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

Originally posted by Flying Sorcerer

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
9/11 WAS A Government conspiracy and that truth will one day explode into the faces of the real perpetrators, whether in a few years or a 100 years.

If it takes 100 years, these perpetrators will be long dead and will have got away with probably the BIGGEST conspiracy in history.

The biggest conspiracy of our lifetime maybe - but somehow think Hitler burning the Reichstadt building was a little bigger in the grand scheme of things

either way, both seem to be a tactic to catch the people off guard and put us in a certain frame of mind...it's easier to convince people that what they want to do is a good thing as long as the people are afraid and think it is in their best interest.....

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze

 

Yes of course. But was it a news agency who passed this information on to the BBC or was it a U.S Government Dept?

that's a good point...we have no way of knowing unless someone comes out and says it...but, if they do, they could get suicided pretty easily......

reply to post by patternfinder


agree completely mate

For the record I was not trying to play the event down at all, I was just pointing out that it was not the only massive conspiracy to happen in history. In fact if you look through history then there have been countless false flags and conspiracies.

The notion of making a mistake about reporting an event before it happened is risible. You make a mistake only when you get your facts wrong about what actually happened. The vital point not being addressed here is how this could have been become a news item when it had not happened! It is hard to believe that a false rumour would go out on the news wires as fact and be picked up by the unsuspecting BBC. Clearly, Standley was commenting upon a news release that WTC7 had collapsed which had been prepared in anticipation of this event but which got released prematurely. The BBC's refusal to face this awkward implication of its premature report is inexcusable. Her explanation is plain silly and avoids the question because it implies that someone knew WTC7 was about to collapse and this could have been possible only if the building was brought down by controlled demolition and not - as the official story has it - through fire and damage from the debris of WTC1 & WTC2.

A good comprehensive site on the WTC7 collapse is www.WTC7.net, BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC 7's Collapse

The BBC simply went into too much detail about the collapse in post tense terms for this to be some "mistake". Then 13 minutes into their report, and still another 10 minutes prior to the actual collapse they "lost the feed" to their field reporter with the image of the still-standing WTC7 in the background.

To me one of the more glaring examples the BBC knew this was going to happen was this:

20:15 ~5:14 PM: The image of Jane Standley begins to break up and the anchor, remarking that they'd "lost the line" with Jane Standley, shifts to another report.

So right in the middle of prematurely reporting the collapse of WTC7, and after "losing the video feed" with the glaring image of WTC7 still standing, you SWITCH TO ANOTHER SUBJECT? Why would you shift to another report when apparently you're being told of the collapse of WTC7?

How would this have looked if the BBC reported live Flight 11 crashing into the WTC at 8:15 AM, with a video feed of the still standing towers, instead of the actual time of the event at 8:46 AM?

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.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


BBC is own by the UK Government and the British tax payer pays for their operations. Judging by the fact the US and the UK has a "special" political relationship, I'm pretty sure the BBC was tip offed earlier.

Well done, only 4½ years late on that angle:
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Not that it'll change your mind, but for the sake of balance I thought I'd throw it out there...

Originally posted by roboe
Well done, only 4½ years late on that angle:
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Not that it'll change your mind, but for the sake of balance I thought I'd throw it out there...

I refer you to the post just above yours!!

What are any of us going to do about it? As with all these conspiracies which are in the main proven to be more factual than theoretical, TPTB pull the strings, make too much of a fuss you meet a nasty end in a car crash, unexpected heart attack, or slit your wrists in the middle of a field then move your dead body away from the murder, sorry suicide, site. If you make yourself a medium nuisance then you're going to get the IRS, ATF, or other federal body crashing through your door and carrying you off to stand trial, make a small annoyance and your mortgage gets foreclosed by the bank in an administrative error which isn't corrected until you're on the street penniless and homeless. (For each different country please insert the relevant body)

Democracy is dead, accountability is dead, the takeover is complete, the dismantling of the law to stop this sort of bloodless coup d'etat has been accomplished. There is nothing we can do, the forces of "law and order" are in the pocket of TPTB. All anyone can do these days is keep their heads down, try to keep their jobs, try to house and feed their families, and live in dread of the day the final agenda of the New World Order is brought out into the sunlight.

Originally posted by roboe
Well done, only 4½ years late on that angle:
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Not that it'll change your mind, but for the sake of balance I thought I'd throw it out there...

this is a quote from the first link you provided...

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.

would they have said the same thing if they had reported kennedy's death too early? sure it was a mistake, the information was already there about the collapse before it even happened and they distributed it too early....they aren't lying when they say it was a mistake, because it was a mistake...which still doesn't look good for them...now if they would have said something that wasn't about to be true and it ended up not true, then that would be just an error....their report came true 20 minutes later....that is not an error

Never mind

Originally posted by roboe
Well done, only 4½ years late on that angle:
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.bbc.co.uk...

Not that it'll change your mind, but for the sake of balance I thought I'd throw it out there...

this is what someone posted on the comments of the first link you posted.

At 06:26 PM on 27 Feb 2007, Simon wrote:

"We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

So why then, is the reporter reporting that the Saloman Building (WTC7) has come down when it is clearly visible behind her as she speaks?

"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error"

An error? That does not explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually had done. WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, don't you think? Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 *rolls eyes*

reply to post by patternfinder


"Mistake???"

Predicting the future is a mistake? They should be playing the lottery every chance they get!

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by patternfinder

 

"Mistake???"

Predicting the future is a mistake? They should be playing the lottery every chance they get!

ha ha, i'm with you on that!! here's a cute video i found of the tower falling down and what the news reporters were saying during it...

It was a mistake; since if someone knew it was going down why would they announce it beforehand on purpose and draw such suspicion.

But the fact that it was a mistake doesn’t take any suspicion away from these culprits, in fact what it does tell us is something that we have had suspicion about all along . . . and that is that all the major network and news outlets like CNN, FOX, and BBC are littered with intelligence agency spies.

reply to post by inforeal

But the fact that it was a mistake doesn’t take any suspicion away from these culprits, in fact what it does tell us is something that we have had suspicion about all along . . . and that is that all the major network and news outlets like CNN, FOX, and BBC are littered with intelligence agency spies.

Yeah, you're right...these folks are just as fallible as the rest of us. It was a mistake, and the take home lesson is indeed that all the media are in on it.

They made mistakes throughout the 911 operation, but they can always count on the credulity of the Western citizenry to believe the TeeVee over their common sense. In this case, they even chose to disbelieve the TV, which provided a brief glimpse into the truth.

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.

I have always wondered this as well... if it was slated to happen, why would a report be distributed in advance? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary room for error? Anyone have thoughts on this?

reply to post by HolographicPrincipal

I have always wondered this as well... if it was slated to happen, why would a report be distributed in advance? Wouldn't that just be unnecessary room for error? Anyone have thoughts on this?

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.

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

Kennedy getting shot wasn't the 3rd/4th/5th event of a series of tragic events that happened in the same day. 2 other WTC buildings had collapsed and this one was on fire. I can imagine a lot of scenarios in which someone could mistakenly believe WTC7 had collapsed prior to the event. Those scenarios are a lot more plausible than all the news organizations getting inside illuminati/NWO info prior to the event. Why would the elite criminals who perpetrated this attack even need to alert the media that the buildings collapsed? "Hey, remember those buildings we are blowing up today? They just fell, you should report that, thanks!" Riiight.