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

reply to post by vipertech0596

The screw up made by the BBC is one of the dumbest arguments put forth in favor of an inside job. The media makes mistakes all the time....and they are that much worse on a day like 9/11/01.


In March 1981, I was watching ABC News when they reported that Ronald Reagan's Press Secretary, Jim Brady had died of the gunshot wound he received from John Hinckley. Oops.....

In 1989, CNN came to within two seconds of reporting that President George Bush had died on the day that he puked on the Japanese Prime Minister. The Floor Director cut the anchor's mike.

A couple of years ago, the 12 miners that were stuck in....Virginia?? I went to sleep that night after hearing that 11 of the men had been found alive, but one had died. The next morning, I awoke to the news that 11 of them had died, one had lived.

As I said, using the BBC's screw up is one of the DUMBEST arguments.....

The problem with your dismissal of this 'screw-up' by the BBC is that in all of your examples above, the mistakes were made AFTER the fact. The BBC screw-up is that they prematurely reported the building collapse IN SPITE OF STANDING IN FRONT OF A VIDEO FEED STILL SHOWING IT STANDING one half hour before it did collapse.

So instead of this:

"In March 1981, I was watching ABC News when they reported that Ronald Reagan's Press Secretary, Jim Brady had died of the gunshot wound he received from John Hinckley. Oops..."

You would have this:

"ABC News reported Jim Brady was killed in an assassination attempt on Reagan" - only this report is made 23 minutes before John Hinkley ever showed up at the Washington Hilton Hotel to open fire on Reagan, by a reporter clearly standing in front of a smiling Brady and Reagan glad-handing the crowd.

I think you can appreciate the difference in these two types of "screw-ups".


I don't think anyone is suggesting that lowly reporters and talking heads at the news networks were in on what was effectively "Operation Northwoods v2.0", but the major networks have their intelligence assets well entrenched who would ensure the story, as they would wish it to be presented, is done according to a script. The major networks set the tone and cadence for major breaking news, and other news outlets tend to follow their leads.

The screw-up by the BBC is they got things out of sequence and had to pull the "live video feed" of their reporter with the still standing, yet reportedly collapsed, WTC7 in the background, then quickly change topics to something else and hope no one noticed. Under any other circumstance, if a live broadcast came in from a field reporter of a major New York skyscraper collapsing and was disrupted by technical difficulties, the anchors would still continue to report it. Changing topics mid-stream is a glaring admission of guilt.

Originally posted by Yankee451
In the hierarchical structure of any business or organized structure, especially a miltary one, which is essentially what the CIA is, there would only need to be a few people at the top who know the whole story.

The chain of command would be followed as it ever would, with reporters reading scripts they're handed by their superiors. People make mistakes, that's what this was...whoever was responsible for having her read the script too early is probably out of a job, or worse.

I suppose that would make sense. So you have this footage... then there is the footage of Silverstein speaking of building 7... and also footage of firemen telling people to get away from the building... At the very least, they should raise some serious questions. And it should concern people.

This is a bit of a disconcerting thought... You would think if the government wanted to do some damage control, they would just come out and admit that yes, they brought the building down for whatever reason they feel like making up now, regardless of the rationale..."Ooops! Sorry everybody!! Our bad. Go back to work now." The way things are right now, they could probably make up the most absurd excuse, and the public would either ignore it or find it totally plausible. Or if there were demands for better answers, the media sure wouldn't focus on it, and therefore, the general public couldn't effectively come together and not let it rest until the truth is out in the open (a la Bin Laden "raid").

Otherwise, this issue should be something that should compel every single citizen to demand answers... yet that hasn't happened in this 10 years. As an aside, for those who think, well, maybe it could've just been an honest mistake.... I might agree with that if it was announced prematurely that, say, building 5 had collapsed, but then building 7 collapses. But the same building? And one that wasn't even the most damaged? I was unaware that CNN also reported this before it actually occurred. I would think that alone would be all the push needed to get everyone up in arms.

What a complete pile of BS! No one in their right mind is going to believe that it was just a small honest mistake that on such a horrible day filled with such tragic events that anyone "professional" news anchor or news network wouldn't make sure they had every detail right before broadcasting it in fear of just making things worse. That is the sad thing with alot of people now. We blame the government for lying to us when it is actually almost just as much our fault as it is theirs...we want to believe what they say, or should I say most of the American people do. It is safer to believe them, we can go on with our normal lives so to speak and not worry so much because we have someone telling us what we want to hear and not what really is going on. I for one want to know the TRUTH, even if it does alter my normal way of living or thinking.

