BBC were at Battery Park on 9/11

[bryan]

This information's been around since at least December 2007, but for some reason it hasn't received much attention. In my view this story is more embarrassing for the BBC than the Jane Standley episode.


original footage at the archives:
(fast forward to 4:03)

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110916-0957


shorter version on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPZV3EgwtA


At 9:20am (18 minutes after the second impact), the BBC World news anchor says: 'And we've got another eyewitness to that accident or explosion at the World Trade Centre. Jane Beresford joins us now. Jane, what can you tell us?'

Jane Beresford then speaks via a telephone connection for almost 2 minutes, describing in an English accent how she and others were standing at Battery Park Ferry Terminal waiting for a ferry when, approximately 15 to 20 minutes after the first explosion, a plane flew over their heads and 'crashed into the other tower'.

At 9:30am the same interview is repeated, but is interrupted by a statement from George Bush.

At 9:32am the same interview is repeated in full.

Jane Beresford is never mentioned again on BBC World for at least the rest of the day's broadcasting.


As the Stroud News and Journal confirms, the Jane Beresford who was at Battery Park and Jane Beresford the Radio 4 producer are one and the same:


On September 11, she was making a BBC programme in New York and was standing under the twin towers as they were hit.

http://archive.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/2002/7/17/2211.html


At no point in the broadcast was it stated that the eyewitness was a BBC producer, and viewers would have assumed she was a member of the public. (Blu Peter revisited.) It's suspicious enough that the US TV companies used their own employees as eyewitnesses to the attack, but at least they introduced them as such!


A search for 'Beresford' on this forum yeilds: 'Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.'

The youtube video above, posted by sidlittle, has only been viewed 676 times since December.

Even Simon Shack, who has dealt with the issue of fake witnesses, totally missed this one.


There's very little information on the internet about this woman, but google 'Jane Beresford' + BBC and you'll find links to articles about some of her radio 4 productions. These tend to focus on 'personal stories', but often there's a propaganda element to the background such as the Bali Bombing, the evil Sadam Hussein, or Islamic extremism in general. Last year she produced a programme on Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank, presented by the BBC's Washington correspondent and Neo-con arse-licker, Justin Webb. What's most striking is that she doesn't seem to have produced much over the years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3141173.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7177208.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4640606.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6904878.stm

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=%22jane+beresford%22&scope=all&tab=all&recipe=all&x=63&y=11

[monkey]

AMAZING INFO, well done sir, please do not let this get hidden in the '911' boards, I think you should re-phrase the info so it could be posted again in 'GENERAL ' and not get consigned top the 911 board where many don't look as they KNOW it was inside job

This BBC info relates to the whole issue of propaganda

[lightgiver]

The pit is indeed becoming darker and deeper;)not seen this one.;)

[stealth_0073]

The pit is indeed becoming darker and deeper;)not seen this one.;)

its fake!!! its a voice recording played into live tv lol!! using sampler machines
i wonder if jeff hill could phone this lady up and ask her story now.

[monkey]

its fake!!! its a voice recording played into live tv lol!! using sampler machines
i wonder if jeff hill could phone this lady up and ask her story now.

She certainly does not sound 'shaken up' or emotional at all

[endlessvista]

I lived in New York for years and I am almost 100% certain that you could not see the Twin Towers from the Ferry Terminal. There are loads of buildings in the way. Really talls ones that completely block the view fromthat vantage point. The ferry has to be way out in the river for the tops of the towers to come into view.

The ferry terminal is also a closed building with a roof. She is lying about seeing the planes crash into the towers from the ferry terminal. She would need x-ray specs.

I am not sure what to think of 911, but I can say for certain that this is a bogus eyewitness account. She is either an attention seeking nut or she making the story up for BBC news. I must say she sounds very relaxed about it all too.

Sounds like she is calling from some phone as well, the audio quality is amazing with no background noise.

http://uk.geocities.com/nigelfitzgricer/lower_man.jpg

Yellow lines indicate lines of sight from Battery ferry terminal. There is no view of the towers from that part of lower manhattan. She is either a fraud nut or the BBC is telling pork pies.

[tracker]

This information's been around since at least December 2007, but for some reason it hasn't received much attention. In my view this story is more embarrassing for the BBC than the Jane Standley episode.


original footage at the archives:
(fast forward to 4:03)

http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109110916-0957


shorter version on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPZV3EgwtA


At 9:20am (18 minutes after the second impact), the BBC World news anchor says: 'And we've got another eyewitness to that accident or explosion at the World Trade Centre. Jane Beresford joins us now. Jane, what can you tell us?'

Jane Beresford then speaks via a telephone connection for almost 2 minutes, describing in an English accent how she and others were standing at Battery Park Ferry Terminal waiting for a ferry when, approximately 15 to 20 minutes after the first explosion, a plane flew over their heads and 'crashed into the other tower'.

At 9:30am the same interview is repeated, but is interrupted by a statement from George Bush.

At 9:32am the same interview is repeated in full.

