An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm …
(Visited 47 times, 1 visits today)
BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
The judge didnt refute because he said the evidence had nothing to do with this case about paying the licensing fee. and rook had to pay the licensing fee. You guys seem to be rejecting reality. the man went to court to avoid paying a fee, and he was ordered to pay that fee. that's a loss. the judge made NO RULING on the validity of his evidence other than saying he couldn't use it as defense in this case. And UK has loser pay system. Rooke was ordered to pay court costs.
how is it not a win? the justice department could not dispute Rooke's findings because the evidence was irrefutable.
The judge didnt look at his findings. the findings had NOTHING to do with the case. tony lost and had to pay licensing fee and court costs. in what way is this a win?
I just watched his video. the first words out of his mouth were "The judge didnt look at the evidence." also he was ordered to pay the court costs, which means he lost, and he was ordered to pay the licensing fee.
Hilarious this comment was removed earlier today. I see you people are dedicated to finding the truth by hiding other opinions: I just checked, UK has a loser pay legal system, which means the loser of the case pays the court fees. By your own admission, he was ordered to pay court fees. So, how is that a win?
yes, where did you get this quote? Because even Tony didn't say that in his post fight interview. He was ordered to pay the licensing fee and court costs.
crock of shit – The judge said that he did not have the power to invoke the terrorism act to remit payment – the judge did not dispute Rooke's findings. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
how is that – the broadcast was done 20 minutes before it happened,the court findings do not dispute that, Rooke was ordered to pay the licence fee because the judge stated that in order to watch TV, legislation required fee payment. The judge said that he did not have the power to invoke the terrorism act or legislation from the terrorism act – perhaps you may want to investigate before commenting.
Ooh WOW you have Google? Amazing….but why do you insist on skim reading articles?
Now try read this care-ful-ly Jnr!!
He 'PRESENTED' the 'BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence' (The same footage Google told you, the judge refused to hear. LOL), 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
Any questions children?
I just checked, UK has a loser pay legal system, which means the loser of the case pays the court fees. By your own admission, he was ordered to pay court fees. So, how is that a win?
There is a search engine called Google, not sure if you are familiar with it. and you can enter keywords relating to this story. it will then tell you which media are carrying it. so, you can triage through the silly conspiracy ones, and read some normal media. having said that, however, you can just watch Tony's post fight interview. He said he had to pay court costs plus the licensing fee and the judge refused to hear his 911 evidence. in what way is that a victory?
Yes he paid court costs and has been told to go get a TV license. and the judge refused to admit his evidence about 911. So, in what way did he win?
Can you also show me the self proclaimed 'ALL LEGITIMATE' media?.. as I would like to send that info to various sites for evaluation. 🙂
He paid court costs and was advised to pay the TV license fee. Nothing else. /watch?v=bHQPaAkIl0I
That is easily the best question, well actually so many reasons why it is preposteroud to believe in a huge conspiracy, but why tell the BBC in advance? These people who believe this are idiots.
You know I just checked this on legitimate media, ALL LEGITIMATE media said the judge threw out Rooke's defense and made him pay the fee. so i have no idea how so many alternative media got it wrong. also, if the UK is like US, and I think it is in this respect, there must be a public record of this case available, and you could read the transcript and confirm that he lost and he had to pay. Why do all of the alternative media have this case wrong?
I think the reporters intentionally did this on purpose so the public watching would notice it. That 9/11 was all a lie. They just can't up and say: "It's all a lie!". That's how you disappear, commit suicide by gun, or you are found dead.
So the reporters stated what had happened earlier in a desperate attempt to alert the public so they possibly could catch on, but they never did… At least not when they should have…
So, uh, why tell them ahead of time when they would have reported it on their own, after the collapse?
All the big media are linked together remember piers morgan the guy who was involved in the big hacking scandal in britain pretty much got the fuck out of there to evade the people only to be given a spot on a U.S media channel lol.
Have contacted my local MP Alec Shelbrooke about this. I have asked him to raise this in the house of commons. He has not agreed stating that I should complain to the BBC through their complaints department. Thanks Alec….. this has only been done 100 times before with no result!!! Have lodged another formal complaint with the BBC today.
cont… 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
Well while people argue what is and isn't fact..
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.
Search: UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast
Didn't you all know the BBC stands for British Bravado & Clairvoyance, but I prefer
Bullshitting Britain Continuously.
Man you guys watch a couple 5 minute videos and suddenly you're all expert engineers. Maybe you should all go get Kony too.
Gimme a break. If you haven't taken a structural engineering course or even a university level physics course you have no right in this debate. And no, your grade 11 kinematics doesn't count.
That wasn't free fall.
That link does not lead me anywhere but a page that says this page does not exist.
And why on earth would they say the tapes disappeared if you can see this tape right here?
The original tapes of this broacast
On bbc webiste:
bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Source please? And what tapes?
This is BBc official statement :
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
Oh and they also claim that tapes from the day are somehow missing. Coincidence??