PDA

View Full Version : Man refuses to pay TV license fee because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11'




green73
02-25-2013, 04:31 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/25/article-2284337-18470A8D000005DC-767_306x474.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/25/article-2284337-18470AC8000005DC-892_634x424.jpg

A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.

Section 15 of the 2000 Act states that 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.

'I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ he told the inspector.

He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.

Rooke told 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.'

He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.

But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.

He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.

Mr Rooke said: '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.'

Not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, said Garth Hanniford, prosecuting. He asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence.

Rooke said: 'Ignorance is not an excuse - I need to know what these people are saying.' He later added: 'You are asking me to commit a crime if you are asking me to pay.'

Around 100 supporters arrived at Horsham Magistrates’ Court today to watch the court case - although only 40 could pack into the public gallery.

The court called in back-up from Sussex Police with two officers standing at the door to the court and several more outside. There was cheering and applause as Rooke put his case forward in court.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: 'This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.'

He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.

He said: 'Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.'

Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: '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.

'I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.'

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'.

dannno
02-25-2013, 04:48 PM
Brilliant

/Brit accent

ronpaulfollower999
02-25-2013, 04:49 PM
Nice sign.

Petar
02-25-2013, 05:00 PM
small bits of beauty in an otherwise bleek orwellian lansdcape...

itshappening
02-25-2013, 05:04 PM
The Daily Mail say they allegedly reported it 20 mins before collapse, this is easy to find out - they DID!

dannno
02-25-2013, 05:12 PM
The Daily Mail say they allegedly reported it 20 mins before collapse, this is easy to find out - they DID!

lol seriously..


We're the media and we can't even verify what WE did let alone what OTHER PEOPLE did..

vita3
02-25-2013, 05:16 PM
'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.

BBC is also recently getting slammed for helping out the myth of child molester Jimmy Saville.

satchelmcqueen
02-25-2013, 05:20 PM
they sure did. a quick youtube search will reveal it....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0qdLoobkUI
The Daily Mail say they allegedly reported it 20 mins before collapse, this is easy to find out - they DID!

jmdrake
02-25-2013, 05:23 PM
The Daily Mail say they allegedly reported it 20 mins before collapse, this is easy to find out - they DID!

No kidding? The BBC admitted they reported WTC 7 collapsed before it actually did. But they gave a cockamaime excuse for why.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Afterwards the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East. The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Nearly seven years on the final official report on the building has still not been published. The report is now promised this month.

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."


Ah. So the BBC admits no steel frame skyscraper had ever fallen just from fire before, and yet they think the fire services were expecting WTC 7 to fall? Oh and it was Reuters that passed on the fake information. That just makes it okay. Allrighty then.

green73
02-25-2013, 05:23 PM
It's encouraging to see the comments that are getting voted up.

jmdrake
02-25-2013, 05:24 PM
Love this image.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/25/article-2284337-18470AC8000005DC-892_634x424.jpg

PaulConventionWV
02-25-2013, 06:09 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

You have to have a license to watch TV in the UK???

Also, that man is not very bright.

PaulConventionWV
02-25-2013, 06:29 PM
No kidding? The BBC admitted they reported WTC 7 collapsed before it actually did. But they gave a cockamaime excuse for why.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Afterwards the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were taken away to be melted down in the Far East. The official explanation is that this third huge tower at the World Trade Center collapsed because of ordinary fires - but that makes this the first and only skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Nearly seven years on the final official report on the building has still not been published. The report is now promised this month.

It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day.

So is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."


Ah. So the BBC admits no steel frame skyscraper had ever fallen just from fire before, and yet they think the fire services were expecting WTC 7 to fall? Oh and it was Reuters that passed on the fake information. That just makes it okay. Allrighty then.

I've been on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job. None of the arguments seem very convincing. I don't believe that news organizations who are trying to cover up the conspiracy would make such a stupid and obvious mistake of reporting it 20 minutes early. Reuters or no Reuters, it just doesn't make sense that this would have anything to do with it being a conspiracy. They are not THAT incompetent. Also, a skyscraper having never collapsed from fire doesn't rule out the fire department declaring that the building might collapse. There's a first for everything.

Another thing that bothers me about the whole WTC 7 issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear motive for the government to intentionally destroy WTC 7. Why would they do that? What's the significance of WTC 7 that would have made its destruction part of their agenda?

