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.

Barry Jennings - Explosion or Collapse?

For Barry Jennings' testimony, see: http://blip.tv/i-am-dylan-avery/barry-jennings-uncut-1071126

For a transcript of Jennings' testimony, see: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=108750&t=451652

Main videos used from "WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy." See: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-95852867543727586 Related:

WTC 7 Petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, U.S. Congress, and President Obama

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/05/wtc-7-petition-to-national-institute.html

Petition to President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence -Experts Speak Out”

http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-9-11-families-ask-you-to-watch-9-11-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out-2

The following includes related links that debunk the debunkers and demonstrate that thousands of 9/11 family members think 9/11 was an inside job to some extent:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/06/president-obama-911-families-ask-you-to.html

Properly Investigate the Crimes of 9/11 Petition - To be delivered to: The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama:

http://signon.org/sign/properly-investigate?source=s.em.cr&r_by=4525123&mailing_id=4213

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - A detailed look

This video, made by JREFer AlienEntity, supposedly proves that there's nothing suspicious about Barry Jennings' story at all...

It's a pretty good video by debunker standards, but I do have some problems with it. For one thing Barry was sure he was inside on the 23rd when the second plane hit. Then again, as this video states, it does seem like a bit of a stretch that he would be able to drive to WTC7, park up, meet Hess, go up to the 23rd floor, go back down and go back up again in only 17 minutes so let's assume he was mistaken and let's go with the official timeline and assume he and Hess entered the 23rd floor shortly after it was officially evacuated and let's assume they didn't try to leave until after the south tower had came down - as implied in the BBC documentary.

A big stretch in my mind is the idea that it would take them half an hour just to go down 17 floors! Especially when you consider that, in the BBC documentary, he said he was "jumping landings"!

Another thing, in the BBC documentary Barry said (when he made it down to the sixth floor) "there was this eerie sound, the whole building went dark, and the landing that we were standing on gave way". Now if AlienEntity's timeline is correct, shouldn't the building have already been dark? What with all the electrical power being shut off at 9:59?

And of course there's the biggest problem of all - they were on the NORTH SIDE of the building. In his interview with Dylan and Jason he said "When I was on the stairs I saw 'north side'." He also described how he was blown back by the force of the blast.

Even if he was on the sixth floor when the north tower came down, how could falling debris (or should I say "implausible far-flung debris"?) hitting the SOUTH side of the building create an UPWARD, EXPLOSIVE force, sufficient to destroy a landing all the way on THE OTHER SIDE?

Giving Hess the final word in the video is a bit rich considering he's Giuliani's lawyer and obviously has a vested interest in defending the official story. He wouldn't lie now would he?

Related Info:

"The fact that the coffee was still hot also suggests that Barry was in the OEM center shortly after 9am, since the order came down to evacuate it after WTC2 was hit. It collapsed almost an hour later at 9:59 am, so what was Barry doing hanging around in an abandoned center for a whole hour?" - Source: The Third Tower: A Critical Examination

The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued

Debunking AlienEntity1