BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Grieves]

BBC reporter announces building 7's collapse before it occurs.

[MOD NOTE: Original video was removed by the BBC, I've replaced it with this one, which also gives the explanation]
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0PqzkFxso



Is she an evil conspirator? No. Did someone direct her to make that report? Obviously. She didn't just make it up. The newscaster didn't just make it up. This is especially evident because it -actually happened- 20 minutes later, precisely as described in the early report. Clearly BBC just has a psychic in its employ or something though, right?

 

[Dan Wilson]

That BBC report was a case of miscommunication on a very hectic day. There were reports that WTC 7 was collapsing/will collapse by personnel on site. Jane Standley had to think on her feet and made an honest mistake, she commented later how embarrassing it was.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...sun-bbc2br-george-gently-sun-bbc2-861141.html

Asked what she could tell viewers about the reported collapse of Building 7, Stanley replied, "Well, only what you already know. Details are very, very sketchy." She was thinking on her feet, she explained, having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking. She described it as "a very small and very honest mistake", which wasn't quite true, since the "very honest" response to the original question would have been "I can't tell you a bloody thing about any collapse because this is the first I've heard of it, and frankly I don't know which way is up right now". One wishes BBC correspondents would occasionally adopt this degree of candour, but habits die hard and the engrained instinct is to conceal your ignorance rather than advertise it. So you have a choice: either the BBC had inadvertently revealed that, in concert with other broadcasting organisations, it was working from a prearranged script drawn up as part of the biggest conspiracy in world history, or a flustered reporter did the best she could in the middle of a breaking story. Probability of the former, vanishingly small; probability of the latter, approaching certainty, and yet if you opt for flustered cock-up, the conspiracists will dismiss you as a hopeless dupe of the new world order.

Content from external source

 

[Grieves]

having been confronted with a statement that she had no way of checking.

Who's statement? Where did she receive this information? Why did she run with it as if it was fact (which it turned out to be 20 minutes later), to the extent that her newscaster would open the segment with the statement that the building has collapsed? She's clearly not 'to blame', she's a foreigner to new york, and most new yorkers couldn't have identified building 7 unless they worked near it, so if you receive a seemingly solid report that another building has collapsed, you have every reason to run with it. That's just it though, she obviously received a seemingly solid report from somewhere. It doesn't require the BBC to be running a pre-arranged script, just a single somebody somewhere jumping the gun in the media-frenzy. This eerie prediction is often excused by the fact that some firefighters thought the building might collapse, on the supposition these opinions got their way back to her like a game of 'telephone' in which the details were muddled. Maybe that's true. She none the less, in concert with her news anchor, predicted an event before it happened on live television to a suspicious level of detail. When a reporter makes an honest mistake in reporting something, usually it's that what they reported didn't happen the way they claimed, or that they mixed up the details. I've never before witnessed or heard of a reporter apologizing for the honest mistake of reporting an event with accuracy before it takes place.
It by no mean damns her, nor implies her a fiend, but I'm pretty sure its unprecedented (unless anyone has other examples of reporters mistakenly but accurately prophesying events) and should warrant suspicion/investigation.

 

[SR1419]

It doesn't require the BBC to be running a pre-arranged script, just a single somebody somewhere jumping the gun in the media-frenzy. This eerie prediction is often excused by the fact that some firefighters thought the building might collapse, on the supposition these opinions got their way back to her like a game of 'telephone' in which the details were muddled. Maybe that's true. She none the less, in concert with her news anchor, predicted an event before it happened on live television to a suspicious level of detail

I am not trying to play semantics- but I think its an important point. The reporter did not "predict" that it would collapse. That would be claiming foreknowledge of events yet to happen. She erroneously reported something had happened even though it had not.

That it did happen later does not then turn the report into a prediction. The fact that she is actually standing in front of the building whilst making the report suggest she is clearly not well informed about what she is reporting. She certainly could have checked the facts simply by turning around and looking. Its just crappy reporting.

I am curious as what "level of detail" in her report you find suspicious? She didn't say much other than it had collapsed and that first responders had been pulled earlier in the day.

 

[Mick West]

The fall of WTC7 was predicted well before it happened. That's why the firefighters were pulled out. They saw the side of the building sagging, they heard it creaking, and knew it was likely to collapse.

This would have been reported on way or the other, probably from reporters on the ground interviewing retreated firefighters. This report of "Building 7 is about to collapse" just got morphed in the retelling (in what everyone would admit was an exceptionally busy news day) to "Building 7 has collapsed".

 

[Grieves]

I am curious as what "level of detail" in her report you find suspicious?

The frequent reference to the building having collapsed, punctuated with statements of certainty like 'and indeed it has.' The anchor also states 'This was not as a result of the attack, but because the building had been weakened.' That's a rather specific account of what hasn't happened yet. The anchor asks, 'Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers building collapse..?' to which she answers, 'Well, only really what you already know, details are very very sketchy...' this is one of the most revealing aspects of the report in my mind. She makes it very clear that she herself is rather poorly informed and that the information she's gleaned isn't yet reliable. The only 'fact' they both share is the collapse of the building, suggesting the report of that collapse might not have even started on her end. Considering she's several stories up in a windowed building several long miles away from the event in a city in which phone-lines are down, it's hard to imagine how she'd have gleaned any accurate information from events taking place on the ground at around the same time. This is why I find the 'telephone' scenario so highly doubtful, as there weren't any telephones to relay that misinformation back to her. It seems far more likely to me the report of the building collapse came from the BBC's end. She clearly has no details on building 7 to offer, clearly in fact doesn't know the first thing about it, or she'd have known it was right behind her. The only 'information' she has, and the only 'information' she offers, is on the feelings of New Yorkers in general at that moment.
I actually don't believe she's at fault here. But someone, whether on her end or the BBC's end, told her/the BBC the building had collapsed, and apparently they were trusted enough for the BBC to treat it as fact without any confirmation. I understand the events of the day were extremely hectic, and that confused reports are bound to happen.... but this wasn't a confused report. It was a fairly accurate report on something that hadn't yet occurred.

The reporter did not "predict" that it would collapse. That would be claiming foreknowledge of events yet to happen. She erroneously reported something had happened even though it had not.

That it did happen later does not then turn the report into a prediction.

Was it her report, though? She was their 'correspondent on the ground', but she never claims or is credited with reporting the collapse herself. The Anchor reported the collapse, presented as a fact, and then deferred to a reporter on the ground to discuss it. Prediction is maybe the wrong word, but a series of events which had not yet occurred was reported, and then occurred seemingly precisely as it was 'mistakenly' reported to have.

 

[SR1419]

The frequent reference to the building having collapsed, punctuated with statements of certainty like 'and indeed it has.' The anchor also states 'This was not as a result of the attack, but because the building had been weakened.' That's a rather specific account of what hasn't happened yet

The "level of detail" is simply that it supposedly collapsed and wasn't part of the initial attack- How is that suspicious? Pointing out the building wasn't part of the initial attack is hardly a detail that should give pause as it was widely understood to be the case.


How do you reconcile these statements??:

She makes it very clear that she herself is rather poorly informed and that the information she's gleaned isn't yet reliable. The only 'fact' they both share is the collapse of She clearly has no details on building 7 to offer, clearly in fact doesn't know the first thing about it, or she'd have known it was right behind her. The only 'information' she has, and the only 'information' she offers, is on the feelings of New Yorkers in general at that moment.

And.

this wasn't a confused report.

Clearly she was quite confused, details were sketchy..and she reported false information.

it was a fairly accurate report on something that hadn't yet occurred...then occurred seemingly precisely as it was 'mistakenly' reported to have.

Perhaps your bias leads you to that conclusion. But the FACT is it was a completely INACCURATE report. At the time of reporting no such event had occurred...that it did collapse later does not validate her report has being preemptively accurate. The only detail which could be deemed "precise" is that it collapsed.

 

[Grieves]

Being a unique event though, shouldn't investigating it thoroughly and forensically be of significant, if not paramount importance?