The thing that bothers me most, however, is the idea that the government could have possibly rigged the buildings with bombs without anyone noticing. Do you know how many people that would have taken? How do they all keep such a secret with not a single one of them speaking out because they have a conscience?

mac_hine
02-25-2013, 06:43 PM
For much of its 80 year existence, the BBC has been criticized by those who believe it to be an insidious mixture of political and cultural power, and now in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, the British public is once again outraged at their national broadcaster. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we examine the history, function, and institutional biases of the BBC, and how the British people are rising up against the Big Brother Corporation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYPUC6GK7OA

mac_hine
02-25-2013, 06:47 PM
I've been on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job. None of the arguments seem very convincing. I don't believe that news organizations who are trying to cover up the conspiracy would make such a stupid and obvious mistake of reporting it 20 minutes early. Reuters or no Reuters, it just doesn't make sense that this would have anything to do with it being a conspiracy. They are not THAT incompetent. Also, a skyscraper having never collapsed from fire doesn't rule out the fire department declaring that the building might collapse. There's a first for everything.

Another thing that bothers me about the whole WTC 7 issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear motive for the government to intentionally destroy WTC 7. Why would they do that? What's the significance of WTC 7 that would have made its destruction part of their agenda?

The thing that bothers me most, however, is the idea that the government could have possibly rigged the buildings with bombs without anyone noticing. Do you know how many people that would have taken? How do they all keep such a secret with not a single one of them speaking out because they have a conscience?

This is one of the best interviews I've listened to regarding 911. It's quite long , but I recommend taking then time to listen to it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQdd65oB5C4

vita3
02-25-2013, 06:55 PM
Paulconventionwv,

WTC7 was built by Larry Silverstein in the late 80's. It was his building & the only property he had control of from start to finish in the complex. Larry signed a lease for the two main towers & other buildings 6 weeks before 9/11/01.

If you believe he was in on the event, you can understand how easy it would have been to rig wtc7 for destruction, since he always had ownership of it.

dannno
02-25-2013, 07:04 PM
I've been on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job.

That's not a bad position to be in, just means you are open to both sides and have some more studying to do.



I don't believe that news organizations who are trying to cover up the conspiracy would make such a stupid and obvious mistake of reporting it 20 minutes early.


Actually that's really easy to do. All it requires is one report from one person to come through, nobody in Britain is going to verify what Building 7 even looks like. They (Reuters, et al) probably had a bunch of reports set to go out throughout the day, this one was on the list to go out at a certain time after the building was demolished and perhaps they pressed the button a half hour later than they had originally anticipated. Or something. Either way, it got through and was reported.

Remember, it's not the BBC who is in on it, the news reporter simply read the card. The person who wrote the card simply got the directive from their boss. Their boss got a line on a building coming down and probably had no idea what the building looked like or that it was still up in the background image.





Another thing that bothers me about the whole WTC 7 issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear motive for the government to intentionally destroy WTC 7. Why would they do that? What's the significance of WTC 7 that would have made its destruction part of their agenda?

Wow, actually that is a really easy question.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center

The Securities and Exchange commission was working on cases involving Enron and World Comm. Any evidence they wanted to destroy involving these cases, or ANY OTHER pending cases involving the Security and Exchanges commission they wanted destroyed were in that building.

Then there's the IRS, same thing, any tax related stunts these people were behind, investigations, case files are now gone.

The NY CIA headquarters was in WTC7. The Bin Laden case files were all there, any information they wanted about bin laden to be destroyed was in that building. By destroying MOST of the information they had on him, they could weave any tail they wanted about him.

Banks, banks bank. Boy do they love laundering drug money. And boy do they love it when all that paperwork is destroyed. Ask The Rose Law Firm.

The Mayor's "bunker" was also in WTC7. I think that WTC7 was the headquarters for the 9/11 attacks. Then they planned to destroy the building after so all the evidence of involvement would be destroyed.

Pentagon. The budget offices that had all of the information and all of the accountants who would have had the information about where the $2.3 trillion that the Pentagon "couldn't account for" that Rumsfeld announced was missing on 9/10/01. Rumsfeld promised that he would figure out where this money went. The next day happened and everybody forgot about the $2.3 trillion.




The thing that bothers me most, however, is the idea that the government could have possibly rigged the buildings with bombs without anyone noticing. Do you know how many people that would have taken? How do they all keep such a secret with not a single one of them speaking out because they have a conscience?

