Will BBC Newsnight investigate Jane Standley?

[kbo234]

As suggested on another thread, I sent an email to:

NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk

A reply, from a Mr Meirion Jones, asked for my phone number.....I sent it and stone the crows, he rang this evening.

How can I put it.....

......we didn't really get on.

It turned out he had 'looked into' everything I raised and there was basically.....umm.......no cause for concern on these issues.

.....NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN.

There are a few reasons I am posting this here:

Firstly, a detail he came out with during our fairly long exchange.

He said that he'd looked into the Jane Standly pre-announcement of the collapse of building 7 and that the 'backdrop' was not happening in real time. She was speaking in front of a pre-recorded loop of some sort. This is new to me. A bit like the NIST WTC7 report itself, it seems to take the authorities some time to come up with a plausible lie (though not very). To me the Standly thing is fairly irrelevant....the free-fall speed of the middle part of the collapse proves the use of demolition charges. Full stop.

However, has anyone else hear this excuse before? Can anyone provide information relating to its plausibility.

I don't believe it simply because I think they would have been spouting this line loud and clear from day one were it true. The 'Conspiracy Files' programme on WTC7 only tried to create pity for Jane Standly, focussing on the fact she had been 'harassed' by heartless 9/11 truthers since the tape of her report entered the public domain (in 2007, was it?). This programme made no mention of a pre-recorded background......and they surely would have known at the time were there any truth in this at all.

Secondly, you might similarly email Newsnight with you own ideas for investigation. This would be a good idea IMO, not that the BBC will investigate your particular issue.......and be warned, Mr Jones is very well armed with detail to counteract any doubts you might express re the (any) official narrative you contradict.

Mr Jones accused me of being abusive during our conversation. I can't deny that. The phrase f**king liar was ringing so loudly in my head that I couldn't help but let it slip on a few occasions. However, fair play to him, he maintained his good manners to the end (the very quality which, of course, makes the BBC such an excellent mouthpiece for disinformation...impeccable manners and obvious good breeding)

I do wonder why the BBC news department are carrying out this exercise. Is it to reassure the disaffected that all is well on planet Let's Talk Boll*x?

More likely the news department is getting ruffled feathers because of the public's reaction to the handling of the ongoing financial catastrophe......and someone high up wants to carry out this exercise in order to 'test the water' of disaffection, gauge how deep the trouble goes and find ways of refining their methods to more effectively still the turbulence.

Also, by the way, if you do decide to contact Newsnight it is probably a good idea to ask for an investigation into one or two issues only (unlike my ten).

[TonyGosling]

Thanks KBO for this insight into the crazy shenanigans at the Corporation.

I diagnose a serious case of mental illness, due to being a major pawn paving the way for most serious world war this planet has ever seen.

For the last ten years or so if you get it right at the BBC you get sacked and if you get it wrong you get promoted. Bound to confuse people when they get a pat on the back every time they screw up!

Their egos keep telling them how wonderful they are to have these high powered jobs, but the truth is many of the senior editors ands producers are only employed because they're evil or stupid.

[numeral]

....
Firstly, a detail he came out with during our fairly long exchange.

He said that he'd looked into the Jane Standly pre-announcement of the collapse of building 7 and that the 'backdrop' was not happening in real time. She was speaking in front of a pre-recorded loop of some sort. This is new to me. A bit like the NIST WTC7 report itself, it seems to take the authorities some time to come up with a plausible lie (though not very). To me the Standly thing is fairly irrelevant....the free-fall speed of the middle part of the collapse proves the use of demolition charges. Full stop.

However, has anyone else hear this excuse before? Can anyone provide information relating to its plausibility.
....

It is mentioned in September Clues. Starting at 26:53 into the second half, "Jane Standley had this blue screen behind her".

http://www.thesocialservice.it/

[kbo234]

It is mentioned in September Clues. Starting at 26:53 into the second half, "Jane Standley had this blue screen behind her".

http://www.thesocialservice.it/

The fact that her announcement was made half an hour or so before the collapse of WTC7 has never been denied....has it?

[item7]

The "blue screen" is irrelevant. The timing cannot be denied. She announced the collapse of WTC7 well before the event. The original broadcast had a time tamp on the footage. Does he deny that the collapse was announced before the event???

[TonyGosling]

This Meirion Jones character is not fit for purpose. He knows which side his bread is buttered and will believe any old tripe to keep his prestigious job.
I bet he loves telling people what he does for his monthly NWO bank transfer bribe.
I wonder how many times silghtly tipsy dinner party guests have told him what they think of the quality of BBC investigative journalism.

This story - ahem - conspiracy theory - about the blue screen has been garnered from forums such as this!

[scienceplease]

The "blue screen" is irrelevant. The timing cannot be denied. She announced the collapse of WTC7 well before the event. The original broadcast had a time tamp on the footage. Does he deny that the collapse was announced before the event???

The timing is more important than whether it was blue-screen.

The other important fact is the BBC broadcast stopped just before the building collapsed - they lost satellite connection - apparently. This is explained in Mike Rudin's BBC WTC7 documentary "The Third Tower (The Final Mystery)" - oh if only!

And then when you add Richard Porter (BBC World News editor) not being able to find the live tape in the TV archive in 2006 (it had been put (apparently) into the 2002 section (so obviously taken out at some point!)) - You have, in fact THREE coincidences: Jane Standley pre-announcement, the BBC broadcast cut before the collapse and the missing tape.

Just thought you'd be interested.

The collapse was actually shown on Fox News, with news presenters saying it had fallen down and then it fell down behind them!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cueNiZSfftI[/youtube]

[ian neal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... iracy.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... s_iii.html

This is where the BBC tries to explain this (along with the relevant section in this year's WTC7 programme). Whether people buy their account is up to them but the question that remains unanswered is who was the original source for the building collapse report that reuters picked up on? The fire service? Who, how? 'Reporters' at the scene? Who, how? How as in how did they falsely report this and how as in how did they suspect/know it would collapse?

Readers may be interested in this new blog that critically challenges the BBC's coverage of 9/11 and in particular the conspiracy files series

http://www.bbcmot.blogspot.com/

[dewstru]

I think I may have asked these questions here before but..'how do the BBC run their archives? are they saying corporation employees just take and return archive material willy-nilly?September 11 2002? PAH!so for FOUR years 24hr's worth of millenium shaping world event news coverage...had been lost? (2)the broadcast from NY 5pm local time"was on a fifteen minute timer" and nobody in the studio manhatten/London was aware of this? (3)Isn't biased reporting MrRudin in breach of the BBC charter? (rhetorical question) there must be a formal procedure in place to prevent this.(4) If "There's nothing to see here" why did the BBC go to such frantic lengths to remove the Jane Standley film from the internet? guilty demeanour.

I've tried and, of course, failed to get answers to these questions from 'BBC complaints'. Perhaps the BBC's absurd answers above are code for...'HELP! we're being held hostage by the PTB!' from the journos?