UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up

[osan]

And the band plays on?


http://topinfopost.com/archives/575


UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover upPosted: April 11th, 2013 ˑ Filled under: Conspiracy Blog (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/conspiracy-blog), Front Page (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/home), Politics (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/politics) ˑ 1 Comment (http://topinfopost.com/archives/575#comments)
http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.jpg?resize=373%2C208 (http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.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.



Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.

[satchelmcqueen]

awesome news!!!! maybe now this video will go viral more than it has already and expose the bs behind 911. piers morgan laughed at ventura when he mentioned this video. fuck u morgan!!

[Peace Piper]

BBCs JANE STANDLEY Breaks her silence (from 2008):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEj-kXPfb_g

Jane Standley Now:

http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/300xScale/400_Jane_Standley_201009_WF.jpg

Jane Standley works in Communications for WFP’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Branch. Before moving to Rome, she worked as a Foreign Correspondent for BBC television, radio and new media, with resident postings in Nairobi, Johannesburg and New York. Especially in Africa, Jane co-operated frequently as a journalist with WFP in often difficult locations such as Somalia, Burundi, and the DRC

http://www.wfp.org/people/jane-standley

[enhanced_deficit]

And the band plays on?


http://topinfopost.com/archives/575


UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover upPosted: April 11th, 2013 ˑ Filled under: Conspiracy Blog (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/conspiracy-blog), Front Page (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/home), Politics (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/politics) ˑ 1 Comment (http://topinfopost.com/archives/575#comments)
http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.jpg?resize=373%2C208 (http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.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.


Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.




Have not heard much about this in news. What caused WTC7 to fall then if it was not hit by plane?

[Anti Federalist]

Have not heard much about this in news. What caused WTC7 to fall then if it was not hit by plane?

It wasn't hit by a plane.

That is a matter of fact.

Look in Hot Topics, search WTC 7.

There are a ton of outstanding threads, buried in the dungeon, that explain what happened.

ETA - Ugh, Search Fail...I forgot, there must be memory hole filters on search functions as well, since a keyword search of "WTC 7" will not even tag THIS thread, when there the fuck it is, three lines above us.

3+3 = 5

FFS...

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - SMFH...

Keyword search:

"9/11"

"Sorry. No matches found. Please try some other search terms".

Well, dude, I don't know what to tell you now...google is your friend I guess.

[enhanced_deficit]

Ok, thanks in any case. Will try to read up about this on all knowing google.
Pretty strange.

[Peace Piper]

Pretty strange.

yup

http://islamgreatreligion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wtc-7.gif?w=480

Here's something at least as strange-

Porter Goss (operation40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40)), co author of the patriot act and co -chair of the original investigation- had breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief on the morning of 911. Source: washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36091-2002May17_4.html

The FBI says this guy, Mahmud Ahmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed), was the chief financier behind the pilot/hijacker of flight 77.

Then he has a mini press conference after the first plane hit, and before the pentagon attack.

There is an explosion *before* flt 77 hit the pentagon. And Goss doesn't look too surprised about the whole thing:


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

[ghengis86]

Ok, thanks in any case. Will try to read up about this on all knowing google.
Pretty strange.

Grab yourself a six pack of beer or lemonade or a pot of coffee and go here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261845-The-Strongest-Public-Domain-Evidence-of-9-11-Fraud&goto=newpost

That should get you started down the rabbit hole and turn you on to do good YouTube vids, external links, etc.

[PaulConventionWV]

And the band plays on?


http://topinfopost.com/archives/575


UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover upPosted: April 11th, 2013 ˑ Filled under: Conspiracy Blog (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/conspiracy-blog), Front Page (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/home), Politics (http://topinfopost.com/archives/category/politics) ˑ 1 Comment (http://topinfopost.com/archives/575#comments)
http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.jpg?resize=373%2C208 (http://i2.wp.com/topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/safe_image.php_.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.



Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.




Congrats to that guy!

But why is it the Brits that are so concerned about 9/11? Nobody here is going to court over it.

[green73]

Wait, I thought he lost the case.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405652-Man-refuses-to-pay-TV-license-fee-because-the-BBC-covered-up-facts-about-9-11

[Peace Piper]

he both won and lost- he explains it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIvkrE5NW6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIvkrE5NW6M




PaulConventionWV : why is it the Brits that are so concerned about 9/11? Nobody here is going to court over it.

Here's Dr. Niels Harrit, from Denmark explaining why he cares (he's grilled by a BBC reporter endlessly but manages to keep his composure)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT-pFzOo5YM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT-pFzOo5YM

Edit: Add- people did try to go to court, i think they called themselves the 911 wives- specifically Ellen Mariani

US Supreme Court slams door in 9/11 widow’s face
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/20/289929/us-supreme-court-snubs-911-victim/default.html

Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil was murdered on September 11, 2001, had turned down more than a million dollars in government hush money to pursue the real 9/11 criminals in federal court.

