Whatever happened to … Jane Standley?

The BBC’s Jane Standley  said, in a later interview [below]: “It’s very unfortunate that this whole conspiracy – kind of – ridiculous situation has grown out of what’s really a very small and very honest mistake.”

And what was that very small and very honest mistake, do you remember? She was filmed by the BBC at 5:00 p.m. on 911 in NY, reporting that the Salomon building had collapsed, while it actually remained standing in the live shot behind her head. The BBC cut the feed and the building promptly collapsed twenty minutes later, at 5:20 p.m.

The BBC said that the reason the interview had ended abruptly was that the satellite feed had cut out at 5:15 p.m. exactly.




Transferring the discussion here from the comments thread below, what strikes me is the chronology for the BBC World segment:

1.  Anchor opens with specific question about the Salomon, even saying it has “also” collapsed;

2.  She’s standing on the wrong side of the camera for such a shot because she’s obscuring the Salomon;

3.  She answers in general about the WTC and how it’s been completely sealed off etc. but never really addresses the Salomon directly, which is clearly the intent of BBCW in this segment.  So Dearieme’s contention that she just didn’t know which building was which holds water;

4.  The anchor comes back to this specific building having collapsed and still she doesn’t address that;

5.  The ticker though repeats that it has collapsed;

6.  They then suddenly lose the feed;

7.  Five minutes later, the building collapses, off-air.

So she appears not to know one building from another but those who prepared the report do and it’s repeated and repeated.  Actually, in my own little bit of going into the future, today’s 13:00 post:


… which clearly you can’t view because 13:00 hasn’t yet come at the point of writing this, quotes an interview with the owner of that building who said he was bringing it down that afternoon.  In the clip, you hear explosions at the base.

I’ll continue this at 13:00.

13 comments for “Whatever happened to … Jane Standley?

  1. July 27, 2011 at 07:27

    The Wiki URL does not work, nor do what might be pics on the pst, at least for me.

    I have not seen this footage, so can’t really know more.

  2. dearieme
    July 27, 2011 at 08:53

    Isn’t a likelier explanation that TV journalists tend to be arseholes who report on things they don’t understand? Would she have known one nyc building from another?

  3. July 27, 2011 at 09:59

    Moggsy – the url worked fine for me just now – it brings up an article deleted page, which was the point.

    Dearieme – the report begins about 4:54, the anchor makes a reference to the Salomon having collapsed and as you infer, she does not reply directly to that but in general. I’d say she doesn’t know specifically to what he’s referring although that’s amazing for someone on the scene and speaking with people. At that same time, the ticker shows text which says the Salomon has collapsed. It clearly hasn’t. They suddenly lose the feed and 5 minutes later, that tower does actually collapse.

    Put that together with the footage and comment by the owner in my 13:00 post and there are some interesting questions to answer.

    The BBC still haven’t given an explanation for that ticker – they just say it was “an honest mistake”.

  4. ivan
    July 27, 2011 at 10:36

    It was supposed to have collapsed by then but someone set the timer to the wrong time.

  5. July 27, 2011 at 11:08

    Which presupposes, Ivan, that what Silverstein said about it being “pulled” was essentially true. And yet the debunkers vehemently attack the people they label Truthers that the building wasn’t pulled at all, that it all happened because of internal fire etc., that there was no plan whatever to pull the building down.

    To quote http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm:

    I’m arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe.

    The building came down by itself, in his eyes and those of so many debunkers. This seems important to them.

  6. ivan
    July 27, 2011 at 14:18

    It is important to them because if it didn’t come down by itself they would have to reconsider and actually have to think the unthinkable – the government might be involved or at least some government agency.

  7. July 27, 2011 at 19:39

    Interesting thing which comes up in my parts 3 and 4 – I quote from a debunker and by the end, both the sceptics and he are agreed that plans were made to bring the building down – the only point of dispute being how. He says it’s by cables, sceptics say it was by explosions.

    Opposed to both is the government report, which denies any sort of discussion or plan to “pull” the building. So on that score alone, the government report takes on the form of the Warren Report.

  8. Lord T
    July 28, 2011 at 12:27

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

  9. Fredrika
    April 27, 2016 at 15:52

    The Jewess Jane Standley has, since the year 2009, been working for the Jewish organisation World Food Programme.
    The organisation is powered by the UN and The American Jewish World Service

    These facts point to a very plausible description of her position from within the BBC as playing an active role in the 9/11 false flag operation.

  10. PlugInCaroo
    January 16, 2017 at 12:50

    There was 1 plane that didnt serve any purpose and crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m. Probably Building 7 was to be brought down by this plane. Probably it was to be the only plane to be actually used as in Tower 1, 2 and Pentagon there was no debris. The smoking from what was left of the towers would have acted kind of like the landing lights. Probably all that was required for these guys might have been to attempt to land on the building and then they would have trigged the fall.

    So these evil guys waited and waited for this plane to come in from 10am to 11am and then after getting info that the plane crashed they regrouped and thought what to do or what reason to give? So they decide on saying “the building 7 has become weak” although its a FEW HUNDRED FEET away. So around 1pm in the afternoon they get a new reporter Jane to shoot something and then they were supposed to run it at 5pm but alas the explosion was 20 minutes late. The whole idea was to put out the message that the BUILDING WAS WEAK!!!

  11. steve c
    August 11, 2018 at 19:00

    Jane Standley maybe guilty of state-sponsored terrorism. She’s likely MI6 and should be hauled to the USA and water boarded until she talks.

  12. Taylor
    September 24, 2019 at 11:25

    It is not only that the BBC reported on an event that hadn’t even happened at the time of the report, but also that they had had time to make a full investigation to determine the cause (due to structural damage) of something that hadn’t even happened yet. Remarkable!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.