And again SR, I've seen nothing to suggest the collapse of the building itself was her report specifically. The anchor introduced the collapse as firm fact himself, and then gave the stage over to the reporter at the scene, who clearly knew next to nothing about building 7. SHE is giving an admittedly confused and un-detailed report on New Yorkers in general, and offers no information on building 7, or its collapse. She never once states herself building 7 collapsed, or offers up any information on its collapse. In fact, she rather directly states she has absolutely no information about the collapse. The words 'Only what you already know', her only fleeting reference to the collapse the anchor describes, suggests strongly to me that her 'knowledge' of the collapse came from the Anchor's end.
There was, however, no confusion whatsoever on the end of the Anchor. He's making a firm statement that building 7 has collapsed. Not might have, not could have, not is going too, not is reported to have, but has, 'indeed', collapsed. She assumes no such air of certainty about anything she mentions, so I find it hard to believe she leaped to an uninformed conclusion herself that the BBC just shrugged and dived into headlong. If anything, it seems to me like the BBC relayed the information that a collapse had taken place, and she was simply commenting from as close to the site of the event as she could get.

 

[xenon]

Just before the collapse.

There was a tv crew there until about 4.50. I posted it on another thread. It is confirmed because they said, just after the collapse, 'we were right there less than half an hour ago filming'.

The BBC Jane Standley incident is curious. Everyone (almost) has seen the first tape of Jane reporting that the "Solomon" building had collapsed 20 minutes before it did but many people have not seen her second appearance of the day.


full hour on Archive.org
http://archive.org/details/bbc200109112023-2104

Jane says it's all a big misunderstanding


She's in Rome now!

 

[Boodles]

Jane says it's all a big misunderstanding.

I believe her. Anyone establish who dispatched the Reuters cable she was handed?

 

[xenon]

I believe her. Anyone establish who dispatched the Reuters cable she was handed?

One might think that would be important. Whether she's right or not, what are the odds of "satellite timing" cutting off both of her spots, the second cut off in particular? These people know about satellite timing, they program their shows around them. Once maybe but what are the odds of twice?

 

[xenon]

Fox news also prematurely announced the fall of WTC7. Who wrote these lines? The presenters weren't making things up as they went along

fox news announces WTC7 collapse before the collapse

 

[Representative Press]

Jane Standley. Many have seen the first video @ ~5pm EST where she was cut off because of "satellite timing" but the second "cut off" is even more interesting. 2 "cut offs" within 3 1/2 hours. How many other "cut offs" happened on the BBC that day?

If you haven't seen it (starts @ 0:45)


Fox news also prematurely announced the fall of WTC7. Who wrote these lines? The presenters weren't making things up as they went along
fox news announces WTC7 collapse before the collapse

I have seen conspiracist Mike Rivero argue that the BBC and other media were "given a script." It is such poor reasoning, as if the media wouldn't simply report the collapse when the saw it, secret agents would feel it necessary to risk exposure (basically asking the media to play along as an accomplice by reading a script) to say that the building had collapsed?! What obviously happened is with all the predictions the media was given about a pending collapse, someone mistakenly said "did collapse" instead of "will collapse."
And what I explained happened you can see CNN anchor Aaron Brown doing exactly that: 'We are getting information now that one of other buildings, building 7, in the world trade center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." If other media outlets had people watching the other TV channels, it is very easy to see how someone could get misinformed by watching a part of Aaron Brown's reporting.

It really highlights a problem with reasoning of conspiracists that this simple explanation of misreporting doesn't satisfy them and instead they think it would make sense for secret agents to supply the media with "scripts!"

What makes more sense, that the prediction that WTC7 was going to collapse (as we can see reporters talking about it for hours in the above video) was misreported at some point or that secret agents for some inexplicable reason decided to include media outlets in on a secret plot to do a "controlled demolition" of WTC7?

And the reason I mention Mike Rivero is because he is one of the main culprits responsible for spreading this irrationality on his website "what really happened" AND he refuses to even respond to emails begging him to have a dialog about what he is pushing on his site. It is extremely unfair that this man is duping so many people like this and we have to keep dealing with those duped by his stubborn ignorance. When will this crap end? This is cruel, do you understand that? Why not email him a link to this post and ask him to explain himself?

 

[Hitstirrer]

What obviously happened is with all the predictions the media was given about a pending collapse, someone mistakenly said "did collapse" instead of "will collapse."

Yes. What obviously happened is that two or three very experienced TV news reporters made identical mistakes within a few minutes of each other. I respect your confidence in making that statement but many people disagree with co-incidences in general and that one in particular.