Jane Beresford is never mentioned again on BBC World for at least the rest of the day's broadcasting.


As the Stroud News and Journal confirms, the Jane Beresford who was at Battery Park and Jane Beresford the Radio 4 producer are one and the same:


http://archive.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/2002/7/17/2211.html


At no point in the broadcast was it stated that the eyewitness was a BBC producer, and viewers would have assumed she was a member of the public. (Blu Peter revisited.) It's suspicious enough that the US TV companies used their own employees as eyewitnesses to the attack, but at least they introduced them as such!


A search for 'Beresford' on this forum yeilds: 'Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.'

The youtube video above, posted by sidlittle, has only been viewed 676 times since December.

Even Simon Shack, who has dealt with the issue of fake witnesses, totally missed this one.


There's very little information on the internet about this woman, but google 'Jane Beresford' + BBC and you'll find links to articles about some of her radio 4 productions. These tend to focus on 'personal stories', but often there's a propaganda element to the background such as the Bali Bombing, the evil Sadam Hussein, or Islamic extremism in general. Last year she produced a programme on Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank, presented by the BBC's Washington correspondent and Neo-con arse-licker, Justin Webb. What's most striking is that she doesn't seem to have produced much over the years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3141173.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7177208.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4640606.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6904878.stm

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=%22jane+beresford%22&scope=all&tab=all&recipe=all&x=63&y=11

:eek:



this does not surprise me at all !



:cool:

[lightgiver]

its fake!!! its a voice recording played into live tv lol!! using sampler machines
i wonder if jeff hill could phone this lady up and ask her story now.

whatcha talkin about willis:D:Dits fake,yeah its all fake,especially the official 911 report;)

and that steel being shipped off as well stealth?:rolleyes:

[mercuryrapids]

Good find, bryan. Well done.

[mynameis]

She certainly does not sound 'shaken up' or emotional at all

A reporter isn't supposed to sound emotional. Durrr....

[banoyes]

This information's been around since at least December 2007, but for some reason it hasn't received much attention. In my view this story is more embarrassing for the BBC than the Jane Standley episode.



At no point in the broadcast was it stated that the eyewitness was a BBC producer, and viewers would have assumed she was a member of the public. (Blu Peter revisited.) It's suspicious enough that the US TV companies used their own employees as eyewitnesses to the attack, but at least they introduced them as such!


A search for 'Beresford' on this forum yeilds: 'Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.'

The youtube video above, posted by sidlittle, has only been viewed 676 times since December.

Even Simon Shack, who has dealt with the issue of fake witnesses, totally missed this one.


There's very little information on the internet about this woman, but google 'Jane Beresford' + BBC and you'll find links to articles about some of her radio 4 productions. These tend to focus on 'personal stories', but often there's a propaganda element to the background such as the Bali Bombing, the evil Sadam Hussein, or Islamic extremism in general. Last year she produced a programme on Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank, presented by the BBC's Washington correspondent and Neo-con arse-licker, Justin Webb. What's most striking is that she doesn't seem to have produced much over the years.




This is why the fact no planes were involved in the WTC attack is so protected.
It completely rips the mask off the world wide cabal.
There is no "news"
Just propaganda of the NWO
Good Find

[bryan]

I think you should re-phrase the info so it could be posted again in 'GENERAL ' and not get consigned to the 911 board where many don't look as they KNOW it was inside job

Not sure how I can do that now it's already a 9/11 thread. Maybe somebody could post a message in 'General' to send people over here.

[qasrose]

Not sure how I can do that now it's already a 9/11 thread. Maybe somebody could post a message in 'General' to send people over here.

if people want to respond too it then they will check this thread out.

[sidlittle]

This information's been around since at least December 2007, but for some reason it hasn't received much attention. In my view this story is more embarrassing for the BBC than the Jane Standley episode.


Yeah, I originally did post this up on a couple of forums but looks like neglected to here for whatever reason.

But I agree, Jane Beresford's 'witness' account has been overlooked somewhat and I thank you for bringing it up.

To quote Killtown This is the only other person allegedly at Battery Park along with Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor which both of them were supposedly on the tour boat and took practically the same footage of the 2nd plane, yet no one else released footage or gave a statment they were on that boat. Looks like only 3 people were at Battery Park that morning with one of them being a BBC employee!

As you found out for yourself Bryan, info on Beresford is scarce. I wonder if she'd open up to 'Jeff'.. ?

[killtown]

Great find guys!

She's the only other person reportedly in Battery Park on the morning of 9/11.

Here are the other two: The 2urists (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/06/2urists.html)


So that begs the question, where in the hell are all the other people in Battery Park that morning who should have been there?

[mynameis]

Great find guys!

She's the only other person reportedly in Battery Park on the morning of 9/11.

Here are the other two: The 2urists (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/06/2urists.html)


So that begs the question, where in the hell are all the other people in Battery Park that morning who should have been there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9_ZzzWp2yw

Analysis....

1.) Do you know if other people didn't have camera equipment?