Not an AJ fan but he does give the OS a through debunking;

Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were 'in on a conspiracy'-- rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.

The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7's collapse-- which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced-- only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a 'deliberately destroyed' building.

Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was "pulled" and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7's demolition.

I'd be willing to bet the cock-up on the BBC's (and CNN's) part was the radio transmissions over emergency frequencies of the demolition of WTC7 which they took to mean the building was already collapsed, when in fact, it had not yet been "pulled".

source

Watching this does make one wonder. But then again it would stand to reason that if there was serious structural damage to WTC7, word could have started coming out that WTC7 was ABOUT to collapse and was distorted by the time BBC recieved it to WTC7 HAS collapsed. Kind of like that game where one person whispers a phrase into the person next to them's ear, and then that person whispers it into the next person's ear and by the time it gets all the way around it is changed. I am sure she had no clue which building WTC7 was by looking at the skyline, as most of us didn't either until this happened, so she likely wouldn't have been able to turn around a realize the mistake, if indeed it was a mistake.

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

Jane Standley has no Wikipedia page now!

Don't forget, Wikinews is written by people like you! If you find a topic you want to see Wikinews cover, why not create an account and write an article on it?

Search results

Did you mean: Jane States

Content pages
Multimedia
Help and Project pages
Discussions
Everything
Advanced

Result 1 of 1 for Jane Standley

Create the page "Jane Standley" on this wiki!

BBC denies "conspiracy" over 9/11 video

In it, reporter Jane Standley reports the complete unexpected collapse of WTC 7 . However, she presented this information half an hour ...

3 KB (506 words) - 10:48, 3 June 2007

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Gee maybe I can get me a "non page" on wikipedia too!

Originally posted by babybunnies
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

People make mistakes, for sure, but those mistakes don't often come true 15 minutes later.

As OP said, if the media was to report on the assassination of JFK 15 minutes early, it wouldn't have been "a mistake".

No, this has nothing to do with JFK, and these situations are not remotely comparable. This is just an example of the 'Weak Analogy' fallacy, because these events are not analogous. One is an event that literally had no warning, and happened in a split second, while the other was a chain in a long serious of events that had been playing out all morning, and they did indeed have warning the building was going to collapse.

A better analogy would be if JFK had been shot, was lying in the hospital in critical condition for hours, and someone released a statement that he had passed away in the confusion. But I guess it's better to 'prove' your point than to use an analogy that is actually, you know, analogous.

Was this some big conspiracy, with BBC being fed stories? I certainly don't believe that, but I recognize it's a possibility. It seems people are just grasping at straws to support their conspiracy though. How many hundreds (or thousands) of more people would this add it to the conspiracy, if the major news networks were 'in' on it? It wouldn't make sense to leave a trail that large when there is no benefit of them being fed the stories in advance. They still would ave reported everything as it happened without being fed the story, with less room for error or to expose the 'conspirators', whoever they may have been.

The fact is If it was a mistake, someone jumping the gun because there was warning the building would have collapsed, it would look exactly as it does now. If it was a conspiracy with the major news networks being fed information, and with them blundering it up this badly, it would look exactly as it does now. This 'evidence' by itself is pretty neutral, it doesn't lean one way or the other.

wow i never knew about this (not suprising the whole wtc7 was hidden as much as possible)

its a bit hard to believe that this could be a common mistake.
even if you knew the building had structral damage you wouldnt say something like that

its a bit like the whole fox choosing your president fiasco
its clearly not a mistake

i dont know how there hasnt been an investigation into wtc7
watch the video, its a controlled demolition
if a building could collapse that easily from such miniscule damage..building companies would not exist they would have had their pants sued off

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


You have to understand that there is three types who will respond on the "it didn't happen" side: sociopath trolls, people who are such sheep the shock of opening their eyes would send them into a coma and disinfo agents.

Stick to the facts and ignore those who try to stretch them in-order to debunk them.

In any operation of this magnitude, things can go wrong, as shown by the BBC getting the wrong info - that Building-7 had collapsed, not that it was going to collapse, but that it had already done so - when it plainly had not. I remember when this was first brought up and the BBC was sent a request for their official footage, they said they had lost ALL live footage of the event due to a technical / administrative error! Say what? Thank heavens for the internet and those who recorded it then!