That's the easiest part of all. One of Bush's cousins, Marvin Bush, was on the board of the company that did security for the WTC, Dulles Airport and YOU GUESSED IT... American Airlines........

They were doing maintenance on all of the elevator shafts on both buildings for months and months before the attacks. In fact, one of the towers top half was completely shut down, power and all, the entire weekend before the attack.




None of the arguments seem very convincing.

Like, for example, why the 9/11 Commission covered up the wire transfer of money to Atta before the attacks? The 9/11 Commission didn't want to know who funded the 9/11 attacks?? Doesn't seem curious to you?

Czolgosz
02-25-2013, 07:05 PM
I'm still stuck on a 'tv license fee.' lol @ humanity.

jmdrake
02-25-2013, 07:06 PM
I've been on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job. None of the arguments seem very convincing. I don't believe that news organizations who are trying to cover up the conspiracy would make such a stupid and obvious mistake of reporting it 20 minutes early. Reuters or no Reuters, it just doesn't make sense that this would have anything to do with it being a conspiracy. They are not THAT incompetent. Also, a skyscraper having never collapsed from fire doesn't rule out the fire department declaring that the building might collapse. There's a first for everything.

Let me see if I understand you. Typically I hear people say that the government couldn't have carried out 9/11 because it's too incompetent. But now you're saying that the news media couldn't go along with the cover up because they aren't that incompetent? Do you see the problem with your argument?

Also Google "Operation Mockingbird." That was (is?) the CIA plan to feed false information to the news media. Consider this. One "incompetent" intelligence operative feeds the news about how WTC 7 to Reuters too soon. (Timing is everything). Reuters then begins feeding the information to the BBC who feeds it to the gullible public.

As for your "first time for everything" comment, sure there is. But people typically don't worry about something that's never happened before just because it might happen. Further, are you aware of the fact that WTC 5 and 6 took far more damage than WTC 7? Why wasn't the BBC reporting that WTC 5 and 6 had collapsed or were about to collapse?



Another thing that bothers me about the whole WTC 7 issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear motive for the government to intentionally destroy WTC 7. Why would they do that? What's the significance of WTC 7 that would have made its destruction part of their agenda?


People talk about the motivation to destroy WTC 7 all of the time. How did you miss that? See: http://desip.igc.org/WTC7.html



The thing that bothers me most, however, is the idea that the government could have possibly rigged the buildings with bombs without anyone noticing. Do you know how many people that would have taken? How do they all keep such a secret with not a single one of them speaking out because they have a conscience?

People that have spoken out have been ignored in some cases and have died under mysterious circumstances in others. Have you ever heard of William Rodriguez? How about Barry Jennings?

Further, please read this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405642-What-if-everything-you-know-is-wrong&p=4894303#post4894303

Notice that German police actively covered up cold blooded murder by one of their own who happened to be an East German spy. Were all of these police spies? Probably not. But the group think can be a powerful motivator.

Further, you tell me how many people are involved in rigging a building for controlled demolition. That's a non argument. I'm pretty sure Controlled Demolition Inc uses a pretty small team. And how many people did it take for the first WTC bombing in 1993? Had the truck been placed correctly the entire structure would have collapsed. How many people did it take to make the bomb? Only one FBI informant. And if we believe that there are people in the world evil enough to kill 3,000 people on 9/11 (and obviously there must be because 3,000 people died) then there are likely people in the world evil enough to do it and then keep their mouths shut.

Also as Dannno pointed out, Marvin Bush was in charge of security until right before 9/11.

QuickZ06
02-25-2013, 09:33 PM
Remember the missing 2.3 trillion that was announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01? It was already being investigated in WTC7 and the wall of the pentagon that got hit........how convenient for the person or persons who now have that money don't ya say, you know since they just stopped looking for that measly 2.3 trillion dollars.

Cleaner44
02-25-2013, 09:40 PM
Brilliant

/Brit accent

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/530385/guinness-brilliant.jpg

Dr.3D
02-25-2013, 09:45 PM
I'm still stuck on a 'tv license fee.' lol @ humanity.
Exactly, that's insane.

I suppose they will try to impose one of those in the U.S. before too long, considering they are always thinking of new ways to rob the public of more money.

Danan
02-25-2013, 10:06 PM
I'm still stuck on a 'tv license fee.' lol @ humanity.

