You'd have to prove such a claim, in order for your theory to work.

I don't have to prove anything. I merely pointed out that the BBC report was odd. It was all those, apparently pointing out that any alternative theory to the Official Version, was impossible, needed a cast of thousands, or 'stupid', that prompted me to reply that it ain't necessarily so.

I merely wished to point that alternative possibilities were most certainly not impossible, did not necessarily need a cast of thousands, were not necessarily stupid and that they even had something of the weight of history behind them.

If OT'ers wish to enter into an proper debate, would it not be better for them to put forward proper counter arguments and proofs, rather than making disparaging remarks, constantly and impudently interrogating other Posters beyond the known facts, setting up diversionary 'straw man arguments', or making extravagant and unprovable claims?

 

[Jerry_B]

All I'm saying is that talk of Black Ops and anonymous sources doesn't really amount to anything at all. It seems to be simply adding a layer of supposed subterfuge, and doesn't seem to have any basis in the information available about this current topic.

So if you don't want to be asked about annoying things such as proof, or how you get to your arguments, at least describe to us what details from this incident show that the journalist in question was indeed being fed information by various 'sources' (such as those you've made note of).

I still say the report isn't odd if one takes into account that journalists make mistakes.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

If OT'ers wish to enter into an proper debate, would it not be better for them to put forward proper counter arguments and proofs, rather than making disparaging remarks, constantly and impudently interrogating other Posters beyond the known facts, setting up diversionary 'straw man arguments', or making extravagant and unprovable claims?

The difficulty with that is that the CT's are only presenting speculation themselves so countering arguments that don't have specific details is problematic to say the least. The counter-arguments can only be presented in terms of inference, logic and plausible scenarios. Also, what you consider disparaging and impudent interrogation of posters beyond the known facts is merely a repsonse to claims made going beyond those same facts.

 

[Mike_Pratt33]

'stupid'

I hope you don't think I am saying anything about you or your beliefs here.

I am stating that if the suggested actions on the part of the conspiritors really occured then IMHO they were acting stupidly.

 

[Anonymous]

Prison Planet has found more footage of BBC 24 with the time entact on the report.

When someone says that this "clairvoyant" reporting on Building 7 is a "mistake " it borders on psychopathy. When a news organisation clearly has info on someone who had pre-knowledge of explosives planted in building 7 is has close to a media organisation being an accomplice to a crime. Nobody can deny this footage now. Its there . And trying to explain this fore-knowledge away i find sickening.

Standley will never have peace has long has she "forgets" that day. Also can the camera man who filmed Standley be identified? What does he know? Would the camera man have seen the person who gave Standley this information?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Prison Planet has found more footage of BBC 24 with the time entact on the report.

When someone says that this "clairvoyant" reporting on Building 7 is a "mistake " it borders on psychopathy. When a news organisation clearly has info on someone who had pre-knowledge of explosives planted in building 7 is has close to a media organisation being an accomplice to a crime. Nobody can deny this footage now. Its there . And trying to explain this fore-knowledge away i find sickening.

Standley will never have peace has long has she "forgets" that day. Also can the camera man who filmed Standley be identified? What does he know? Would the camera man have seen the person who gave Standley this information?

It's unlikely that he'd remember anything. A cameraman's work isn't just staring through a lens so he'd be distracted by others things. It's not really their job to get involved with sources etc

 

[Jerry_B]

When someone says that this "clairvoyant" reporting on Building 7 is a "mistake " it borders on psychopathy. When a news organisation clearly has info on someone who had pre-knowledge of explosives planted in building 7 is has close to a media organisation being an accomplice to a crime. Nobody can deny this footage now. Its there . And trying to explain this fore-knowledge away i find sickening.

Lol - you can almost hear the writer frothing at the mouth and slamming their fist on the table...

 

[Analogue Boy]

Prison Planet has found more footage of BBC 24 with the time entact on the report.

When someone says that this "clairvoyant" reporting on Building 7 is a "mistake " it borders on psychopathy. When a news organisation clearly has info on someone who had pre-knowledge of explosives planted in building 7 is has close to a media organisation being an accomplice to a crime. Nobody can deny this footage now. Its there . And trying to explain this fore-knowledge away i find sickening.

Standley will never have peace has long has she "forgets" that day. Also can the camera man who filmed Standley be identified? What does he know? Would the camera man have seen the person who gave Standley this information?

It's unlikely that he'd remember anything. A cameraman's work isn't just staring through a lens so he'd be distracted by others things. It's not really their job to get involved with sources etc

How can you possibly claim that it's unlikely the cameraman would remember anything? That's a pretty broad assumption to make.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

How can you possibly claim that it's unlikely the cameraman would remember anything? That's a pretty broad assumption to make.

It's an assumption based on the likelihood of him not being fully aware of sources which would be unremarkable at the time whilst he struggles with his job. All this was five and a half years ago and would have been confusing enough to recall detail even at the time.

Also, you have to assume the cameraman's in on it or is it complicit by not coming forward.