• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

BBC's Jane Standley?

wowsah156 said:
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?


Clearly? Not clear at all. You're talking as if the explosive theory has been proved. It hasn't. It's speculation.There's not evidence of someone having pre knowledge of explosives planted in the building let alone them having informed the BBC.

And a series of questions about the cameraman with the implication they are hiding yet more information and is involved in a cover up make rhetorical drama bordering on hysteria.

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

Plus all the other people needed as an oustide/live broadcast team in any given location.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
jimv1 said:
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.

An assumption is not in any way a fact, just a personal opinion. We could assume that Creatures from the Black Lagoon controlled the minds of the media that day but it doesn't make it right.
If we're talking about likelihoods, there's a huge pile of weird likelihoods that have already been posted here and taken apart by the OT's, but new ones seem to keep coming in and adding to the pile.

Now please tell me WHY exactly I have to assume the cameraman is in on it?
Why do we have to assume anything other than the fact that a woman on TV is talking about a building that has been destroyed? Except it hasn't and it is clearly standing behind her?
Where did her information come from? Why did the BBC air her story as she must have mentioned to the news team what her feedline was going to be about. (my assumption).

Why was the building 'pulled'?

You're talking about one of the biggest events in recent history. A lot of people know exactly what they were doing on that day. You want to bring the thoughts of the tea lady into this? Go ahead. Do your assumptions on her.
 
jimv1 said:
You're talking about one of the biggest events in recent history. A lot of people know exactly what they were doing on that day. You want to bring the thoughts of the tea lady into this? Go ahead. Do your assumptions on her.
Now you've done it! :shock:

Don't mention the tea lady!

Why?

Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you! :twisted:
 
jimv1 said:
Where did her information come from? Why did the BBC air her story as she must have mentioned to the news team what her feedline was going to be about. (my assumption).

Why does any of this have to be anything more than a mistake made by a journalist reporting live from the somewhat confused situation following one of the worst terrorist attacks in history...? :roll:
 
A). Because it comes from the BBC and a news source that is quoted a reliable as far as OT posters go.
There's been a lot of flack from your very good self and others about the legitamacy of information from certain websites which have claimed amongst other things that...

The firemen in WTC reported explosions.

The janitor heard and indeed witnessed evidence of explosions in the basement of the building.

The disputed evidence from the site of the Pentagon.

News reports that some of those 'terrorists reported to have been on the planes are in fact, still alive.

B). Because it is clearly as fishy as a spanish trawler.

C). If the claims made by a CT of evidence of strange deeds were backed up by this kind of reporting, YOU would have torn it apart.
 
jimv1 said:
A). Because it comes from the BBC and a news source that is quoted a reliable as far as OT posters go.

But a journalist is only human and can make mistakes. Or do assume that they're always 100% right at all times?

There's been a lot of flack from your very good self and others about the legitamacy of information from certain websites which have claimed amongst other things that..

The firemen in WTC reported explosions.

[...etc etc]

Already discussed elsewhere in quite some depth.

C). If the claims made by a CT of evidence of strange deeds were backed up by this kind of reporting, YOU would have torn it apart.

How do you mean? Inaccurate reporting is common amongst media in various forms, be it TV or the internet - mistakes are made. Add that the unique situation within which the reporting was done, this isn't all that surprising.
 
It just gets stranger.

If the BBC is saying its lost its copies of the 9/11 coverage then it has lost 3 different versions. 2 are kept for TV , Radio and research . And one is kept has a master.1 could be seen has a mistake ....but 3?

Also there is the 5 year legal rule. Under UK law the BBC needs to keep its recordings for at least 5 years. If this is the case when were the 9 11 tapes "gone"? If it was before the 5 year limit then they have broke their own rules. The BBC could be prosecuted in court over this .
 
wowsah156 said:
It just gets stranger.

If the BBC is saying its lost its copies of the 9/11 coverage then it has lost 3 different versions. 2 are kept for TV , Radio and research . And one is kept has a master.1 could be seen has a mistake ....but 3?

