9/11: "Honest Mistake" or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence

That piece of video was 'lost' for a time, but the news editor at the time said finally that it was wrongly archived 2002 instead of 2001, so I'm presuming that they still have it, now correctly archived.

Neither Jane Stanley or Philip Hayden, (the anchorman) are likely to have known whether or not if a building had come down, but only what they were being told, and it's quite clear that Philip Hayden was being told in his ear that WTC7 had collapsed, even as his exchange with Jane Standley was going on. If I recall, at the time of the missing tape, the news editor Richard Porter, made some quite 'impatient' statements, although I don't recall the reason for the whole debacle, (an incorrect Reuters wire) coming from him, which could have explained stuff much earlier, somehow the thing was allowed to drag on??

Porter also said we are not part of a conspiracy, nobody told us what to say or do, we did not get told in advance "THAT BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO FALL DOWN" Mr Porter is a bit of a cock, why did he say that? as far as WTC7 is concerned, (and that is the subject on which he was talking about never mind the inclusion of 'buildings' instead of building) everybody on the ground seemed to be aware that WTC7 WAS going to come down at some time, so it is more than likely that all the TV channels knew that, since it had been talked about all day, and since the first fire recorded at 10.00 am, and that WTC7 may well have been mentioned earlier on some channels as being in danger of collapse. At the end of it all, it was most likely a mistiming by someone in the ether, But Mr Porter' outbursts were seen as very arrogant and misleading a few years ago.

This link carries a gathering of some of his remarks,

antagonise.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Akasirus

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
I need to be sure about something here:

Does the BBC possess the archived video tape of Jane Standley at 2154 GMT or is this one of the tapes that "went missing" from their archives?

tia

One thing I thought I'd point out is that footage goes missing all the time, so you have to realize that them not having some of the footage archived is not an unusual occurrence. The amount of physical space it takes to house servers to store all that footage is staggering. Portions of the archive are frequently deleted to make room for other data. Sometimes things are deleted on purpose, sometimes it's just an oversight, but it's not a rare occurrence.[........ snipped for length.........]
I'm not sure what you are hoping to prove by determining whether they have the 'tape' (tape is likely a misnomer, as archives aren't usually stored on tapes any more), but good luck. You can also find most, if not all, of that particular segment online as well.

I'm using the term "TAPES" because that is how the BBC guy refers to it:

statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:

"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."

And to answer my own question from page 9 .... The "TAPES" of Jane on News 24 were not the same tapes that were lost by the BBC.

reply to post by smurfy

everybody on the ground seemed to be aware that WTC7 WAS going to come down at some time,

Heh...I love that part. The "conspiracy" required everyone on the ground to know WTC7 was going down. Funny how they didn't know the same with the Murrah building, but that's a different story because of the construction differences.

There was no precidence, and no policeman or fireman would have known in advance WTC7 was going to come down without being told they were going to Pull It.

I think it's relevent to mention this;

7 World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[48] Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[49] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[50] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building."

source : en.wikipedia.org...

September 11 Television Archive

www.archive.org...

9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - “Flight 175” - 2nd World Trade Center Attack
ARCHIVE--- www.911conspiracy.tv...

SEPTEMBER 11 VIDEO ARCHIVE - The 2nd WTC Attack - ALL KNOWN ANGLES OF "FLIGHT 175"
ARCHIVE--- www.911conspiracy.tv...

SEPTEMBER 11 VIDEO ARCHIVE - WTC 2 “Collapse” - SOUTH TOWER CAMERA ANGLES
ARCHIVE--- www.911conspiracy.tv...

I wonder if they will make the same mistake when reporting the fake alien invasion last card? Like reporting that the mother ship has arrived prior to it even being spotted?

~SheopleNation

WTC 7 has nothing to do with the 9/11 story. Of course it was a mistake and not relevant. The indications were that the building was coming down, it was becoming increasingly unstable.

