BBC Editor: Jane Standley doesn't know and we've lost the tapes!

[Tuesday_Morning]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Pretty interesting response by Richard Porter, head of BBC World, that, I think, raises more questions than answers.

<snip>

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

[wakeme2008]

1. Translate "cock-up"

:rofl:

[Tuesday_Morning]

2. interesting expression

:eyes:

cock-up (k?k'?p')
n. Chiefly British Slang.
A blunder; a mess.


Say no more, say no more, nudge nudge wink wink...

[xchrom]

3. i know what it means to me...

[Tuesday_Morning]

4. hello Dungeon n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

6. Hello wall.

I dont think I have seen a quicker response time by the mods to getting this issue relating to 911 and BBC to the dungeon.
Just another coinkydink I am sure.
:nopity:

[SidDithers]

7. And yet you seem surprised...

even though it happens with every 9/11 thread. You'd think that truthers would have figured out where 9/11 threads go by now.

:nopity:

Sid

[Twist_U_Up]

11. I seemed surprised at their response time. Very alert to the situation.

You understood the post. Nice spin

I wonder what Skinners take is on this latest cover up ?

The BBC Building 7 farce lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for justifying the invasion of Iraq.

There fore it should be allowed.
But then again why am I telling you this. Your looked at as an apologist and a good possible spokesperson for anti- free speech.

[SidDithers]

13. You comment on the quick response time by the mods...

and then wonder what Skinner thinks? Couldn't the quick response time be evidence of what Skinner really thinks? Or maybe you could ask him.

Spokesperson for anti-free speech? Back it up or retract it please.

Your (sic) free to spout whatever woowoo garbage you want, and to see conspiracies lurking behind every corner, just as I'm free to laugh at you when you do.

Sid

Edit: you seem to be under the mistaken impression that we have free speech here at DU. We don't. We post here at the invitation of Skinner, EarlG and Elad. They have every right to instruct the mods to do what they do. You've got 2 choices if you don't like it. I'm sure you can figure out what they are.

[Twist_U_Up]

14. It's comments like this that show your level of ignorance.

People who truly have common sense and an unbiased, open and scientific mind will see that there's more than just (woowoo?) garbage and a few coincidences here.
After all the official story is a conspiracy theory too, and a widely discredited one at that.
Those who swallow the government's official conspiracy theory of 19 men and a boxcutters without question surely are the loonies.

I just wish more of my fellow Americans would lose their fear, and not be so afraid of what might be truth.

What's wrong with another private investigation?
What's there to hide or what are you so afraid to uncover?

[SidDithers]

15. There's nothing wrong with a new investigation...

and I doubt that you'd find any of us here arguing against that.

However, seeking a new investigation is a far cry from advocating theories of controlled demolition, no planes and beam weapons.

Sid

Edit: still waiting on the spokesperson for anti free speech retraction.

[Twist_U_Up]

17. You encourage acceptance of "official" stories which are rife with inconsistencies.

You attack free thought and rational inquiry with petty arguments and sophomoric insults. I pity you.

[SidDithers]

18. If that's what you call free thought and rational inquiry...

then your pity is meaningless.

Sid

[tenseconds]

19. been there done that

Controlled demo and...lets add the more speculative aspects of the inquiry to water this thing down. It don't work no more,dude.

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. private investigation

so put together a grass roots effort to finance it and quit whining.

[Tuesday_Morning]

8. yeah

Hello wall is right.

:banghead:

and about a bbc link, no less.

[tridim]

5. Nobody could have anticipated that 9/11 video footage would have historical value!

This was the fucking BBC for gawd's sake, they don't just lose tapes.

Unless of course they were told to "cock-up" the video, kind of like all the video at the Pentagon that will never be seen.

[JackRiddler]

9. The amazing part is the arrogance...

We can't see it because it's lost, so there...

Meanwhile, it's all over the Web.

[tridim]

10. I have the 41 minute MPG stored and backed up on multiple mediums

I knew this stuff would be scrubbed from the public video sites immediately.

If the BBC really wants to analyze the original footage, we have it.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

12. you're a terrorist

:toast: