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

BBC's Jane Standley?

Are infowars and prisonplanet unable to write anything without ranting?

They must be pretty hard up for 'proof' if they can get into such a lather about a journalist not being completely on the ball during what was a rather unique situation. The fact that they don't seem able to include that possibility suggests that they're determined to follow their agenda without fully considering all of the likely options.

They'd also have to explain why - if the whole event was being stage-managed by some shadowy cabal - the journalist was told about the 'demolition' taking place before it actually happened. Why did the cabal (or whatever) decide to tell their journalist stooges that they had destroyed WTC7 before they had actually done so? Did the cabal make a mistake? If so, how come they're allowed to make mistakes and journalists aren't? ;)
 
Since there have been some complaints about the alleged use of hyperbole and "fake outrage" in Crunchy5's Post from the Infowars site, I've cut it down to what appears to be the salient bit and emphasised some of it.
crunchy5 said:
http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

...

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.

...
So, the internal structural integrity of Building 7 had, apparently, actually been greatly strengthened, only a year, or two, before 9/11?

It does all seem very odd.

That's really interesting, thanks Crunchy5. :)
 
You're welcome :D

I don't like the sell sell sell style of much of the Internet content from US sites, but that's just their way, I've learnt to cope with it and I'm sure the OT's wouldn't want to suppress content just because it comes from a more mercantile culture.

Vive la difference or whatever our French compatriots would say.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
...
So, the internal structural integrity of Building 7 had, apparently, actually been greatly strengthened, only a year, or two, before 9/11?

It does all seem very odd.

Where does it say that? :?
 
And what in fact does any of it have to do with the subject at hand (i.e. Standley's reportage)? We already have threads where we can discuss the technicalities of the buildings involved in 9/11.
 
Jerry_B said:
And what in fact does any of it have to do with the subject at hand (i.e. Standley's reportage)? We already have threads where we can discuss the technicalities of the buildings involved in 9/11.

Thus proving jb hasn't read the complete text of my post as it's replete with references to the BBC outrage.
 
With regard to some of the comments on the american websites. If it wasnt for the motivation of these websites i dont think we would be discussing any of this. So i dont think slagging off Prison Planet is really constructive. If anything we need more websites like Prison Planet which make an effort to highlight this type of stuff.
 
crunchy5 said:
Thus proving jb hasn't read the complete text of my post as it's replete with references to the BBC outrage.

Not true - I was preferring that we don't get sidetracked into discussions about the construction of WTC7.
 
wowsah156 said:
With regard to some of the comments on the american websites. If it wasnt for the motivation of these websites i dont think we would be discussing any of this. So i dont think slagging off Prison Planet is really constructive. If anything we need more websites like Prison Planet which make an effort to highlight this type of stuff.

'Highlight' what? Their own agenda WRT to desperately feeling a need to paint everything with a conspiratorial brush? They could be barking up the wrong tree, after all (and that's how it seems to me WRT this particular case).
 
But when that's dressed up as 'the truth', when in this instance they are clearly barking up the wrong tree, it all goes a bit awry ;)
 
I'd say the explanation he's given there makes sense really. It sounds pretty convincing wrt to archiving and real-time reporting.
 
Not that it will make a shred of difference to the conspiracists... ;)
 
I'm confused.

The news report did pre-empt the event,that much is certain. Why the info. was given before an event is less so.

I find it hard to believe that someone with the events "seared into their minds" would forget what they said, when it is their job to state news events.

However, all this does not mean that the BBC were "in" on any conspiracy but mearly being used. Whoever gave the information could have sent it out deliberately to discredit the authority of the BBC, or to obscure the record of events or to create just such debates as this.

Black ops do give out spurious info and to give out accurate info before the event is probably right up their street.

We cannot really know what happens in any event except by reading and listening to witness accounts and hoping that they are as close to truth as possible. That there are people whose job/mission it is to obscure facts is more than probable and the more they jiggle the facts the harder it is to know what version of the truth is the likeliest.

Please what happened to the cake? (Lemon drizzle is my favourite)
 
tilly50 said:
I'm confused.

The news report did pre-empt the event,that much is certain. Why the info. was given before an event is less so.

I find it hard to believe that someone with the events "seared into their minds" would forget what they said, when it is their job to state news events.

However, all this does not mean that the BBC were "in" on any conspiracy but mearly being used. Whoever gave the information could have sent it out deliberately to discredit the authority of the BBC, or to obscure the record of events or to create just such debates as this.

Black ops do give out spurious info and to give out accurate info before the event is probably right up their street.

We cannot really know what happens in any event except by reading and listening to witness accounts and hoping that they are as close to truth as possible. That there are people whose job/mission it is to obscure facts is more than probable and the more they jiggle the facts the harder it is to know what version of the truth is the likeliest.

Please what happened to the cake? (Lemon drizzle is my favourite)

Why on earth would black ops want to create this kind of debate? That would run counter to common sense if you were attempting to carry out a conspiracy. I have to say I can't see any basis for this kind of speculation at all.
 
tilly50 said:
Black ops do give out spurious info and to give out accurate info before the event is probably right up their street.