2.) Do you know how long it takes to set up camera equipment?

3.) Why do you think people would be in a park this early in the morning?

4.) Why are you stereotyping all Asians?

5.) What if these people didn't have their camera's ready for the first or second hit because they were in grief stricken panic?

6.) Why shouldn't they save their film, erase their film, or post their film if they did record anything at all; just because Killtown says so?

7.) Conjecture is not proof of actual reality, it is speculating on events of which you do not have a connection.

8.) The crappy taste in music means to demean and attack people connected to this event; its no wonder more witness don't come forward; since people like you are ridiculing them, as in blame the victims; NPT only hurts and harms the reputation of further 911 investigation.

9.) Welcome to Killtown! Demean, Smear, Defame, and Insult as Needed. The fruits of Killtown and NPT labor.

[bryan]

Why do you think people would be in a park this early in the morning?

It's not just a park - it's the name of an area of New York which includes a ferry terminal. Jane Beresford says she was waiting for a ferry at Battery Park ferry terminal, so if there was a ferry due it's reasonable to suppose that a few people were waiting for it.

[bryan]

As you found out for yourself Bryan, info on Beresford is scarce. I wonder if she'd open up to 'Jeff'.. ?

I doubt it. The other Jane was too busy with her BBC work to have a chat with him.

[dogsmilk]

'm just curious as to why people think this stuff is so significant:

a/Someone from the BBC is in New York on 911. A slightly more striking 'coincidence' than someone working for the BBC being in Manchester on a given day. I believe they do have a New York office.

b/They talk as an eyewitness. Media people being used as eyewitnesses is 'suspicious' despite media employees who actually witnessed the event being easy to get hold of, probably likely to call the office of their own volition and hand instant good coverage without having to go out and find witnesses off the street, easy to bag as 'exclusives' for their employer and likely to be far more coherent and articulate on air than your average punter.
They don't say she works for the beeb which they're under no obligation to do and probably seems a rather trivial observation compared with planes crashing into the twin towers.

c/A google search appears to show they haven't done too much work for the beeb.
As we all know, if it doesn't show up on a google search, it never happened and/or isn't real and/or doesn't/never did/never will exist.
The work they did do was pretty standard BBC fare to most people, but is apparently also sinister propaganda despite being unremarkable.

d/They couldn't see anything from inside the ferry terminal and the fact they didn't explicitly state they stepped from under any cover to see what was going on means that they definitely didn't.
Though Killtown helpfully provides a picture on his youtube epic showing people queuing under no cover at all.

e/(As previously noted by MNI) Someone with BBC broadcasting experience failed to wail and gnash her teeth sufficiently. If she had done so, it would inevitably be stated by Killtown he knows 100% she's acting because he thinks she sounds like she was.

f/The fact that everyone in the vicinity of the Battery Park hasn't made themselves known to The Mighty Killtown and ensured any footage and photos they possess is available on the internet clearly demonstrates no-one saw any planes except three dirty shills who are liars and 'perps' (this again is The Law of Teh Interwebs which states if you can't find it on the net, it doesn't exist). If one or two more emerge, they will be shills too, Heck, it will be 'the perps' producing new stuff because they know Killtown is on to them.

I'm not being funny, but I can see why this “hasn't received much attention”. Where is the actual evidence of anything rum being afoot here?

The world was today rocked by the dramatic revelation that a BBC producer happened to be in New York on 911 and happened to be interviewed saying she'd seen the second plane hit. The New World Order has collapsed and people are fucking in the streets in the wake of this utterly banal disclosure.



The crappy taste in music means to demean and attack people connected to this event; its no wonder more witness don't come forward; since people like you are ridiculing them, as in blame the victims; NPT only hurts and harms the reputation of further 911 investigation.


I think this is a really good point. Killtown was challenged about setting mass death to pop music ages ago on the UK 911 forum (before leaving in a sulky strop after not being given moderator powers so he could stifle his critics). His profound response was something about “If you don't like it, don't listen to it”. I may be reading too much into things to suggest that because NPTers need to convince people everything is a film, they have to make it seem like a film and do everything possible to create a sense of unreality; or maybe they're just callous, I dunno.

[jalexander]

I think this is a really good point. Killtown was challenged about setting mass death to pop music ages ago on the UK 911 forum (before leaving in a sulky strop after not being given moderator powers so he could stifle his critics). His profound response was something about “If you don't like it, don't listen to it”. I may be reading too much into things to suggest that because NPTers need to convince people everything is a film, they have to make it seem like a film and do everything possible to create a sense of unreality; or maybe they're just callous, I dunno.

I don't understand how you can view a video called The 2urists, that is about the tourists at battery park (or lack there of) that is set to a song about tourists, and then come up with this kind of crap. I dunno maybe just maybe he chose the song simply because it was about tourists.. you know the same thing his video was about.. maybe? :eek:

[dogsmilk]

I don't understand how you can view a video called The 2urists, that is about the tourists at battery park (or lack there of) that is set to a song about tourists, and then come up with this kind of crap. I dunno maybe just maybe he chose the song simply because it was about tourists.. you know the same thing his video was about.. maybe?

