Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
well dont know they guy won the case meaning it was really something legit! The firefighter and the architectures and engineers ....are all American...
9/11 : Then and now ( Photos )
- Thread starter rahi2357
- Start date
You didn't read the case did you?
BBC Foreknowledge of 9/11 Collapse of WTC Building Seven: British Man Won Law Suit against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Horsham, UK, 2013 – Tony Rooke, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to pay the mandatory £130 TV license fee claiming it violates Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. Rooke’s accusation was aimed at the BBC who reported the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually fell, and the judge accepted Rooke’s argument. While it was not a public inquiry into 9/11, the recognition of the BBC’s actions on September 11th are considered a small victory, one that was never reported in the US.
“Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,” Peter Drew of AE911Truth UK 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.”
Under Section 363 of the Communications Act, citizens of the UK are required to purchase an annual license in order to use a television receiver. Rooke refused to pay the license fee due to a section of the Terrorism Act that 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.
The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the “terrorists”, all arguments as to who the terrorists actually were aside.
Rooke had been given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 after admitting that he owned a television and watched it without a license. He represented himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex.
“Mr. Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.” – District Judge Stephen Nicholls
In Rooke’s statement to the court:
“I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”
Although he was not allowed to show his video evidence in court due to the District Judge deeming it irrelevant to the trial, the fact that the BBC reported WTC 7’s collapse over 20 minutes beforehand proved to be evidence enough.
He also made reference to the theories behind the collapse of WTC 7 being a controlled demolition, as the evidence suggests. In an additional statement:
“The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): ‘Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7?’ You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.
“They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.
“I am not looking at who demolished it—that is impossible—but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.”
In response from Judge Nicholls:
“Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.”
In light of the evidence the judge took into consideration, Rooke was given 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 either—only court costs of £200.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
I did I even posted it here...But it was easier for me to google it then search it here
And yet Iraq and Afghanistan payed for the denial syndrome of some!
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Looks like they were already worried about WTC7. Hence BBC thinks it already came down. Doesn't make sense to report 20 minutes ahead based on some conspiracy. Probably wanted to report it early. Nothing new from news organizations. They like to report before getting the full story.
They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Tower 7 might be a different case but ....Repeating something for more than a decade is a sign of 1 too many mental disorders!
How many countries had 9/11 coz America banged on their door?!
How come those lives are overlooked? And now a screwed up Middle east and Africa is generating refugee and people killing people and all crimes, USA has the audacity to say Iraq was a mistake?
Iraq: The Biggest Mistake In American Military History
Iraq War was mistake, Lord Falconer says - BBC News
When you attack a country the people have every rights to defend themselves....Now if some offshoot and become rebels then that is clearly the mistake of the perpetrators who pushed them to pick up arms!
I dont think anyone will buy that!
The very fact that it was shown 20 mins earlier not 5 mins or 1 min....but full 20 mins!
And the world paid for your controlled demolition is utterly disgusting!
And do go to the firefighter who heard the boom and saw it come down and tell him your thoughts
And also put straight all those architectures and engineers whose degree is no good as compared to your belief!
Sure people buy that. I do. The article also quotes the firefighters that were there. They knew WTC7 was coming down. If BBC reported that 20 mins before it actually collapsed, its because they believe it already collapsed based on firefighters told to pull out. Why have a foreign news organization report it 20 minutes early before by the conspirators if there is such a thing? We know news organizations like to report before it gets the full story as I have repeatedly stated.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
and the statement of the one I posted? What was that a joke? That he heard a boom? Now he is retired he doesnt have to pretend and play along like those still with work they dont wanna go jobless now do they?
Then why are you trying to justify what BBC did?
What about the firefighter's words?
and what about these reports gone missing?
And what about these architects and engineers....they not expert in their field? And you seem to have a double PhD and your word weights more than their expertise?
Over 2200 Architects & Engineers Crush The ‘Official’ 9/11 Commission Report | Collective-Evolution
danielnigro - 911guide
This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.
Release date: September 23, 2007
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:
1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
How about the words from the Chief of the Fire Department? I can justify what BBC did. They made a mistake. Many news organizations make mistakes. Heck even to the point of reporting celebrities going out one another and committing infidelity or doing something bad and later find out its not true.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
and the guy who is on the video I presented...Did you watch it? He is one who can give testimony in court....
32 yr veteran (who was at scene not mr. chief who wasnt near building 7)
His exact words:
building 7 was still up! I saw building 7 come down. My fellow firefighters who were there they did that involuntary jerk when a loud explosion goes off you know you cant help it and they did. I am a Vietnam veteran also I kinda didnt jump like they did. but it was...there was an explosion the building did come down in COMPLETE CLASSICAL controlled demolition. It came down on its own footprint. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT!
Maher Naveed
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2015
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Biggest drama of history
So what? He describes that it came down like a classical controlled demolition. Didn't say it was a controlled demolition that took down the building.
Butchcassidy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 972
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
9/11 conspiracies - a testament to how low people can fall in their anti-americanism
Here is a video of multiple angles of WTC7. One good example, go to time index 2:06. Do you hear any explosions before the building collapsed? How about people react before the WTC7? You notice they turn their heads when the building collapsed but not before if they heard explosions, because I guaranteed that its loud.
Similar threads
