British Man Wins Huge court Victory over BBC For 9/11 Coverup Broadcast
 

A British 9/11 truther is claiming victory following a court ruling that said he did not have to pay a fine over his refusal to pay his annual £130 TV license fee.

http://intellihub.com/2013/04/09/bri...rup-broadcast/

"Tony Rooke claimed the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks when it reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed ?due to an office fire, which, even the NIST report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the U.S. government agency charged with investigating collapses.

In an act of civil disobedience, Rooke refused to support the BBC and pay the license fee because he believed the BBC has covered up the events of that day. To pay the license fee, he said, would be tantamount to supporting the terrorists responsible for the controlled demolition. He also argued that supporting terrorists would violate the UK?s Terrorism Act, which states: ?It is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.?


Rooke was charged with not paying the license fee. Prior to his hearing, Rooke provided the court with evidence that both WTC towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than by the airliner impacts and subsequent fires. The judge gave Rooke an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months. He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine but had to pay court costs of £200.

Peter Drew, an AE911Truth UK action group facilitator, told Digital Journal he is organizing a campaign against the BBC because its royal charter requires it to present evidence that is impartial and accurate. Drew claims the BBC ignored reports from investigators who in 2008 claimed WTC 7 did indeed fall at freefall speed.

?Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,? Drew told Digital Journal, ?with over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of Europe.?

The BBC first reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it occurred. The ?official line? from the U.S. government is the building fell due to fire damage. But it collapsed into its own footprint and was the first steel-reinforced high-rise to ever collapse due to an uncontrolled fire. Explosions were heard and reported prior to the collapse."

Well he didn't win, did he? In the end, he was still convicted and ended up costing him more money than license fee plus some of his time. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

"pull it"


.

come on, this is a HUGE victory for *truthers*!!

they have yet to have even 1 victory in 12 years, it's celebration time!

w000000000

party time. excellent

It's funny that guys like wehateporn rally so hard against "the system" and yet they clearly don't even understand it in the first place. :1orglaugh

he lost and payed even more

Oh, well this changes EVERYTHING :Hollering

this is a landslide legal precedence!

not having to pay television fees because, you know, physics of a falling building.

So to save himself £130 he has ended up paying £200 court costs and getting a criminal record. Genius.

Why is GFY such an attractive place for nutbag conspiracy theorists?

This thread makes a lot more sense if you realize BBC = Big Black Cock

This thread is HUGE in it's FAIL! :1orglaugh

So a news station three thousand miles away said on live TV that the building on fire (which it was) and they are being sued for "Intentially misrepresenting the facts"?

Really?

I remember CNN reporting there was a kid named Falcon trapped on an air balloon that was out of control.....

http://www.homorazzi.com/wp-content/...alloon-boy.jpg

The BBC said WTC7 had collapsed before anyone had a reason to suspect that it would collapse. :2 cents:

i just found out these guys aren't real cops, i'm calling hulu

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,317_.jpg

And this was during a live broadcast, right?

Did the BBC know the difference between WTC 2 and WTC 3 and WTC 7? Most likely not. During a live broadcast they have no idea what they talking about because they don't have enough information yet at the same time have to fill up air time. During a crisis when information is slow coming out they are often inaccurate.

I believe this is the broadcast in question: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Seems to me they are reporting multiple buildings collapsing, and they aren't calling it WTC7 - They call it the "Salomon Brothers Building". They also mentioned the Marriot had a partial collapse. This is just a case of mistaken reporting.

Besides, what fucking idiot thinks the BBC had advance notice of any conspiracy theory?

it was a rogue employee!

No no, you got that wrong.
ALL the people at BBC were part of this conspiracy.
The cia jews bush called BBC and said we're gonna blow up some buildings.
Can't you see this makes total sense?

Don't think something as simple as a reporter making a mistake could be the case here. That would be pretty much impossible.

Balloon boy was an inside job to distract us

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup



.

The title of this thread is...pigshit. The man lost.

but wait, it's the truth(er)


:Oh crap

Have you ever seen a title from this imbecile that made sense?

The BBC is the central source of Western propaganda, it would be vital to feed the script to them, only problem is when things go wrong and a plane gets delayed at an airport, meaning it can't make it to hit WTC7 in time. Larry Silverstein wanted to make sure he'd still get paid insurance money if the building went down without a plane sitting in it, hence the delay, but then when the BBC still went ahead with reading the out-of-date script, WTC7 had to be quickly taken down whether Silverstein agreed or not.

Not everyone has to be "in" on the conspiracy, and certainly some lowly broadcaster wasn't in on it. Whatever "official" released the "official story" and news release, did so too early as they said the WTC 7 had collapsed

Quit playing dumb games...you think 19 islamic hijackers did it, so I guess millions of muslims all had to be in on it?

But, oh yea a "simple" mistake that a huge building collapsed...oh no big deal!

I certainly hope you are not planning on having kids.

There are many people who would get assassinated before me, I'm way down on the list :2 cents:

I wonder why this nice man was assassinated if he was just a 'nutjob conspiracy theorist', surely if there's nothing to hide people would just laugh at him, not covertly murder him and his family. :upsidedow

Wayne Madsen ? 100% certain 9/11 author Philip Marshall was assassinated
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...d-2574220.html

Why would you need information about a building falling, prior to it falling, to be able to report on it? I mean, wouldn't the building falling simply be enough?

It really scares me how stupid some of you are. Fortunately, none of you appear to be in a position of power or influence anywhere in the World. For that we can be thankful.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I love how crazy you are. Seriously though, don't you ever get tired of being a total failure in life? Can't you see the relationship between your inability to succeed at anything and your crazy belief system? I suppose it makes sense. If you were able to make clear connections and follow logic you wouldn't have such a confused and warped "understanding" of the World and how it works.

All insults and laughing at you aside, may I suggest that you actually get out and travel the World? Try communicating with people and interacting with their cultures instead of "researching" batshit crazy theories on Youtube all day long. You'll surely have a better understanding of life and this World in general. :2 cents:

People fail to understand what happened to WTC7. They seem to think a fire took it down.

Setting aside the fact that two large buildings collapsed right in front of WTC7 similar to an earthqake, WTC7 was hit by all kinds of debris. The pictures of WTC7 from this time all show the far side of the building that wasn't hit by the falling debris.

Here's some details...

Nist notes that: "Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level. Southwest corner damage extends over Floors 8 to 18. Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least five to 10 floors." However, the full extent and details of this damage are obscured by large amounts of smoke.

And then...

Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

This is not a "building on fire that fell for no reason". This was a building that suffered two small earthquakes back to back, was hit with debris from two buildings falling that ripped open half of the building, and which was also on fire for hours.

On top of ALL OF THIS, there wasn't "one collaps" with WTC7. It had four collapses that day...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rogression.png

For all we know, the BBC got it right. I remember reports that day of building trying to get out of WTC7 but were unable to because the exits of the building were blocked with debris - they were physically buried.

Shouldn't worry, youtube is no help at all on that https://youtube.com/results?searc...w+to+have+kids so he will have no idea how to.

You think I said that because I am concerned they would be orphaned? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh No, it is because we don't need your type messing with the gene pool.

The reporter for the BBC is Jane Stanley and she has explained what happened when she was reporting the event. Yep, there were lots of misreports from all different news channels that came out that day such as a plane crashing into a helicopter landing pad and missing the pentagon, a car bomb was reported as exploding outside the state department, fire on the washington mall, mayor Guiliani holding up one of the flight recorders from a plane that the wtc, and the report of the brooks brothers building collapse which didn't collapse.

You can see Jane Stanley being interviewed in this video, skip to 43:20

But I know you are interested in these events Rochard so I think its probably worth watching the whole thing thing as it explains a lot and picks apart the truther claims

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

pretty much sums up wehateporn!

Don't be too sure about that:

Chinese army colonel says avian flu is an American plot against China

Russian Politician Denies Meteorite, Claims US Weapons Tests

And another older but good one:

On Anniversary, Iran's Ahmadinejad Says U.S. Planned 9/11 Attacks


It appears that the mental disorder that leads the belief in conspiracy theories is not limited to keyboard warriors on a porn forum. :Oh crap

Bullshit, she is part of the conspiracy because....well because....it all makes sense!

He's 100% correct, the idea is to hit China with bird flu while the US attacks North Korea :2 cents: