Via DailyPaul.com
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.
Videos under the above link.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sean: Given that this appears to be yet more proof of just how disgraceful the BBC have behaved over many decades, I’m surprised you haven’t yet dipped your oar in.
My interest in BBC failings accelerated after what I considered to be a well-considered 8,000 word letter sent to them in 2010 concerning among other things, the death of the Princess of Wales and comments/enquiries regarding their coverage of the collapse of building 7.
I was mostly concerned because at the time I thought I’d heard demolition detonations taking place immediately before the building collapsed.
Just like the car that vanished into thin air in Paris and the bright flashes being seen in the tunnel immediately before PoW died. One witness said those flashes were much, much brighter than a camera flash. When a military flash was then demonstrated for him, the witness said that that was the flash he’d seen. I thought that those flashes need to be properly explained. The victim had pointed the finger at someone who was intending to kill her. If my wife did the same thing to me and later found dead, I think I’d be in very deep trouble guilty or not.
Just two of so many other things which are all conveniently ignored for some reason.
I sent the beeb reminders concerning my letter within the following six months but still waiting to hear back. This is the first time I’ve seen the film footage repeated. In fact for several months after after 9/11, I’d thought I must have dreamed seeing footage of the third collapse. Most people will still tell you that only two buildings fell that day.
We two agree about the BBC’s very obvious shortcomings but I’d like to read what you think about this. Maybe before I started following this site the subject had already been done to death?
Anyone else out there have anything to add I wonder – one or two of our American cousins able to shed light perhaps? What have you been told are the facts about all this – the full truth and nothing but?