After eleven years, two separate lawsuits, and an unbelievable series of encounters with corrupt lawyers and Israeli-American judges, Ellen Mariani has finally heard from the United States Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court’s message is loud and clear: There will be no truth, and no justice, concerning 9/11… at least not in the US court system.

Ellen Mariani’s petition to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate her wrongful death lawsuit against US government officials and others - a suit which had been denied, at lower levels, on the grounds that she had no standing to sue those responsible for her husband’s death! In fact, Ellen Mariani was cheated by lawyers who were secretly working for the other side, and by judges with massive conflicts of interest. more...

[BlackTerrel]

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.

So the theory here is that whoever planned 9/11 called up people at the BBC and said "hey heads up... WTC 7 is going to collapse".

Why?

[MRK]

So the theory here is that whoever planned 9/11 called up people at the BBC and said "hey heads up... WTC 7 is going to collapse".

Why?

Western Media all have the same influential cadre of overseers. Look at the fake Hollywood staged videos even Al-Jazeera filmed and CNN quickly rebroadcasted in Qatar about Libyan rebels overtaking Green Square in Tripoli... when the reporter was at the stage set in Qatar: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=al-jazeera+green+square+tripoli+libya+fake+coverage&oq=al-jazeera+green+square+tripoli+libya+fake+coverage&gs_l=youtube.3...22820.27535.0.27945.20.20.0.0.0.3 .126.1504.17j3.20.0...0.0...1ac.1.A2nX4g2YrfQ

[BlackTerrel]

What would be the benefit of alerting media that WTC 7 would collapse?

The more people who know about it the worse it would be for the planners.

[QuickZ06]

WOW!

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

9/11 was an inside job.

[Anti Federalist]

9/11 was an inside job.

That.

[Neil Desmond]

9/11 was an inside job.
I don't have much doubt at all that it's an inside job, but I prefer to just say that I don't buy the so-called "official" story (I like to call it the "Popular Mechanics" version of the story) because things don't add up with it.

[Neil Desmond]

What would be the benefit of alerting media that WTC 7 would collapse?

The more people who know about it the worse it would be for the planners.
Maybe it's not about being an alert; maybe it's about having a "Wag the Dog" script.

[TheGrinch]

So the theory here is that whoever planned 9/11 called up people at the BBC and said "hey heads up... WTC 7 is going to collapse".

Why?

So your theory here is that it was just coincidence that the BBC not only accurately predicted (but claimed) a building collapsing that no one in the public had any suspicion was going to, having not been hit by any plane. Why?

It gets so old that the 9/11 nay-sayers constantly demand that the skeptics have all the answers, even though we could not possibly be privy to that kind of information, such as how the BBC would have known. I could of course speculate, but the burden of proof is not on the skeptics, its on those making claims and conducting the investigations who must prove that things went down the way they said they went down.

So again, since you want to base our opinions on purely speculative theory rather than facts (it is fact that they reported it before it happened), what is your speculation about how they could be so prophetic?

[LibertyRevolution]

9/11 was an inside job, all the buildings were wired before hand and pulled on 9/11. The planes hitting them was the cover for it.
Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed unless the supporting floors below them are not supporting them.
Jet fuel does not melt steel I beams on perfect 45's, thermate does though.
Office fires do not bring skyscrapers down to dust, the steel cores always remain. Go look at any other steel frame building fire..
The truth will come out eventually, it always does, usually when people are on their death beds.

[BlackTerrel]

So your theory here is that it was just coincidence that the BBC not only accurately predicted (but claimed) a building collapsing that no one in the public had any suspicion was going to, having not been hit by any plane. Why?

It was hit by columns from the towers. Don't think it's hard to believe that people thought it would collapse.


It gets so old that the 9/11 nay-sayers constantly demand that the skeptics have all the answers, even though we could not possibly be privy to that kind of information, such as how the BBC would have known. I could of course speculate, but the burden of proof is not on the skeptics, its on those making claims and conducting the investigations who must prove that things went down the way they said they went down.

So again, since you want to base our opinions on purely speculative theory rather than facts (it is fact that they reported it before it happened), what is your speculation about how they could be so prophetic?

Shit happens all the time. How many times have the media said so and so died before that person died (or even when that person is still alive today). That's what happens when media outlets are in constant competition to outscoop each other.

I find that far more likely than the BBC being told ahead of time "hey building 7 is going to collapse". That wouldn't benefit anyone.

Though this isn't nearly as interesting a theory.

[J_White]

here is the BBC's answer by the way.
there was "confusion", other channels or reporters were saying it might collapse, or was collapsing !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

yep, that is convincing. :rolleyes:
what's funny is that they lost the link with Standley soon after.
i think the script for the anchor reached him a few minutes too soon.
he was supposed to bring that up after 5:20, not before that. LOL

[S.Shorland]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[vita3]

Thanks to all for this interesting thread & discussion.

Can someone please post a poll in regards to who believes 911 was at the very least, allowed to happen thru "obstruction of justice" This view has been supported by RP fans, Lt. Col Anthony Schafeer & FBI Coleen Rowley.

Would love to know overall opinion on this forum.