I don't see this really as being a "We knew and spilled the beans early" situation. And here's why:

News outlets are constantly trying to one-up each other. Something like this, being covered by every news agency that can hop, skip, or jump into place, any one of them will be trying to put anything they get on air. All it takes is one guy saying "Building 7 looked really damaged, it might come down." to the right (or wrong) person. The source doesn't even have to be an engineer or person of authority. Could have been a passing hot dog vendor. Then they play the telephone game, and once it gets to the face on the screen, it went from "Building Damaged" to the sensationalist "Building Collapsed".

I wouldn't really rule it out as a matter of course, but this seems to me like a perfectly explainable deal. Especially considering the 15-second delay most news agencies use. If someone saw it go out early, it probably would have been dumped.

Originally posted by SteveR
WTC 7 has nothing to do with the 9/11 story. Of course it was a mistake and not relevant. The indications were that the building was coming down, it was becoming increasingly unstable.

Why steve, Because you say so? Sounds to me like some payed yes man hack garbage. Either that, or some sheoplized Fox News agenda. Wrong bro. Building 7 is 100% proof that 9/11 was an inside job. What, did Silverstein Properties have pre-planted explosives set up years before in case building 7 ever became unstable? Do you comprehend how insane that sounds? Listen, Larry A. Silverstein is a bottomfeeding scoundrel. He's in bed with the internationalists who are destroying The United States of America, and he's one of many enemies within. You really need to wake up bro.

If anything, It's people like you who are part of the problem. ~SheopleNation

reply to post by patternfinder


Maybe she mixed up the fact that it was on fire with the collapse of the other buildings. She said that building because it was being reported on as on fire.

It's completely logical, you can't deny it.

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by galdur
It was lousy timing. They neglected to have the script they were given fit the ongoing timeline. CNN too made the same mistake regarding WTC7.

which tells me that they got the news from reuters or a&p, if they both said it prematurely that would be one of the common factors between them...that's interesting, i wonder who it is that controls those two agencies? please don't tell me they are owned by jewish interests????

Bingo! The zionists control all the media, including Reuters - and Reuters is one of the main news feeds to the various media corporations.

Originally posted by Akasirus
reply to post by ProphetOfZeal

 

I love how people tell others to 'Wake Up' and 'Open Your Eyes' simply because they have a different view point. That's what people usually say when they don't have anything to back up their claims. Maybe your eyes are too wide open, looking for things that aren't there.

Who says I have nothing to back up my claims? Stop assuming, zombie.

I'll use something current. How about the obvious blatant media blackout attempt of Ron Paul. That's just ONE of thousands of examples and piece of evidence of the corrupt media. They cannot be objective and unbiased. Symptom of having big corporate masters. Like I said before, do some research. I've done research on this subject for years now (media corruption) and it's the oldest tool and trick in the book.

Now go watch news on T.V like you probably do. Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by micpsi

 

Linking sloppy journalism to a plot has always been a ridiculous stretch. If you had planned this, why would you telegraph what was about to happen? Such planning would try to minimize discovery, not complicate issues and make things more risky for the plotters. You would have no reason to tell anyone what was about to happen. Everyone would know soon enough, even if broadcasters misunderstood their feeds and tried to scoop the competition without fact checking.
The simplest plot would be to let the aircraft strike their targets. All proposed goals could be accomplished whether the buildings collapsed or not, the hijackers would be dead, and the event could be explained as "incompetence at the highest levels of government." This last is eminently believeable by the public, especially with the track record of Bush administrations.

They were gloating over their success.

I am told serial murderers have a tendency to leave clues to gloat over their "work". All the "lapses" are nothing more than their gloating over their "work".

It would have been a simple matter for the US forces, post-occupation, to plant some WMD in Iraq and for some others to have "discovered" them, validating the excuse for the invasion. Yet, they never bothered to do so. The Bush team could have simply ignored the questions about WMD in Iraq when none were found. But Bush had to gloat about the fact that he lied by looking for them under the table in Oval Office.

There is hardly any cover-up in the September 11, 2001 events of New York and Washington, simply some stories spun by the media, not even any official agency.

The 9/11 truthers are really a sorry bunch for thinking that they can convince people who pretend to buy a ridiculous explanation that is extremely convenient by confronting them with facts.