Sounds like it's done in Austria too. Public television is financed in that manner almost everywhere. That's why I don't own a TV. I'd have to pay for that public propaganda BS and I don't want to.

But tbh, it's better to pay for it through a fee than through general taxation. Even though they force you to pay regardless of whether you ever watch their channel (which is why it's not at all perfect), you can at least potentially opt-out of it. When too many people in Germany got rid of the TV, they made it a compulsory household fee everybody has to pay, even if you don't own any devices. There is some mild uproar against that, though.

Hayek has a great quote about how the worst form of propaganda must be the one they force you to pay for against your will.

PaulConventionWV
02-26-2013, 06:29 AM
Paulconventionwv,

WTC7 was built by Larry Silverstein in the late 80's. It was his building & the only property he had control of from start to finish in the complex. Larry signed a lease for the two main towers & other buildings 6 weeks before 9/11/01.

If you believe he was in on the event, you can understand how easy it would have been to rig wtc7 for destruction, since he always had ownership of it.

What does that have to do with the government's motive? Also, why is Larry Silverstein important? Sure, he owned the building, but I don't see why he'd want to blow it up. It would still take a lot to simply rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing.

PaulConventionWV
02-26-2013, 06:40 AM
That's not a bad position to be in, just means you are open to both sides and have some more studying to do.




Actually that's really easy to do. All it requires is one report from one person to come through, nobody in Britain is going to verify what Building 7 even looks like. They (Reuters, et al) probably had a bunch of reports set to go out throughout the day, this one was on the list to go out at a certain time after the building was demolished and perhaps they pressed the button a half hour later than they had originally anticipated. Or something. Either way, it got through and was reported.

Remember, it's not the BBC who is in on it, the news reporter simply read the card. The person who wrote the card simply got the directive from their boss. Their boss got a line on a building coming down and probably had no idea what the building looked like or that it was still up in the background image.

So you're saying the early report was simply an innocent mistake? Or that whomever was in control already had the info and accidentally sent it out too early, revealing their evil plot?


Wow, actually that is a really easy question.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center

The Securities and Exchange commission was working on cases involving Enron and World Comm. Any evidence they wanted to destroy involving these cases, or ANY OTHER pending cases involving the Security and Exchanges commission they wanted destroyed were in that building.

Then there's the IRS, same thing, any tax related stunts these people were behind, investigations, case files are now gone.

The NY CIA headquarters was in WTC7. The Bin Laden case files were all there, any information they wanted about bin laden to be destroyed was in that building. By destroying MOST of the information they had on him, they could weave any tail they wanted about him.

Banks, banks bank. Boy do they love laundering drug money. And boy do they love it when all that paperwork is destroyed. Ask The Rose Law Firm.

The Mayor's "bunker" was also in WTC7. I think that WTC7 was the headquarters for the 9/11 attacks. Then they planned to destroy the building after so all the evidence of involvement would be destroyed.

Pentagon. The budget offices that had all of the information and all of the accountants who would have had the information about where the $2.3 trillion that the Pentagon "couldn't account for" that Rumsfeld announced was missing on 9/10/01. Rumsfeld promised that he would figure out where this money went. The next day happened and everybody forgot about the $2.3 trillion.

So the whole reason WTC 7 was brought down was to destroy a bunch of paperwork? Isn't paper easier to destroy without blowing up the building?


That's the easiest part of all. One of Bush's cousins, Marvin Bush, was on the board of the company that did security for the WTC, Dulles Airport and YOU GUESSED IT... American Airlines........

They were doing maintenance on all of the elevator shafts on both buildings for months and months before the attacks. In fact, one of the towers top half was completely shut down, power and all, the entire weekend before the attack.

Like, for example, why the 9/11 Commission covered up the wire transfer of money to Atta before the attacks? The 9/11 Commission didn't want to know who funded the 9/11 attacks?? Doesn't seem curious to you?

So that explains Marvin Bush, but what about the employees who had to do the dirty work? It would have taken a lot of people to do something like that, and nobody who participated in rigging the building with bombs had a guilty conscience? Nobody noticed the black trucks filled with explosives being transported to and from the elevator shaft months before it happened? I would like to know who this team was that just said "Ok, boss!" when they were ordered to do this job.

