Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False

Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.

Tony said: "I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support." He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).

Rooke argued that the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.

A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke's legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.

The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a "conspiracy theory". Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.

Source: http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/court-victory-protestor
___________________________________________________

The official account of the attacks is riddled with falsehoods and omissions of key evidence, such as the freefall collapses, the melted steel, the thermite signatures, plus reports and recordings of explosions, the conflicting accounts of the NORAD response, and other data. The official NIST World Trade Centre investigation is thoroughly discredited along with 'debunker' attempts to hide damning evidence of the controlled demolition of these three buildings.

Despite a concerted effort by the establishment and their defenders, the truth about what happened is virtually impossible to paper over. Justice can still be visited upon some of those involved. Indeed, the NIST 'investigators' can easily be targeted for producing a fraudulent report that hid or obfuscated evidence of Treason. For instance, their claim that there was no evidence for melted steel, a clear indication of incendiary action, is a bare faced lie.

All withheld NIST documentation, preserved steel, and crime scene photos or video need to be released to the public for independent review. The material should be seized to prevent destruction of any relevant material. Only the truth about 911 will end the war on terror and help to reign in a corrupt establishment.

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition

An argument against controlled demolition debunkers have raised is that the WTC did not collapse at free fall rates. It is well known that a free fall drop from the height of one of the Twin Towers would be about 9.2 seconds. I except that the Towers took closer to around 15 seconds to collapse, so to the layperson like myself the addition of a few seconds doesn't seem to make a huge difference. However, debunkers have noted it does in fact make a very big difference. They point out that in order for an object to free fall in 15 seconds, it would have to be dropped from a height more than twice that of either Tower.

I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.

A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.

15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.



Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?



629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.



875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.

31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.



A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.



1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.

24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.



A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.



1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.



590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.

So, to summarize:

(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher

(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.

(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.

(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.

(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.

And for the Towers:

3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.

It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:

a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.

and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.

The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.



10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?



About ten times taller.

In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.

Update:

This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.

47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.

See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7



A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.



701/610 = 1.1

A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.

1000 "Moonbat Crazy" Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

By Spookypunkos

Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.

I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...

Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.

After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!

Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !

Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !

Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC



Related Info:

1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost

The Loud Debunker-Not

Thinking Clearly about The 911 Forensic Evidence - when you have Eliminated the Impossible, whatever Remains Must be the Truth.

People who are unfamiliar with the scientific evidence, that proves the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed using explosives on 911, commonly make the mistake of ASSUMING that it would be "impossible" to rig these structures for demolition.

This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of high tech explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapses of these buildings, WITHOUT the presence of chemical incendiaries/explosives of the sort commonly used by the military and demolition companies.

The bottom line is that the forensic evidence proving the inside job is unimpeachable.

Moreover, we also know that the building security was compromised before the attacks, and that workmen had access to the core of the Twin Towers during the months leading up to the attacks- whilst an "elevator modernisation" program was undertaken. There was plenty of time to thoroughly rig the buildings.We have both the physical proof of foul play AND a clear opportunity in which to prepare the buildings for destruction.There is no mistake, 911 WAS an Inside Job. To conclude otherwise is not logical.

By Spookypunkos

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 11th, 2009.]