So, let me guess - on 9/11, the covert team supposedly behind the scenes said to themselves 'Okay guys, we've taken out both of the towers with demolition charges, and no-one suspects anything. Howabout we let some people know beforehand that we're also going to demolish WTC7...?' Somehow they decided to reveal that, despite keeping the rest of the operation completely watertight and secret? Yet again it seems we have to believe that these super-secret cabals for some reason are either inept or leave clues around to their existence that are easy enough for some people off of the internet to spot without too much brainwork....
 
Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see.

If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire.

Thus leaving less room for awkward questions. All part of a horrendous days events.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see.

If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire.

Thus leaving less room for awkward questions. All part of a horrendous days events.

This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.

Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy?
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.

Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy?
But, quite clearly, they did report it before it happened.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

This would mean, I take it, that the BBC no longer reported something before it happened as has been claimed? This is quite different from the extraordinary claims being made just a few days ago.

Again, the notion of the building being "pulled" - is that quote still being used to support a conspiracy?
But, quite clearly, they did report it before it happened.

No, if this scenario were valid then they'd have mistakenly reported something which would later happen. If the information that was being put out was from black ops and was suggesting why the building would be in danger then the BBC report is of no significance since it's made a mistake on the information it's received.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

No, if this scenario were valid then they'd have mistakenly reported something which would later happen. If the information that was being put out was from black ops and was suggesting why the building would be in danger then the BBC report is of no significance since it's made a mistake on the information it's received.
In theory the information was being put out that the building was collapsing, or had collapsed, because of the fire, so that when it collapsed, the official explanation was already being propagated.

It's still possible that someone was sitting in their office and just a little ahead of schedule with their script. :)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
In theory the information was being put out that the building was collapsing, or had collapsed, because of the fire, so that when it collapsed, the official explanation was already being propagated.

It's still possible that someone was sitting in their office and just a little ahead of schedule with their script. :)

If that were the case then we'd expect other news agencies to have made the same reports at the BBC. As far as i can make out there's no evidence of this. In any case why would they need to leak the collapse of the building if they'd already being briefing why it was liable to collapse. That simply doesn't add up. I really can't see what significance the BBC report has now.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Hopping off on the wrong foot again, I see.

No - it's just one scenario the black ops theory suggests. Either the black ops made a mistake, or one of the media did and didn't stick to the script, as you yourself has suggested.

If a blacks op campaign was involved, then it would have been likely that the media would have been briefed, to ensure that the 'official' story, of the building collapsing due to fire damage, had been circulated in good time for the 'pulling' of the building to appear as if it was the result of the fire.

So in essence you still have to have an extrmely leakproof conspiracy in order for this to work. Talk of black ops is absolutely bogus if it can't be shown that one was actually in place. There's no point going on about how 'likely' something is when you have no proof whatsoever.
 
Off the top of my head the only group of people who could have given a press release were Rudy Giuliani's OEM who were having an "emergency exercise drill" on the day of 9/11. (total "coincidence" of course.). And were strangely based in building 7.

Going back to the BBC issue , they have developed a seige mentality and refuse to even acknowledge the question of how they came to have this info on building 7. Until they give some sort of reasonable response this is a cloud that will hang over their heads for years to come.
 
Unless, of course, conspiracy sites actually use their brains and try to consider the possibility that journalists make mistakes ;) There's only a cloud there in the first place because they seem unable to think outside of the box and consider the mundane world. Therefore, there has to be a conspiracy, even if more likely scenarios are staring them in the face. In this sense conspiracy theories are more like a religious belief - they rely on faith and imagination more than anything else. So subsititute 'Satan' for 'Black Ops' ;)
 
Hmmm. Evidence.

Well maybe we should start by taking a look at the provenance of the woman herself.

News - Jane Standley
Jane Standley won the SONY radio reporter of the year 1997 award for the Zaire war coverage and was awarded an MBE in the Queen's 1998 New Year's Honours list for services to broadcasting.


http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/ ... ch&start=1

poster girl for the reliable BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2000/review4.shtml

The important bit...what the editors say...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... acy_2.html
 
wowsah156 said:
Going back to the BBC issue , they have developed a seige mentality and refuse to even acknowledge the question of how they came to have this info on building 7. Until they give some sort of reasonable response this is a cloud that will hang over their heads for years to come.

Yeah right :roll:
 
jimv1 said:
Hmmm. Evidence.

Well maybe we should start by taking a look at the provenance of the woman herself.

And how is any of that evidence that she was steered by a behind-the-scenes black op...? And are you saying that she's never made a mistake?
 
Jerry_B said:
jimv1 said:
Hmmm. Evidence.

Well maybe we should start by taking a look at the provenance of the woman herself.

And how is any of that evidence that she was steered by a behind-the-scenes black op...? And are you saying that she's never made a mistake?

You seem to be weirdly caught up in your own argument there. This thread concerns the report of Jane Standley. I have never mentioned anything about black ops. I was merely trying to look at the provenance and expertise of the source. And I am not saying that she's never made a mistake. She's probably human and therefore will have made several.

It does seem that she is an extremely competent reporter and comfortable in dealing with major events that have had an effect on the world stage you will note.
 
Back
Top