Also there is the 5 year legal rule. Under UK law the BBC needs to keep its recordings for at least 5 years. If this is the case when were the 9 11 tapes "gone"? If it was before the 5 year limit then they have broke their own rules. The BBC could be prosecuted in court over this .

Er... Five years makes Sept 2006 - If..IF..IF....

You really need to calm down. All this barrel scraping for scandal and outrage is keeping me awake.

-
 
rynner said:
jimv1 said:
You're talking about one of the biggest events in recent history. A lot of people know exactly what they were doing on that day. You want to bring the thoughts of the tea lady into this? Go ahead. Do your assumptions on her.
Now you've done it! :shock:

Don't mention the tea lady!

Why?

Well, I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you! :twisted:

I will say she didn't bring any blueberry muffins that morning, but I'd better say no more.
 
jimv1 said:
An assumption is not in any way a fact, just a personal opinion. We could assume that Creatures from the Black Lagoon controlled the minds of the media that day but it doesn't make it right.

It's unlikely though. Of course, an assumption is not a fact but that's hardly worth pointing out unless it lays claims to being one. Questioning the nature of an expressed opinion which doesn't claim to be fact rather than deconstructing the plausibility of the speculation used in it, particularly when the language is chosen specifically to convey a degree of equivocacy, would seem to be an unusual and probably fruitless use of mental resources.

It's an assumption but I'd say that if you had some knowledge of how outside broadcasts work, particularly when going off-script amidst much tumult, and the plausibility of any details being considered noteworthy and recalled many years on you'd counter this contention rather than question the right to make it.

If we're talking about likelihoods, there's a huge pile of weird likelihoods that have already been posted here and taken apart by the OT's, but new ones seem to keep coming in and adding to the pile.

I'd argue that by definition a likelihood can not be weird so it's not clear what point you're making here.

Now please tell me WHY exactly I have to assume the cameraman is in on it?.

You'd have to make that assumption based on the logic of that argument because if the cameraman is not in on it then he/she would have broken silence on the matter. Until someone can offer some kind of theory, let alone evidence, that the cameraman has remained silent for any other reason other than of having being unaware of or unconcerned with the details of that day i see no other plausible explanation for the silence.

Why do we have to assume anything other than the fact that a woman on TV is talking about a building that has been destroyed? Except it hasn't and it is clearly standing behind her?

We don't have to assume anything. However, the fact that this is a thread on a forum dealing with conspiracies should suggest that there are implicit assumptions being made about the relevance of these details. If we are not to connect these details to other known facts or submitted theories, to discuss them in a vacuum, then why are we discussing it at all?

Why was the building 'pulled'?.

This has been dealt with in greater detail elsewhere. The building was not pulled, the operation to save it was.

You're talking about one of the biggest events in recent history. A lot of people know exactly what they were doing on that day. You want to bring the thoughts of the tea lady into this? Go ahead. Do your assumptions on her.

As unnecessary as it is confusing. :?

In my opinion, obviously.
 
Odd indeed.

But is the fact that this was simply a mistake not easily as plausible as the alternative - that a proposed conspiracy which would rely on the complex logistics involved in organising the largest high-rise demolition the world has ever witnessed without anyone noticing until it was too late, the choreographing of the world's most spectacular synchronised multiple hijacking, the faking of crash sites and enforced disappearance of those people who did not die on the plane which did not crash, the manoeuvring of a remotely controlled warhead into the world's most famous military building etc etc (all to happen within a time frame which extends to barely a few hours) - all fell down because someone just couldn‘t keep it to themselves for a few more minutes?

And why on God’s green earth, if WTC7 was wired for demolition and its collapse a foregone conclusion, would anyone involved feel it necessary to inform the BBC prior to the event anyway?

Oh, I'm sorry, speculation...and probably repetition. My opinion? She made a mistake, the alternative makes no sense at all, regardless of whether you look at it from a CT's or an OT's viewpoint - unless you want to have your cake and eat it.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Oh, I'm sorry, speculation...and probably repetition. My opinion? She made a mistake, the alternative makes no sense at all, regardless of whether you look at it from a CT's or an OT's viewpoint - unless you want to have your cake and eat it.