Yes, the wire transfer may be suspicious, but it's not yet damning evidence because we don't really know what went on there.

vita3
02-26-2013, 08:09 AM
What does that have to do with the government's motive? Also, why is Larry Silverstein important? Sure, he owned the building, but I don't see why he'd want to blow it up. It would still take a lot to simply rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing.

Silverstein is a developer with Goverment ties. He also developed the Ronald Reagan building in DC which is the largest Gov building in America. That is the buliding where Ron Paul was not allowed to debate when the Jewish Colaition held their own debate last year. Remember that?

& I'm not sure why it was blown up, but it was. Science wins over speculation

jmdrake
02-26-2013, 09:48 AM
So you're saying the early report was simply an innocent mistake? Or that whomever was in control already had the info and accidentally sent it out too early, revealing their evil plot?


He's saying that it was not a innocent mistake on the part of the person who started the report, but that others innocently picked it up. And I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not, but these conversations often go that way. The fact is that the article in the OP was either being dishonest or showed poor research skills when it said the BBC "allegedly" reported 20 minutes before WTC 7 fell that it fell. That is not up for debate. The BBC certainly did make that report and later admitted that they did. Whether the BBC was "in on it" is irrelevant obfuscation.



So the whole reason WTC 7 was brought down was to destroy a bunch of paperwork? Isn't paper easier to destroy without blowing up the building?


Not just paperwork. It was an entire command and control center they may have been involved in the attack itself. Plus once you start shredding paperwork it becomes easier to get caught. Look at what happened to Oliver North. You raised the specter of disloyal employees spilling the beans? Trying to wipe hard drives and shred rooms full of documents is how that happens. It's one thing for someone to come out and say "I saw the building being wired." (William Rodriguez basically said that.) It's another thing for someone to scan in some papers that are about to be shredded and send them to Wikileaks.



So that explains Marvin Bush, but what about the employees who had to do the dirty work? It would have taken a lot of people to do something like that, and nobody who participated in rigging the building with bombs had a guilty conscience?


Really? You base this "a lot of people" number on what? Your imagination? CDI works with relatively small teams. And (supposedly) the Murrah building in Oklahoma city was brought down with a team of 2. Yes the WTC was much bigger. Okay, make it a team of 20. Then kill off most of them when you get done.



Nobody noticed the black trucks filled with explosives being transported to and from the elevator shaft months before it happened? I would like to know who this team was that just said "Ok, boss!" when they were ordered to do this job.


William Rodriguez noticed strange things going on in the building that he later concluded was the building being wired for explosives. Now how many people in the U.S. have heard of him?



Yes, the wire transfer may be suspicious, but it's not yet damning evidence because we don't really know what went on there.

:rolleyes: $100,000 was wired to the lead hijacker from the head of Pakistani intelligence. He resigned after this became public. What else do you need to know? We've drone bombed people over less. And the fact that the 9/11 commission decided not to delve into this when the main reason they were established was to find out what happened is itself damning! Hey, if it makes you feel better to believe the official story just say so.

AFPVet
02-26-2013, 09:59 AM
You have to have a license to watch TV in the UK???

Also, that man is not very bright.

That's what I was thinking lol. Here, they want you to watch 'programming' lol. ...weird.

jmdrake
02-26-2013, 10:03 AM
Remember the missing 2.3 trillion that was announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01? It was already being investigated in WTC7 and the wall of the pentagon that got hit........how convenient for the person or persons who now have that money don't ya say, you know since they just stopped looking for that measly 2.3 trillion dollars.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc

And look at Cynthia McKinney grilling him over the fact that the money wasn't accounted for years later as well as Pentagon contractors being involved in child sex trafficking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc

jbauer
02-26-2013, 10:09 AM
Ahh the 9/11 conspiracy!! You know that the "dumbest" president in our history (until obama) was able to pull off the biggest single attack on American soil since the revolutionary war yet wasn't able to shut up some teenager on youtube and a bunch of crazies.

9/11 happened there was gross negligence on the part of our government. They maybe even permitted it to happen. But they didn't rig the buildings with explosives.



I've been on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job. None of the arguments seem very convincing. I don't believe that news organizations who are trying to cover up the conspiracy would make such a stupid and obvious mistake of reporting it 20 minutes early. Reuters or no Reuters, it just doesn't make sense that this would have anything to do with it being a conspiracy. They are not THAT incompetent. Also, a skyscraper having never collapsed from fire doesn't rule out the fire department declaring that the building might collapse. There's a first for everything.

Another thing that bothers me about the whole WTC 7 issue is that there doesn't seem to be any clear motive for the government to intentionally destroy WTC 7. Why would they do that? What's the significance of WTC 7 that would have made its destruction part of their agenda?

The thing that bothers me most, however, is the idea that the government could have possibly rigged the buildings with bombs without anyone noticing. Do you know how many people that would have taken? How do they all keep such a secret with not a single one of them speaking out because they have a conscience?

dannno
02-26-2013, 11:38 AM
What does that have to do with the government's motive?

Ok, I'll spell it out. The Pentagon spent $2.3 trillion that were un-accounted for. They were using that money, in all likelyhood, to perform illegal covert operations that didn't have congressional approval. The day before 9/11, "coincidentally" I suppose, Rumsfeld came out and said he was going to do everything in his power to find out where that money went. The thing is, he knows exactly where it went, he knew the budget offices were going to be blown up the next day and that it was going to be blamed on foreign terrorists. So not only is this an extremely traumatic event for the nation that will help everybody to forget the $2.3 trillion existed in the first place, but the plane that hit the Pentagon, which "coincidentally", I suppose, killed all of the budget officers and the building where all of that information was supposed to be contained, it gives them an excuse to "lose" that money and not actually go back and account for it and track it. And that's what happened.



Also, why is Larry Silverstein important?

I don't know how much that guy knew, maybe somebody else was helping him manage his assets and gave him some "guidance" to buy certain buildings and insure them for terrorist acts within months of the attack, but I think he knew they were rigged with explosives and I think it was done when the building was built for insurance reasons (wtc7). I think the towers were rigged when he decided to insure them months earlier. That was done, as I stated in an earlier post, when they "renovated" all of the building's elevator shafts. When you build a skyscraper, if something happens and it falls over on other buildings you have a liability potential for the insurer of the building. By rigging the building with explosives, if something happens to it then you can keep it from toppling over onto other buildings by rigging it to come straight down. I think he knew that it was all done for insurance reasons, he probably knows they were brought down for insurance reasons and that they couldn't tell the public that they brought it down.. although he did slip in a documentary one time and actually said they decided to "pull" building 7. SOooo... Whether Larry knew who caused the planes to collide into his building is questionable, but it is very likely he was completely aware of how his buildings came down.



Sure, he owned the building, but I don't see why he'd want to blow it up. It would still take a lot to simply rig a building with explosives without anyone noticing.

He actually had just signed a 100 year lease on the towers for something like $2.3 billion and ended up getting something like $7 billion from the insurance company because his insurance plan said that they would pay $3.5 billion per incident.. he argued that each plane was an "incident" and collected double.

vita3
02-26-2013, 11:39 AM
PaulWv,

The Ronald Reagan building in DC is actually called Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center & it's the 2nd largest Federal building in America, after the Pentagon.

I've been studying & learning about what really happened on 911 for about 7 years now & it's amazing, complicated, has many guilty parties & mostly overwhelming trying to put it all together.

You have lot's of dis-info out here as well as powerfull forces discrediting anything but the official story.

Hope you look into it further & see it clearly for what it is.

dannno
02-26-2013, 11:40 AM
You know that the "dumbest" president in our history (until obama) was able to pull off the biggest single attack on American soil

Do you know what a straw-man argument is? Because you just made one.

I don't think there is anybody in the world who believes that. IMO Bush had ZERO involvement in any of it, if for anything, Cheney and them made it that way so he could better talk to the media was a semi-straight face.

KingNothing
02-26-2013, 11:54 AM
I have it on good authority that 9/11 was not an inside job.

ronpaulfollower999
02-26-2013, 11:59 AM
I have it on good authority that 9/11 was not an inside job.

I have it on better authority that you're good authority is wrong.

KingNothing
02-26-2013, 12:02 PM
I have it on better authority that you're good authority is wrong.

No, trust me. The source is "in the know" if you know what I mean. Real backroom shit.

coastie
02-26-2013, 12:04 PM
Follow the money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jol7Eq_obg

After watching this, and you haven't at least started to swing your leg around to the other side of the fence, then it's all in your head. There was NO investigation of what happened. NONE. It was a whitewash and cover up, PERIOD. Even over half of the 9/11 Commision members say so:

"As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11th than it has ever admitted. Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

-- Senator Max Cleland, 9/11 Commissioner, who resigned from the Commission.

"At some level of the government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened."

-- John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission.

"Still unanswered after nearly ten years are the questions of the full extent of the Saudi pre-9/11 involvement. The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

-- Senator Bob Graham, Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission

"I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right."

-- Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission

"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting."

-- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer, in reference to government officials.

"There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our [report]... We didn’t have access... It's a 30 year [old] cover-up."

-- Senator Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commission Co-Chair

"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

-- Article written by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 Commission.

"The two questions that the congress will not ask... is, Why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

-- Senator Patrick Leahy

"There's a cover up here. It's clear and unequivocal."

-- Congressman Curt Weldon

"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story."

-- Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot.

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 'omission' and all the rest of that junk."

-- Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter.


So, I really don't understand why people continue to stick their heads in the sand over this, I really don't.

ETA: This isn't my video, but I uploaded it to my channel.

coastie
02-26-2013, 12:05 PM
No, trust me. The source is "in the know" if you know what I mean. Real backroom shit.

Bullshit. You're a liar. My own thinking brain is my authority on that.

vita3
02-26-2013, 12:15 PM
Coastie,

Do you have any more solid info on the Naval Intelligence Office @ the Pentagon being struck & key personel murdered?

I've heard this mentioned a few times but i have never truly validated it from a reliable source.

coastie
02-26-2013, 12:20 PM
Coastie,

Do you have any more solid info on the Naval Intelligence Office @ the Pentagon being struck & key personel murdered?

I've heard this mentioned a few times but i have never truly validated it from a reliable source.

I think he touches on it in the previous video, and maybe some more in this one, I don't have time to re-watch atm, I'm heading out the door in a minute, but I'm almost positive he does mention it. Visit AlienScientist's or WarCrime911's(same person) youtube channel for a bunch of good stuff, some of the most thorough investigating on these events to date.:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PvTug5mUI

jbauer
02-26-2013, 12:34 PM
Do you know what a straw-man argument is? Because you just made one.

I don't think there is anybody in the world who believes that. IMO Bush had ZERO involvement in any of it, if for anything, Cheney and them made it that way so he could better talk to the media was a semi-straight face.

The straw man argument came about because people were "grasping at straws" because of a life/country/world changing event happened during our lifetime to explain it away. Sometimes bad thing happen. That day was one of them. You'll find no argument that "we" dropped the ball.

Fyi, I understand what you say the straw man argument is. Cheney is an evil man but a mastermind he is not.

9-11 changed this country in a devistaing way. Our leaders have used it as an argument to put us into the financial death-throws we're currently in. They've used it to sell war. They've used it to sell "protection". They've used it for many many many things. I've watched plenty of the 9-11 conspiracy stuff. I've had debates back and forth with "truthers". I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me to change our views. For me the obvious answer is the answer.

vita3
02-26-2013, 01:52 PM
Coastie,

I did my own Internet digging & found the Navy's Dep't Library report on the Pentagon attack. It says the Naval's Command Center was hit, & the Intelligence Unit was housed within this.

"These 3, plus Capets, Lhuillier, and Humbert, were the 6 survivors of the 13 Intelligence Plot occupants. All of the Navy's losses occurred in the Command Center - 42 military and civilian dead, including 3 contractor employees.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/pentagon_9-11.htm

coastie
02-26-2013, 02:24 PM
Coastie,

I did my own Internet digging & found the Navy's Dep't Library report on the Pentagon attack. It says the Naval's Command Center was hit, & the Intelligence Unit was housed within this.

"These 3, plus Capets, Lhuillier, and Humbert, were the 6 survivors of the 13 Intelligence Plot occupants. All of the Navy's losses occurred in the Command Center - 42 military and civilian dead, including 3 contractor employees.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/pentagon_9-11.htm


Cool, I'll look into it. Side story because its related-my father in law delayed his arrival to work in the Pentagon(Navy budget Analyst) by two weeks in September 2001...he was supposed to be there on 9/11.:eek:

jmdrake
02-26-2013, 02:28 PM
No, trust me. The source is "in the know" if you know what I mean. Real backroom shit.