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by longtermproject

Originally posted by patternfinder
The lady that was in the video where the BBC called the collapse of the wtc7 early says it was a small and honest mistake....How can someone make a mistake about foretelling that a building is going to collapse....the thing is, she never replied to his question about building 7 collapsing and she didn't see the ticker tape claiming that the Solomon building had collapsed, or maybe she knew that the building hadn't collapsed yet and didn't want to reply on the comment that the anchor was making about it....either way, could you imagine what would have happened if the news media would have came out 15 minutes too early to say that president kennedy had been shot??? "oh, we're sorry, it was an honest mistake, we couldn't have known that kennedy was going to get shot, so the fact that we reported it before it even happened was a mistake, sorry guys we won't pre-report anything again..." someone knew that it was going to go down, Jane might not have and even the anchor man might not have, but the producer sure knew....he/she was the one that had to time the words on the monitor and the ticker tape news........

heres the original video

oops, our bad for reporting it too soon...

edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)

Using this logic is akin to the guy on CNN that kept saying Obama had been killed instead of Osama. If Obama had been assassinated, the conspiracy would have been that this guy knew it was going to happen..... even though it was just mis-spoken words. Clearly your theory has holes in it, and you are reaching here....

Conspiracy denied

thank you for your input......clearly, you would like to look at it from the shallows..

Your Opinion, denied

wow... really... Not an opinion... 9/11 happened, and it wasn't a conspiracy... YOU ARE THE ONE WITH AN OPINION.....

Reuters "scripting" of two of the most important events in modern history points the finger at the House of Rothschild.

Rothschild's Reuters script was evident in the murder of JFK, and 911. The script is evidence of their direct involvement, and their criminal demeanor is exemplified by their subsequent cover up. They are busted!

It's time to take away every plug nickel the House of Rothschild has.

The redistribution of wealth from the House of Rothschild built on opium, insider trading, murder, assassination and every other black art you can think of will be a blessing to mankind. Time to kick the House of Rothschild to the gutter where they belong.

reply to post by Mclaneinc

Its a very odd 'mistake' to have made, why would she mention a building collapsing unless she had been fed the news 2nd hand, she herself was in no position to know what was going on, she was merely the front person for the BBC relying upon whatever was being researched and supplied to her.

BING! BING ! BING!

We have a winner here....! Which is exactly what happened - BBC quoted Reuters report, which in term quoted
local news source that WTC 7 collapsed. What happened is that someone heard (probably from FDNY) that
area around WTC 7 was being evacuated in ANTICIPATION of collapse. Along the chain (ever play telepehone?
then know how things get screwed up ...) became garbled that WTC 7 HAD collapsed.

Poor Jane Stanley was out there reading the news report (with WTC 7 burning in background) to become a
laughingstock

The whole show was scripted from the start. It´s all archived at archive.org.

People can review all major network TV transmissions there.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Mclaneinc

 

Its a very odd 'mistake' to have made, why would she mention a building collapsing unless she had been fed the news 2nd hand, she herself was in no position to know what was going on, she was merely the front person for the BBC relying upon whatever was being researched and supplied to her.

BING! BING ! BING!

We have a winner here....! Which is exactly what happened - BBC quoted Reuters report, which in term quoted
local news source that WTC 7 collapsed. What happened is that someone heard (probably from FDNY) that
area around WTC 7 was being evacuated in ANTICIPATION of collapse. Along the chain (ever play telepehone?
then know how things get screwed up ...) became garbled that WTC 7 HAD collapsed.

Poor Jane Stanley was out there reading the news report (with WTC 7 burning in background) to become a
laughingstock

your version requires a stretch of the imagination....your just being speculative about it...they said that they weren't told by anyone about it......let's see you cover for them now that you know that

reply to post by longtermproject




ok, goofball, you've totally proved it to me and changed my mind.......NOT!!!

what a way to win friends and influence people maybe if you use that strategy you can win over all the truthers here...in fact something jus hit me, i wonder why we are called truthers and you guys are called OSers, it definitely fits.......