I have always suspected that whoever was running things lost that control of the third plane, which subsequently crashed in Shanksville (after being shot down - can't have the crew and passengers telling the truth and blowing the whole operation). It's target was probably WTC-7 which was already rigged to blow, like the other two towers, but again, they couldn't leave the building standing for pesky firefighters etc to find the evidence, so blew it up anyway without a plane strike.

Nothing to see here, move along, the government has spoken and it's investigation is over.

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

Ask the BBC and see what response you get!

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.

For example, 108 episodes of the original Doctor Who don't exist anymore, because they were wiped to store newer footage. Thousands of hours of various other content similarly doesn't exist. You have to realize how many feeds they have coming in, and the massive cost to backup and store it all. BBC probably had dozens, if not hundreds of hours of footage for every one hour that day, and I don't really see a reason to save every bit of it, indefinitely. At some point they will have to trim something.

It is also futile to delete archived footage to 'hide it'. It's already aired, and recorded by hundreds of individuals and other sources so deleting it after the fact would be a saste of time. 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.

reply to post by patternfinder


iirc this reporter couldn't be found for 10 years. the other dude in that tv piece was interviewed by wac, iirc, and he said he don't remember anything of that sort. bbc, eh?

Was she standing in front of a window or was it a green screen with a delayed video of the view of NY? if it was the latter, that would explain the building being up. I really don't think that the BBC would be informed of the pulling of WTC7 before it happened. I am a staunch inside job believer but this story has never struck me as strong evidence.

reply to post by patternfinder


Your Kennedy analogy falls a little short. It would be more like if Kennedy's car was fired upon and a new reporter said he was dead before anyone could confirm it. I mean buildings had collapsed. If she said it before any of them had fallen THEN i'd be shocked.

Does anyone not think that she should have actually been given a promotion instead of an apology? It must be a broadcasters dream to have an anchor who can predict the news before it happens! Get her on TV now so I can see whats going to happen tomorrow!

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

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by HolographicPrincipal

 

Let's be honest about it, you don't go into that much detail about a collapse of a building prior to it collapsing. As the OP stated, this will be like reporting the assassination of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.

I'm surprised at the lack of OSers contributing their thoughts on this one though.

edit on 20/8/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

It remind s me of this !

List of premature obituaries
en.wikipedia.org...

The CNN.com incident

Multiple premature obituaries came to light on 16 April 2003, when it was discovered that pre-written draft memorials to several world figures were available on the development area of the CNN website without requiring a password (and may have been accessible for some time before).[201] The pages included tributes to Fidel Castro, Dick Cheney, Nelson Mandela, Bob Hope, Gerald Ford, Pope John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tho I know that The Owner/Leaseholder of the WTC buildings said PULL ! In a interview !

A total Slip up and we all know that he reinvested some Insurance on the building 2 weeks prior !

All ATS Members should Play this Over and Over Until!! gets in your Head!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein


What I can hear and gather of what the Leasehold Larry Silverstein said :

I Remember Getting the Call from the Fire Department Commander
and told me that they were not sure if they will able to contain the fire
I said you know listen we had such terrible loss of life It was the Smartest thing to do is PULL IT
Ahhh And they Made that Decision to Pull and then we watched the Building Collapse !

Just maybe this leak into the media about it being pulled ! before it was collapsed !

This Video has been around ATS in many thread I would Assume It plainly there he Said Pull !!

Is Pull is a Demolition Contractor Slang to Bring Down a Building ! ?
This does Not ONLY Mean by Explosives as some claim

Pull means bring it down in a controlled manner
Either by Cables or Ball Wrecker, Cutting Weak spots or even Using !! THERMITE and Explosives

Sliverstein said Pull it not Pull Out or they Pull Out but Pull it ! ??

Now you ATS Member are Saying !
There is No Demolition Contractors Ever Saying Pull Prior or After 911 !!

Well watch this Video about WTC building 6 ! Being PULLED!

Pull It? ( 12 seconds in We are getting ready to pull building 6 )



Now go back to the silverstein Video and Replay it !

Debunk that debunkers!

Scary scary stuff. With all our satellites im sure TPTB can watch 9-11 unfold from any given angle, but of course all we get our the few cell phone videos. Shouldnt
t there be thousands of recordings of the collapses?