:rolleyes: Trollin trollin trollin....keep those posts a flowin....act like you be knowin...troll onnnnn...

jmdrake
02-26-2013, 02:31 PM
Follow the money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jol7Eq_obg

After watching this, and you haven't at least started to swing your leg around to the other side of the fence, then it's all in your head. There was NO investigation of what happened. NONE. It was a whitewash and cover up, PERIOD. Even over half of the 9/11 Commision members say so:



So, I really don't understand why people continue to stick their heads in the sand over this, I really don't.

ETA: This isn't my video, but I uploaded it to my channel.

Add to that former terror czar Richard Clark's 2011 claim that the CIA knew about at least two of the hijackers being in the U.S. before 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20091608.html

vita3
02-26-2013, 02:50 PM
Cool, I'll look into it. Side story because its related-my father in law delayed his arrival to work in the Pentagon(Navy budget Analyst) by two weeks in September 2001...he was supposed to be there on 9/11.:eek:

That's very fortunate.

Curious if he thinks it was an inside job/let to happen?

coastie
02-26-2013, 02:58 PM
That's very fortunate.

Curious if he thinks it was an inside job/let to happen?

No, he still believes that there is a difference between the Red and Blue teams, a neocon-lite, if you will. He voted for RP in '08 and '12, but changed to hardcore "We MUST get McCain('08), and then Romney('12) in!!!111!!!" when it was general election time. In other words, I've never even asked, we really don't talk too much, I know he'd just blast it as a conspiracy theory and say that I was crazy, so I just don't bring it up around him.

PaulConventionWV
02-26-2013, 09:50 PM
He's saying that it was not a innocent mistake on the part of the person who started the report, but that others innocently picked it up. And I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or not, but these conversations often go that way. The fact is that the article in the OP was either being dishonest or showed poor research skills when it said the BBC "allegedly" reported 20 minutes before WTC 7 fell that it fell. That is not up for debate. The BBC certainly did make that report and later admitted that they did. Whether the BBC was "in on it" is irrelevant obfuscation.

Okay, but what purpose does it serve to put the report out 20 minutes early? Is it just to see how dumb people are?


Not just paperwork. It was an entire command and control center they may have been involved in the attack itself. Plus once you start shredding paperwork it becomes easier to get caught. Look at what happened to Oliver North. You raised the specter of disloyal employees spilling the beans? Trying to wipe hard drives and shred rooms full of documents is how that happens. It's one thing for someone to come out and say "I saw the building being wired." (William Rodriguez basically said that.) It's another thing for someone to scan in some papers that are about to be shredded and send them to Wikileaks.

Sounds reasonable enough, but not conclusive evidence.


Really? You base this "a lot of people" number on what? Your imagination? CDI works with relatively small teams. And (supposedly) the Murrah building in Oklahoma city was brought down with a team of 2. Yes the WTC was much bigger. Okay, make it a team of 20. Then kill off most of them when you get done.

So you're saying they found 20 people who worked for that company that would be willing to take responsibility for the death of 3000 people and then killed them afterward? I still want to know who those 20 people are that you can find working for one company that are willing to do that. Where did they come from?


William Rodriguez noticed strange things going on in the building that he later concluded was the building being wired for explosives. Now how many people in the U.S. have heard of him?

Is it not possible he was seeking recognition? Didn't work out too well because, well, maybe his story isn't believable?


:rolleyes: $100,000 was wired to the lead hijacker from the head of Pakistani intelligence. He resigned after this became public. What else do you need to know? We've drone bombed people over less. And the fact that the 9/11 commission decided not to delve into this when the main reason they were established was to find out what happened is itself damning! Hey, if it makes you feel better to believe the official story just say so.

I never said any such thing. But okay, you're making a good case.

FrancisMarion
02-26-2013, 09:51 PM
What the hell is a TV license? Good grief.

PaulConventionWV
02-26-2013, 09:55 PM
Ahh the 9/11 conspiracy!! You know that the "dumbest" president in our history (until obama) was able to pull off the biggest single attack on American soil since the revolutionary war yet wasn't able to shut up some teenager on youtube and a bunch of crazies.

9/11 happened there was gross negligence on the part of our government. They maybe even permitted it to happen. But they didn't rig the buildings with explosives.

Now, admittedly, I'm on the fence about the conspiracy, but there's no reason to believe George W. Bush was actually stupid unless you have the preconceived notion that the things that happen were the result of stupidity and not evil intent. That is not necessarily true. You mustn't always assume that what seems like negligence is mere negligence, especially when the interested parties have a lot to gain from the outcome... or a lot to lose.