A court like this?

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public.

This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with the BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-911-truth-movement-goes-to-court-in-the-uk/

ok, so now your relying on the small town of Horsham to fight your fight?... good luck with that

come on Old Son,roll out some Facts for a Change,not the tired stale SOS all the time!

Seriously? the fact are classified no grant money is available those who do the research do so at their own expense. No one except a rube or shrill buys the official version of 911.

when all fails, resort to the name calling...

Lets do a recap.

Bush and Cheney both refuse to go under oath to the 911 commission, Fact.

Bush tries to stonewall 911 from being investigated. Fact.

No one held accountable for the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor. Fact.

911 commission disowns own report. Fact.

911 information classified. Fact.

again I stand by this only a rube or a shrill can buy into 'Official" version of 911.

court victory for protestor



Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False

Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.

Tony said: "I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support." He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).

Rooke argued that the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.

The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.

Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.

A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke's legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.

The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a "conspiracy theory". Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.

Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook's victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.

Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.

It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at
rookietone@hotmail.com

Maybe the mods could help correct the title to read...

9/11 goofyness than needs to be ignored.

Please stick to the topic if you have nothing to contribute please do ignore this topic.

Please stick to the topic if you have nothing to contribute please do ignore this topic.

What's a shrill?

Why would a govt. dept. care what truthers think?

Furthermore, why throw away money on grants to people like that? If someone wants money for 9/11 research, go to the guys making the money, Gage, Griffin, Fetzer, Roberts, etc.

Good point.

Latest:

"Charged with not paying his TV licence, Tony Rooke had claimed at Horsham Magistrates’ Court that the BBC’s treatment of the 9/11 attacks made it complicit in acts of terrorism.

He asked to submit evidence which he said would show that the BBC had consistently failed to report the true story.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said that, even if he accepted and agreed with the evidence, that would not give him grounds to rule that Rooke was not guilty.

He imposed a six month conditional discharge, with £200 legal costs.

Outside court, Rooke said the case had been a ‘score draw’ since the judge had looked at the evidence - albeit in private - and had decided not to fine him.

He called for anyone who has evidence which challenges the official version of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to pass it to the authorities."

I can imagine how this will spun by the truthers:

"The judged viewed his evidence and let him off! Even the judge thinks he's right!"

When in reality, the Judge looked at the points of law thinking, "What do I do with this idiot and how can I not turn him into a martyr for other nutcases?"

From the brain's trust over at Icke's zoo:

pretty much as I surmised earlier on in the post, a cover-up.they stuck to what he was actually in court for, as they generally do in courts. Wonder where this goes next, if anywhere?

What did this nitwit think they would do in the court?

And this little gem:

Can he appeal and get this infront of a Jury?

The judge has effectively said that even though he could technically be funding a company complicit in acts of terrorism, he still has to pay anyway.

He needs to go further with this, Crown Court, High Court, European Court....

No, the judge didn't 'effectively' say that.



__________________

That's a good reason not to pay taxes.

You missed the point. The point in my statement is that you are falsely declaring goofiness as "facts". Facts are provable truths. You are merely recycling garbage that has been proven to be "non-factual" years ago.

On the other hand, you say these are "questions that need to be answered." Those, by definition, are not facts.

then,at least stop calling the Truther's Babble Facts!
Even when they bring physical "Facts",it's way off!
Their Experts are Dumb-Bells of Rare Quality!

when at End of Rope,Do ad Hominem!

Confucius

so,now when that "Case"is over,whatever came out of it will serve the Truthers as fresh Ammunition and Fuel for their future Flights of Fancy!

now,Pulease present your FACTS!

We have a saying in America Mr Conrad, if it looks like duck walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck.

Does anyone know if they have ducks in Switzerland or that former penal colony we call Australia?