Cake? Cake? What else do you know about the cake? Provided no doubt by that elusive tea lady - Why does she only have cake? Why weren't biscuits provided? If she was a tealady why did she allegedly provide coffee? And who washed up the cups so quickly? It's an outrage and a cover up, I tell you!
 
Rrose_Selavy said:
Spookdaddy said:
Oh, I'm sorry, speculation...and probably repetition. My opinion? She made a mistake, the alternative makes no sense at all, regardless of whether you look at it from a CT's or an OT's viewpoint - unless you want to have your cake and eat it.

Cake? Cake? What else do you know about the cake? Provided no doubt by that elusive tea lady - Why does she only have cake? Why weren't biscuits provided? If she was a tealady why did she allegedly provide coffee? And who washed up the cups so quickly? It's an outrage and a cover up, I tell you!

I already told you she didn't bring the muffins THAT morning. MOre sinister, perhaps, was the abscence of raspberry jam.
 
So by the rational of all this, if I screw up at my job, when I'm in a very stressful, work related situation, I get to blame a world wide conspiracy. Cool!

Plus, if the BBC did know in advance, you'd think it'd be a damn fool move to announce the falling of the building whilst broadcasting live images of it.
Face it peeps, this story has the legs of a rocking horse.
 
That maybe the case.

But.... it still doesnt answer how Standley was given this info and by whom. And how did this person who gave Standley the info know? And it still doesnt explain how the BBC could lose/misplace the tapes to one of the most important stories of our generation. To lose something of such historical importance is crazy.
 
Rrose_Selavy said:
Cake? Cake? What else do you know about the cake? Provided no doubt by that elusive tea lady - Why does she only have cake?

Oh, come on! The evidence is all around you. Everyone knows that the Bilderberg Group's undeniable power and influence is as nothing compared to the organisation for which it is merely a front - the dreaded Battenberg Caucus - the mere utterence of whose name can result in instant dea...................................



Ow...that hurt
 
wowsah156 said:
That maybe the case.

But.... it still doesnt answer how Standley was given this info and by whom. And how did this person who gave Standley the info know? And it still doesnt explain how the BBC could lose/misplace the tapes to one of the most important stories of our generation. To lose something of such historical importance is crazy.

There you go again. If you actually read what was said
:
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another

Richard Porter is head of news,
BBC World


It's the tapes from the BBC World section which were lost , not the entire 911 BBC overage eg for News 24

Also at the risk of repeating again, the tape shows the Studio announcer declaring the building has collapsed first, Standley can add virtually nothing,

No wonder there's wild speculation if you can't get the basic facts right.
 
wowsah156 said:
But.... it still doesnt answer how Standley was given this info and by whom. And how did this person who gave Standley the info know?

Why is that such a big deal? With all of the various bits of information flying about that day, various errors obviously also filtered through.

And why would some sort of nefarious person in the background decide to tell a journalist that WTC7 was destroyed before it was? If it was destroyed on purpose as part of some conspiracy, what would be the point - in terms of secrecy - of telling someone about WTC7 being destroyed before it actually was?
 
The reason it is a big deal is because it shows that someone went to the trouble to plan press releases for an event that the local law enforcement didnt know about. Its not just the BBC report. There is saved CNN footage which gave this story at round about the same.

Secondly the reason its a big deal is that the reporting of the demolition of building 7 shows foreknowledge of the plane attacks . No plane touched that building. So how did it "fall" ? The only answer is demolition charges that must have been fitted long before the plane attacks. You show me a building that could be demolished with out extensive planning.

So again it comes back to someone who gave Standley this info. Who was it? Who did they work for? Why will Standley not identify this person?
 
at the risk of being obvious, i would lilke to point out that

- it was one of the most confused/confusing days in recent history. i wouldn't be surprised if someone reporting live would fuck up. i remember we had to wait at least 3 days before the newspapers would report the facts with a minimum clarity. the newspapers from the day after were full of mistakes, wrong interpretations, wrong hypotheses. so a mistake in real time doesn't surprise me at all. i myself can remember seeing the footage of the second plane hitting the second tower and thinking - and telling a friend of mine - "this was a small plane, like a cessna or something"

- i can't rewatch the video now, but it goes like
(man from the studio) "so the there is news that building 7 has collapsed"
(woman, looking out, where wtc 7 is clearly visible) "yes it has"
neither of them has any idea what bldg 7 looks like. he has prob. read some agency news saying "bldg 7 about to collapse, too" and assumed that it had already collapsed. the woman hs no idea what wtc7 is/looks like, and exactly for that reason she doesn't feel like contradicting the man, who (so she guesses) must know better than her, having a continuous flow of news from the newsagencies. so i think the answer to the question "who gave her the news that wtc7 had collapsed" is "the man in the studio".

- from personal experience, cameramen and photographers are usually not given any details about sources etc. they are simply summoned to record events, usually following a journalist. they are not very likely to have any particular insight on the events in question. oh, and the journalist had probably forgotten the name of the cameraman right after the broadcast was over.
 
wowsah156 said:
The reason it is a big deal is because it shows that someone went to the trouble to plan press releases for an event that the local law enforcement didnt know about. Its not just the BBC report. There is saved CNN footage which gave this story at round about the same.

Where's this planned "press release" ?- it was a report in the ear of an anchor in a London Studio


Secondly the reason its a big deal is that the reporting of the demolition of building 7 shows foreknowledge of the plane attacks . No plane touched that building. So how did it "fall" ? The only answer is demolition charges that must have been fitted long before the plane attacks. You show me a building that could be demolished with out extensive planning.

It shows nothing of the sort, The "only Answer" - Really? Again you've assumed the conspiracy theories are established fact. They are not.

So again it comes back to someone who gave Standley this info. Who was it? Who did they work for? Why will Standley not identify this person?

Again. how many times are you going to ignore the fact that Standley is not shown giving the initial information out that the building has collapsed. She merely confirms what she , and the London anchor has been told. No matter how many times you produce this fake accusatory outrage implyimg some cover up , it isn't going to stick . Give it a rest
 
So by the rational of all this, if I screw up at my job, when I'm in a very stressful, work related situation, I get to blame a world wide conspiracy. Cool!

I've almost managed to blame cosmic rays before now. Never thought of using world wide conspiracy though.
 
lupinwick said:
So by the rational of all this, if I screw up at my job, when I'm in a very stressful, work related situation, I get to blame a world wide conspiracy. Cool!

I've almost managed to blame cosmic rays before now. Never thought of using world wide conspiracy though.

I've always blamed my mistakes on gross incompetence. The trick is to make it appear as though it was someone else's.
 
Rrose_Selavy said:
...

Where's this planned "press release" ?- it was a report in the ear of an anchor in a London Studio

...
Exactly. A remarkably prescient report in the ear it was too.
Rrose_Selavy said:
...
So again it comes back to someone who gave Standley this info. Who was it? Who did they work for? Why will Standley not identify this person?

Again. how many times are you going to ignore the fact that Standley is not shown giving the initial information out that the building has collapsed. She merely confirms what she , and the London anchor has been told. No matter how many times you produce this fake accusatory outrage implyimg some cover up , it isn't going to stick . Give it a rest
Quite. It's pretty obvious that Standley is being fed the information, about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, by the anchor in London. Neither of them have the foggiest idea which building they are talking about and that's why they don't notice that it's still standing behind them.

By the looks of it, Standley is only feeding the confusion by winging it, trying to sound as if she knows just a little bit more about the situation than she actually does. This is probably a common problem for reporters on 24 hour rolling news services where they have to keep feeding the camera with information, they have to look as if they know what they're talking about and pad out the hours of air time with something.

Nonetheless, it will continue to be a very odd news report, considering it occurs at least 20-25 minutes before the building suddenly collapses and that its the anchorperson in London who actually has the temporarily wrong information to pass on to the reporter on the scene, in New York. 8)
 
Spookdaddy said:
Rrose_Selavy said:
Cake? Cake? What else do you know about the cake? Provided no doubt by that elusive tea lady - Why does she only have cake?

Oh, come on! The evidence is all around you. Everyone knows that the Bilderberg Group's undeniable power and influence is as nothing compared to the organisation for which it is merely a front - the dreaded Battenberg Caucus - the mere utterence of whose name can result in instant dea...................................



Ow...that hurt

Yes! The Battenberg Caucus! Why can you only get good Battenberg in Cork? Which Masonic clique conducts border checks to prevent any Battenbergs from being smuggled over the county-Line?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Nonetheless, it will continue to be a very odd news report, considering it occurs at least 20-25 minutes before the building suddenly collapses and that its the anchorperson in London who actually has the temporarily wrong information to pass on to the reporter on the scene, in New York. 8)

An amazingly fast collapse of a building that doesn't seem to have been hit with any of the special 9,11 super hot burn fuel that the planes were filled with on that day. I just thank god that with all the random factors involved those buildings luckily, effectively, collapsed into their footprint.
 
http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/ ... C_WTC7.htm

This week has seen a cornucopia of news come pouring forth with regards to what happened to World Trade Center building 7 on September 11th 2001. The catalyst for this has been the discovery that the BBC reported the building had collapsed a full thirty minutes before it actually fell on 9/11.

The BBC, instead of attempting to explain how it could have reported this, has attempted to both evade and cloud the issue. The truth is that no one could have possibly predicted the building would collapse and here's why.

Aside from the fact that previous to 9/11 no steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire damage, Building 7, otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building, was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989 the New York Times reported on this fact in a story covering the Salomon leasing of the building which had been completed just two years earlier.

Salomon had wanted to build a new structure in order to house its high-technology operations, but due to stock market crash in 1987 it was unable to. The company searched for an existing building that they could use and found one in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7.

The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

The entire article can be read here.



What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became "a building within a building". An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

This is of course also partially the reason why in 1999 the building was chosen to house Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's $13 million emergency crisis centre on the 27th floor.

Remember that on 9/11 only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires. The official NIST report failed to comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.

A follow up report due soon has been forced to take into account a hypothetical situation whereby explosives were used to demolish the building, primarily because every other explanation thus far has failed to explain how it could have come down.

Furthermore, as has been thoroughly documented, building 7 was the furthest away in the WTC complex from the twin towers. Buildings much closer sustained massive amounts of damage from the collapse of the towers and did not come anywhere close to full scale symmetrical collapse.

Given all this information it is quite clear to surmise that if you were going to "predict" the collapse of any building in the WTC complex following the destruction of the towers, building 7 would have most certainly been BOTTOM of the list.

Building 7 now becomes the key to unlocking the 9/11 fraud. What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse, with no resistance, of a steel-framed "Building within a building". A perfectly symmetrical collapse of a building that was designed from the ground-up to have entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity.

We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to "blow up". We have the BBC reporting the collapse before it happened and a follow up desperate attempt to avoid the issue by claiming that it cannot verify anything because it has lost the entirety of its broadcast recordings from 9/11.

Furthermore, the BBC continues to play dumb by responding to questions other the fiasco by intimating that it is being suggested that they were "in on the conspiracy". Here is the latest response we have received from the BBC regarding the matter after continuing to press them for an explanation:

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.
With regards

BBC World Customer Relations

What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.

Why did the BBC report the collapse of one the most structurally reinforced buildings in New York before it collapsed and what was their source?

In further developments more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hours of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.

Was this another "cock up" on the part of the BBC or were they once again going off scripted information that was being spoon fed to the media? Certainly it is startling that the subsequent official FEMA report, after months of investigation, gave more or less the same explanation as to why the towers fell as is witnessed in this BBC news footage from just hours after the towers fell.

As for the BBC's shockingly arrogant and dismissive "it was more than five years ago comment", as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.
 
What is ludicrous is that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century

They aren't expecting anyone to believe that because they haven't said that. as I already noted.But that doesn't tie in with the Cover up Theory does it?

as long as the truth continues to be withheld we will continue to target those who are aiding its suppression.

More fake outrage.etc etc
 
Back
Top