My comment wasn't just directed at this video and concerns the routine use of jaunty tunes as planes crash into the twin towers (often) over and over again. I realise some people think it's all cartoons or whatever, but to many people that footage represents shots of people dying.

[bryan]

Someone from the BBC is in New York on 911. A slightly more striking 'coincidence' than someone working for the BBC being in Manchester on a given day. I believe they do have a New York office.

Nice try, but a straw man. It's not the fact that she was in New York on 9/11 that's suspicious. It's the nature and timing of her phone call and the lack of any follow-up.

Consider two other BBC employees in New York that day. Steve Evans, the BBC's North America business correspondent, was in the south tower when the north tower was struck and in the street nearby when the south tower was struck. He was the first eyewitness to report by phone, and did so just as the south tower exploded (his words). He was interviewed several times throughout the day both in the street and via studio link-up. Paddy O'Connell, the BBC's New York business correspondent, was in the subway near the WTC at the time of the blasts, and was interviewed later, more than once, via studio link-up. Both these correspondents, who happened to get caught up in the events, spent the day interviewing people in the streets of New York.


They don't say she works for the beeb which they're under no obligation to do and probably seems a rather trivial observation compared with planes crashing into the twin towers.

Apparently, Ofcom don't take too kindly to the practice of BBC employees posing as members of the public:

The ‘winner’ who was selected to guess the songs and artists in the “mash-up” on air was a BBC employee who had been contacted by a member of the production team and asked to pretend to be a listener.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/bbcjuly08/whiley.pdf


The American TV companies didn't think it was so trivial either. Many of the early eyewitnesses who claimed they saw planes were TV company employees who lived nearby. When their calls were broadcast, they were introduced as executives of the TV company concerned or, in one case, ex-producer of the show that was going out live.

It's true that Steve Evans was first introduced by the news anchor as an 'eyewitness', but later he was described as the BBC's North American business correspondent. Maybe Steve Evans was a well-known face on BBC World and didn't need an introduction. In any case, his report was unmistakably the work a professional journalist, whereas Jane Beresford seemed to be trying to pass herself off as a tourist. Jane Standley, the next reporter to call in after Steve Evans, was introduced from the start as the BBC's New York correspondent.


Media people being used as eyewitnesses is 'suspicious' despite media employees who actually witnessed the event being easy to get hold of, probably likely to call the office of their own volition and hand instant good coverage without having to go out and find witnesses off the street, easy to bag as 'exclusives' for their employer and likely to be far more coherent and articulate on air than your average punter.

Why not take it one step further and invent your own news? Then you could get your employees to call in with a full report. Well, it looks like that's what happened, although only a few of the BBC's employees would have known what was going on.

Steve Evans and Paddy O'Connell interviewed witnesses in the street, and were interviewed themselves several times. Jane Standley continued to send in reports throughout the day. None of these three saw planes. Their reporting sounds genuine to my ears and I think they were probably duped.

Why didn't Jane Beresford's production team drop the programme they were working on, interview the people around them and document the events?

Why didn't she give any interviews later in the day, considering she was the first witness on the BBC to say she saw a plane fly into a building? What did she do for the rest of the day?

Why doesn't she get a mention in the BBC's 9/11 timeline along with Steve Evans and Ash Rajan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/timeline/default.stm


When Jane Beresford makes her call, she gives the impression she's no longer at Battery Park. So where was she calling from 18 minutes after the event she witnessed? Was she on the ferry or did she cancel the trip to Ellis Island? The quality of the line sounds better than that of the other witnesses who called the studio around the same time and there's no obvious background noise.

Was her role to plant a seed then disappear forever? After her call there was no question at the BBC that anything but planes had hit the WTC. TV interviews would have been risky - she'd have to be extra careful answering questions and also control her body language. If it wasn't for one article in the Stroud News and Journal we'd have no confirmation it's the same person.

So why didn't she give a false name? Maybe crucial parts of the studio production team weren't involved in the scam and Jane Beresford's credentials as a BBC producer would guarantee she'd be put through to the news desk.


I'm just curious as to why people think this stuff is so significant
. . .
I'm not being funny, but I can see why this “hasn't received much attention”. Where is the actual evidence of anything rum being afoot here?

It's circumstancial evidence and, considered together with the hard evidence we have that no plane hit the south tower, we can use it to ID some of the perps.

[stealth_0073]

good points bryan


Jane Beresford was never heard on the news again
mabaye she was part of the tv fakery crew
she needs to be questioned because i think she is a liar

problay find her dead shortly setup as a patsy

[mynameis]

good points bryan


Jane Beresford was never heard on the news again
mabaye she was part of the tv fakery crew
she needs to be questioned because i think she is a liar

problay find her dead shortly setup as a patsy

She works for BBC radio 4 as a producer. She seems quite healthy and has a good body of work behind her.

[dogsmilk]

Nice try, but a straw man. It's not the fact that she was in New York on 9/11 that's suspicious. It's the nature and timing of her phone call and the lack of any follow-up.

Consider two other BBC employees in New York that day. Steve Evans, the BBC's North America business correspondent, was in the south tower when the north tower was struck and in the street nearby when the south tower was struck. He was the first eyewitness to report by phone, and did so just as the south tower exploded (his words). He was interviewed several times throughout the day both in the street and via studio link-up. Paddy O'Connell, the BBC's New York business correspondent, was in the subway near the WTC at the time of the blasts, and was interviewed later, more than once, via studio link-up. Both these correspondents, who happened to get caught up in the events, spent the day interviewing people in the streets of New York.



Right, so basically you're saying because she wasn't interviewed again, that's "suspicious". There are any number of potential reasons why she wasn't interviewed again. If you wish to see that as "evidence", that is up to you.

Apparently, Ofcom don't take too kindly to the practice of BBC employees posing as members of the public:

This is about faking competition winners. It is a totally different situation.
You post a ruling that quite clearly states the rule breached was:
Rule 2.11: “Competitions should be conducted fairly,
prizes should be described accurately and rules should
be clear and appropriately made known.”
and apparently think it is directly comparable. That's just bizarre.

If you sincerely think it is in any way comparable, I suggest you contact Ofcom and make a complaint. It is very easy.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/
Who knows - you could play a part in busting '911 perp' Jane Beresford. I bet she's burning copies of her top secret orders right now.

It's true that Steve Evans was first introduced by the news anchor as an 'eyewitness', but later he was described as the BBC's North American business correspondent. Maybe Steve Evans was a well-known face on BBC World and didn't need an introduction. In any case, his report was unmistakably the work a professional journalist, whereas Jane Beresford seemed to be trying to pass herself off as a tourist. Jane Standley, the next reporter to call in after Steve Evans, was introduced from the start as the BBC's New York correspondent

Big deal. They introduced correspondents as such, but not some woman that does production work. This is evidence of what exactly?

It's circumstancial evidence and, considered together with the hard evidence we have that no plane hit the south tower, we can use it to ID some of the perps.

There is exactly zero "hard evidence" no plane hit the south tower. But I'm not getting into that.

Look, it is your beliefs and it is up to you. I am not going to argue further because it is pointless. I just feel a little bit sorry for you if you really, genuinely believe you are 'on to something' because your "hypothesis" is very, very silly.

Arrest Jane Beresford!! Now!!!!!
LOL.

[stelios]

Ask yourself a very simple question.
Who are the people supporting and advocating the official story. The one which which most sensible people have realised is a pack of lies.
Well you have the BBC, the US networks, the press, etc and all seem to have had witnesses right there on the stop at the time.
Where are all the independant sources?

Popular Mechanics a magazine/website in the US started a campaign to discredit the 911 truth movement. It was widely referred to as an independent and unbiased source.
But guess what - Benjamin Chertoff was the geezer in charge of the campaign. Now i admit that Benjamin Chertoff is no relation to Michael Chertoff the Israeli who is the current Secretary for Homeland Security.
However, it is pretty obvious that Benjamin Chertoff this so called neutral source is anything but neutral.
Compare this with fellow Ashkenazi reporter Jane Standley who reported that WTC7 had collapsed and you see a pattern that information was tightly controlled by a group of zionists. and all the so called neutral witnesses and debunkers are members of the same criminal cabal.

[mynameis]

Ask yourself a very simple question.
Who are the people supporting and advocating the official story. The one which which most sensible people have realised is a pack of lies.
Well you have the BBC, the US networks, the press, etc and all seem to have had witnesses right there on the stop at the time.
Where are all the independant sources?

Popular Mechanics a magazine/website in the US started a campaign to discredit the 911 truth movement. It was widely referred to as an independent and unbiased source.
But guess what - Benjamin Chertoff was the geezer in charge of the campaign. Now i admit that Benjamin Chertoff is no relation to Michael Chertoff the Israeli who is the current Secretary for Homeland Security.
However, it is pretty obvious that Benjamin Chertoff this so called neutral source is anything but neutral.
Compare this with fellow Ashkenazi reporter Jane Standley who reported that WTC7 had collapsed and you see a pattern that information was tightly controlled by a group of zionists. and all the so called neutral witnesses and debunkers are members of the same criminal cabal.
Ashkenazi ? How so proof. I think you are talking out a different bodily orifice if you can't prove this.

[bryan]

Keep in mind that, according to the Stroud News and Journal, Jane Beresford was standing under the WTC twin towers on 9/11, she produces programmes for the BBC, and she lives in Bisley near Stroud.

http://archive.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/2002/7/17/2211.html


Stroud is also the main postal address of The Isaac Partnership Limited, who employ a Jane Beresford as Office Manager:

http://www.isaacweb.co.uk/contact.htm

Three other employees of Isaac Partnership, listed on the contacts page, are: Christopher Isaac (Creative Director), Tracy Isaac (Studio Manager) and Moira Gilchrist (Copywriting Manager).

The company describes itself as 'a cross media creative agency with over 10 years in the business', and top of its list of customers is BBC Online.

http://www.isaacweb.co.uk/index.htm


Isaac Partnership seems to specialize in designing interactive educational web pages for the BBC, such as their 'What is weather' page, aimed at 4-11 year olds and produced by Moira Gilchrist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/whatisweather/credits/credits.shtml


Coincidently, Moira Gilchrist was Researcher and Production Assistant for BBC Radio's In The News in 1998.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/inthenews/980506/team.stm


Her team would travel around the country to different schools, informing children of the benefits of such things as GM food, the MMR vaccination, and the European Union.

On 6th May 1998, the subject of an In The News Special Edition was Genes and Genetics:

PRESENTER:
In today's programme we'll be finding out, with the help of Beech Class, how recent scientific discoveries are giving human beings even more power to change what happens in nature.

TONY COOMBES (SAFEWAY'S):
In a very short period of time it should be possible for vaccines to be available inside fruit, so that when the banana is eaten, the person eating the banana receives the benefit of a medicinal vaccine. . .

The tomato puree that's been genetically modified means that the tomatoes have had one of their 50,000 genes switched off, and this is the gene that controls the rotting process. Once a tomato becomes ripe, if you switch off the gene that rots the tomato then it will stay firm and juicy and tasty for longer. If you do that that means that we don't waste so many tomatoes as we do when we use conventional tomatoes to make puree. . .

Some customers tell us it tastes better. The one big benefit is that it is cheaper because you don't need so many tomatoes to make the same amount of tomato puree. So it is 20% cheaper and that is why some customers buy it, but it actually... it clings better to pasta when you make spaghetti bolognese! . .

In a very short period of time it should be possible for vaccines to be available through genetic modification inside fruit. For example, being able to put a vaccine inside a banana, so that when the banana is eaten in countries where it's difficult to keep vaccines refrigerated, the person eating the banana receives the benefit of a medicinal vaccine.

COLIN MERRIT:
In the future... We are already starting to develop crops that have better food quality content such as higher starch content in potatoes which reduce the amount of fats in chips and crisps and also foods that will have higher vitamin content. . .

I think we can safely say that those that have been approved for use are safe because they have been looked at by a large number of expert committees from science, from health - experts, doctors and many other areas including environmentalists and so forth to establish that there are no safety problems with the foods that have been approved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/inthenews/980506/transcript.htm


Colin Merritt was already working for Monsanto:

"This is something that we have been worried about for a while," said Susan Casey of the Genetics Forum, which opposes transgenic crops. But Colin Merritt, UK technical manager of the bioindustry company Monsanto, insisted that the finding, reported today in the scientific journal Nature, will have no adverse effect on the company's use of crops genetically engineered to be resistant to its Roundup herbicide.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19971030/ai_n14140464


while Tony Coombes was about to make a similar career move:

(5 March 1999)
The new head of public affairs at Monsanto will be Tony Coombes, who is now head of Corporate Affairs at Safeway. He used to be head of environmental affairs at Safeway.

http://www.gene.ch/info4action/1999/Mar/msg00035.html


Although there was a token nod to the 'unease' about GM food, the whole feature was dominated by propaganda from the biotech industry.


Not far from Stroud, around 25 miles to the south east, a Jane Beresford has connections with a business based at 25 Deburgh Street, Swindon, SN2 2BX. I can't find any other references to this company or the address:

http://www.checksure.biz/company/FELLOWS,+SUZANNA+JANE+BERESFORD+-nl17178719.htm



Yet another Jane Beresford was Media Research Director at Creative Media Inc, New York, at least between March 2000 and March 2001.:

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/ml/letters2001.asp

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2000/mar00/news30324.html


This woman would have been between 37 and 45 years old in 2001, which is older than I imagined from the voice in the phone call.

I haven't found anything to link this Jane Beresford to the one in Stroud, although their line of business is strikingly similar:

We ensure that our designs work fluidly across all media, including CD-ROM, DVD, video and TV.

The Isaac Partnership uses the latest technology, making sure your project can be viewed in any country.

http://www.isaacweb.co.uk/digital_video.htm


Anyone can make a video, but few ever make a difference.

Is it time to make a “difference” with your advertising and communication?

http://create-media.com/CMI_Welcome.html


Unbelievably, it turns out that CEO and 'Creative Director' of Creative Media Inc, Cory Johnson, is a Scholar for 9/11 Truth, with a degree in English and Journalism:

http://stj911.org/members/memberlist.php

[alwun]

Dogsmilk finally says something useful - i.e.

There is exactly zero "hard evidence" no plane hit the south tower. But I'm not getting into that.

The point, Mr. Dogsmilk, is that there is equally no hard evidence that any plane did hit either of the towers - but indeed let's not get into that, eh?

cheers Al..

[stelios]

Ashkenazi ? How so proof. I think you are talking out a different bodily orifice if you can't prove this.

Who in particular are you talking about?
Because there are many 911 conspirators.
Several of them are even ordained rabbis and most are Israeli citizens or have dual nationality.

[stelios]

Unbelievably, it turns out that CEO and 'Creative Director' of Creative Media Inc, Cory Johnson, is a Scholar for 9/11 Truth, with a degree in English and Journalism:

http://stj911.org/members/memberlist.php

That is very good information.
Well researched.
But it does prove that these people have their grubby hands everywhere.
And as i have stated before many of the 911 groups have been infiltrated.

[stelios]

PS:
Happy New Year to mynameis and Dogsmilk

[mynameis]

Compare this with fellow Ashkenazi reporter Jane Standley who reported that WTC7 had collapsed and you see a pattern that information was tightly controlled by a group of zionists.

PS:
Happy New Year to mynameis and Dogsmilk

Did you forget what you wrote? What do you mean, by New Year? I joined on Jan 2007...? :confused:

[stelios]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/250000/images/_253632_jane150.jpg

[mynameis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/250000/images/_253632_jane150.jpg

So you don't have any proof then and you are blowing it out an orifice.

[bryan]

That's just bizarre.

It's bizarre that the BBC, which normally loves to blow its own trumpet, should fail to point out that an important witness to the 9/11 events was one of its own employees. As the BBC website's search engine says: 'There are no results for ""jane beresford" + "world trade centre"" on the BBC'. In contrast, it seems like a day never goes by without a BBC newsreaders reminding us that it was the BBC's business editor, Robert Preston, who broke the Northern Rock story.

It's even more bizarre that a British citizen (or anyone else, for that matter) should have no problem with the idea that the BBC would use its own employees as witnesses to major events, leaving viewers to suppose that these witnesses are ordinary members of the public.

More bizarre still is that someone who (judging by your posts on this and other forums) is unhappy with the official narrative of 9/11, should find it acceptable for Noam Chomsky to use his influence over the anti-war movement to persuade millions of potential radicals that there's no basis whatsoever to the claims that 9/11 was an inside job.

That's truly bizarre.

[mynameis]

It's bizarre that the BBC, which normally loves to blow its own trumpet, should fail to point out that an important witness to the 9/11 events was one of its own employees. As the BBC website's search engine says: 'There are no results for ""jane beresford" + "world trade centre"" on the BBC'. In contrast, it seems like a day never goes by without a BBC newsreaders reminding us that it was the BBC's business editor, Robert Preston, who broke the Northern Rock story.

It's even more bizarre that a British citizen (or anyone else, for that matter) should have no problem with the idea that the BBC would use its own employees as witnesses to major events, leaving viewers to suppose that these witnesses are ordinary members of the public.

More bizarre still is that someone who (judging by your posts on this and other forums) is unhappy with the official narrative of 9/11, should find it acceptable for Noam Chomsky to use his influence over the anti-war movement to persuade millions of potential radicals that there's no basis whatsoever to the claims that 9/11 was an inside job.

That's truly bizarre.

Sometimes it is uncharacteristic for journalists to use themselves as witnesses to a story. Jayson Blair is one example and was fired for making a few fabrications. Writing is safer when journalists separate themselves from the story and have others write it up when it is not a personal experience piece. It appears this was never done and didn't need to be produced by the BBC, as far as why, I think there was enough material to work with on the day.

[dogsmilk]

It's bizarre that the BBC, which normally loves to blow its own trumpet, should fail to point out that an important witness to the 9/11 events was one of its own employees. As the BBC website's search engine says: 'There are no results for ""jane beresford" + "world trade centre"" on the BBC'. In contrast, it seems like a day never goes by without a BBC newsreaders reminding us that it was the BBC's business editor, Robert Preston, who broke the Northern Rock story.

.
Jane Beresford wasn't breaking any story she was simply an eyewitness to events, and far from the only one at that.

Look, you are determined to see this as a big important breakthrough. That's just dandy and if it keeps you happy that's fine by me. I just pointed out I think you're making a big fuss over nothing. Frankly though I don't really care. How you choose to waste your time is your concern.

More bizarre still is that someone who (judging by your posts on this and other forums) is unhappy with the official narrative of 9/11, should find it acceptable for Noam Chomsky to use his influence over the anti-war movement to persuade millions of potential radicals that there's no basis whatsoever to the claims that 9/11 was an inside job.

Well if you've read my posts on other forums, you already know what I think.

Though maybe you should e-mail him with your striking new evidence about Jane Beresford to see if he finds that convincing?

To be honest, I just don't see where you're at with that "potential radicals" line. What kind of "radicals"?

Originally Posted by stelios View Post
PS:
Happy New Year to mynameis and Dogsmilk
Did you forget what you wrote? What do you mean, by New Year? I joined on Jan 2007...?

It's because of the Jewish new year.

Stelios, you are so comically tragic. If only you knew how ridiculous that comment is. The fact you don't makes it funnier.

From the guy that thinks posting a picture of Jane Standley proves she's an "Ashkenazi".

I bet you're itching to do a cranial measurement on her.

[bryan]

I just pointed out I think you're making a big fuss over nothing. Frankly though I don't really care. How you choose to waste your time is your concern.

To summarize:

1. In 1998 BBC Radio would help to inform children of current affairs by sending one of its news teams to a school, where the children would be treated to such things as a Monsanto employee describing the benefits of GM food.

2. The assistant producer of that BBC news team is employed at the moment by a small 'creative media' company, which designs educational material for the BBC's website.

3. The same 'creative media' company would appear to employ another BBC producer, who happens to be BBC World's only eyewitness to a plane hitting the WTC on 9/11.

4. There's a possibility that, shortly before 9/11, the same BBC producer who claims to have witnessed the 9/11 attacks may have been employed by another 'creative media' company, based in New York, whose owner now happens to be a Scholar for 9/11 Truth.

If you don't find this information interesting, it's up to you, but it seems to me that these people specialize in spreading propaganda through the BBC.

[stelios]

.
I bet you're itching to do a cranial measurement on her.
How does that work.

If you were to be honest you would admit that Richard Porter, Mike Rudin, Jane Standley, Ben Chertoff - Popular Mechanics, all bat for the same team.

[bryan]

Several eyewitnesses called the newsdesks of the various TV channels at the time of the south tower explosions or shortly afterwards.

Why is it that all the witnesses who were at the scene failed to see or hear a plane, while all the witnesses who were at a safe distance from the WTC did see and hear a plane?

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive


ABC

Don Dahler (at the scene): 'I did not see a plane go in. That, that just exploded' [31:52]

Karim Arraki (in Greenwich): 'I saw the second plane go boom!' [38:53]


BBC

Steve Evans (at the scene): 'There are more explosions further down the building. . . Initially the assumption was that it was a bomb. . . There is an uncontrollable event involving explosions and fire going on above us' [28:45]

Jane Beresford (at Battery Park): 'A plane flew down right above us, so very very close to our heads, and smashed right into the other tower'. [2nd vid, 04:40]


CBS

(No witness at the scene)

Teresa Renaud (in Chelsea): 'Oh, there's another one. Another plane just hit. Oh my God, another plane has just hit another building. It flew right into the middle of it'. [31:52]

Frederick Schneider (in his office): 'While I was still sitting at my desk, I saw a second jet, a fairly large plane, fly in over the south end of Manhattan and deliberately fly into the Trade Centre before my eyes'.


CNN / WABC

Winston Mitchell (at the scene): 'The building's exploding right now. . . OK, the whole building just exploded some more, the whole top part'. [15:06]

Dr Jay Adlersberg: (at 86th Street / Riverside): 'It was very visible that a plane had come in at low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Centre'. [18:13]


FOX5

Dick Oliver (at Park Row, nearby): 'Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an air crash, or to be more specific, some people said they. . . (gets faded out) [37:42]

(While this seems to contradict a report he made earlier, Dick Oliver had been cut off after interviewing a passer-by who said she was certain the first explosion came from inside the building. The reporter then seems to have had a serious talk with someone the studio, before reciting the following in a noticeably half-hearted fashion: 'As you know, some kind of an aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre. This is no accident. This is no bomb from inside. This is, as you put it, a terrorist attack. There's no two ways about it'. [32:58])

Lonnie Davido (on her roof): 'I saw something go into the other building, 'cause from where I am, I can see the World Trade Centre'. [2nd vid, 01:18]


NBC

(No witness at the scene)

Elliot Walker (in her apartment): 'Oh, another one just hit. Something else just hit. A very large plane just flew directly over my building and there's been another collision. . . A very large plane, which might have been a DC9 or a 747 just flew past my window'. [31:54]

Jennifer Oberstein (at Battery Park): 'It looks like a movie. I saw a large plane, like a jet, go immediately, headed directly into the World Trade Centre. . . I watched the plane fly into the World Trade Centre'. [33.00]

Ollie Everhard (at home): 'It was unbelievable seeing this second jet come crashing into the second tower'. [36:03]

Dan Dietrich (7th Avenue South, 15-20 blocks north of WTC): 'I saw another plane crash into the other side of the tower at a lower level. . . Another plane came in low, I believe from the other side, and hit the middle of the other tower'. [2nd vid, 01:35]


If you volunteered to be a witness to an explosion, would you want to be standing right next to it?

[dangermouse]

the planes were traveling at 500 mph ... unless you were expecting it to happen it would be easy to miss ;)

[bryan]

the planes were traveling at 500 mph ... unless you were expecting it to happen it would be easy to miss ;)

How much noise do they make when they're travelling at 500 mph?

[blahblah]

Jane Beresford
Senior Producer, BBC Radio
tel: 011 44 7931-520539
email: jane.beresford@bbc.co.uk

[bryan]

God only knows what she's got in store for us next year. :eek: