PDA

View Full Version : UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video)



The One
22nd September 2013, 16:05
http://www.sott.net/image/image/s7/151158/full/wtc7_bbc.jpg

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

For all intents and purposes a UK ccourt has just ruled that the BBC was complicit in the september 11th, 2001 attacks in the United States. Fantastic. A small victory but a huge symbolic victory and one you would have never otherwised have heard of


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHQPaAkIl0I&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=player_embedded

Seikou-Kishi
22nd September 2013, 18:02
It's certainly welcome news, but the court only accepted that section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was applicable to the situation.

The section of the law states:

§15 (3) a person commits an offence if he —

(a) provides money or other property, and
(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

To say that Tony Rooke's suspicion that the licence fee would be used to support terrorism is reasonable is not the same as saying that it is true (I once learned of a case in which a man was convicted for dealing drugs when, unbeknownst to him, what he was actually dealing was powdered cauliflower). The judge has made no judgement at all on whether the BBC did support terrorism by their reports of the 11th of September, only that, given the available evidence, it is reasonable of Tony Rooke (and others) to suspect that they did. The judge is effectively saying "I don't know, but I can see why you think that". That does give judicial credibility to those who doubt the official story, and it would no longer be legally sound for somebody like a politician to deride "truthers" of being paranoid, etc., because in this case the judge has accepted that suspicion of the events is perfectly reasonable given the available evidence.

Spiral
22nd September 2013, 19:10
I think its a psy-op to push the nonsense "Thermite" theory.

Why ? because only "truthers" are going to pay any attention to this story, the mystery figures holding the professionally made sign for the press is too much.

This is not included in the Vid at the top but was very much part of the Press MSM coverage of the story.


http://youtu.be/LUg8okOGQqM