Historic 9/11 Case Brewing as AE911T Presents Evidence in Court Against BBC!

reply to post by TrueAmerican




SnF

Get them whichever way you can and it is indeed a novel idea. Any publicity is good publicity. A lot of people don't even realise that building 7 fell, how it fell and the 'time glitch' of the falling. I read somewhere even the original BBC's recording has been "conveniently" lost.
That lady clairvoyant, er, reporter, wondering how is she doing nowadays ? Bet she doesn't sleeps very well these past 11 years.

Who would you provide evidence to if you thought that you had an interesting piece that actually rings true in order for it to be investigated?

Originally posted by mypan
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

SnF

Get them whichever way you can and it is indeed a novel idea. Any publicity is good publicity. A lot of people don't even realise that building 7 fell, how it fell and the 'time glitch' of the falling. I read somewhere even the original BBC's recording has been "conveniently" lost.
That lady clairvoyant, er, reporter, wondering how is she doing nowadays ? Bet she doesn't sleeps very well these past 11 years.

You are reading more into it than there is. It's the same for all conspiracies. People want to believe 'there's something more to it'. When in reality it it what it is.

1. There was no 'time glitch'. The non American reporter got her buildings mixed up.
Did you even know there was a 'building 7' to the WTC complex back in 2001?? I didn't. Why would you expect her to know which building was which. It's not like she was standing right next to it when it happened.

2. The tapes have not been lost. Somebody is trying to add more lies to keep the conspiracy alive. Besides it's all over the internet.

3. I'll bet she sleeps just fine. Did you ever make a mistake in your job?????? It really wasn't that big of a deal.

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by mypan
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

SnF

Get them whichever way you can and it is indeed a novel idea. Any publicity is good publicity. A lot of people don't even realise that building 7 fell, how it fell and the 'time glitch' of the falling. I read somewhere even the original BBC's recording has been "conveniently" lost.
That lady clairvoyant, er, reporter, wondering how is she doing nowadays ? Bet she doesn't sleeps very well these past 11 years.

You are reading more into it than there is. It's the same for all conspiracies. People want to believe 'there's something more to it'. When in reality it it what it is.

1. There was no 'time glitch'. The non American reporter got her buildings mixed up.
Did you even know there was a 'building 7' to the WTC complex back in 2001?? I didn't. Why would you expect her to know which building was which. It's not like she was standing right next to it when it happened.

2. The tapes have not been lost. Somebody is trying to add more lies to keep the conspiracy alive. Besides it's all over the internet.

3. I'll bet she sleeps just fine. Did you ever make a mistake in your job?????? It really wasn't that big of a deal.

what? ....now you expect people to believe what they heard coming over the BBC was a mistake in building identification? yeah...yeah...that's it...we got the wrong building...that's what it was.

Originally posted by mypan
Get them whichever way you can and it is indeed a novel idea.

It is a stupid idea and will fail on Monday, that is certain.
Relying on accusations of the BBC being a terrorist organisation as a defence against the trivial offence of using equipment to receive broadcast TV without a licence is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.
All the supporters are clutching at non existent straws, he will be found guilty and the magistrates will simply dismiss his 'evidence' as irrelevant rubbish.

Originally posted by jimmyx

what? ....now you expect people to believe what they heard coming over the BBC was a mistake in building identification? yeah...yeah...that's it...we got the wrong building...that's what it was.

What's the alternative ? That the wicked perps gave a foreign news outlet a script as to how it was all going to go down and the BBC got ahead of the script ?

Do you seriously believe that in preference to a mistake on a day of confusion and horror ? One of many mistakes reported that day.

Originally posted by mypan
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

SnF

Get them whichever way you can and it is indeed a novel idea. Any publicity is good publicity. A lot of people don't even realise that building 7 fell, how it fell and the 'time glitch' of the falling. I read somewhere even the original BBC's recording has been "conveniently" lost.
That lady clairvoyant, er, reporter, wondering how is she doing nowadays ? Bet she doesn't sleeps very well these past 11 years.

The BBC's tapes are not lost and Jane Standley is alive and well , showing no signs of sleep deprivation , and working for the World Food Programme :-

www.wfp.org...

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Flatcoat

 

But the WTC buildings were not built of one material in one solid mass. So no, Gage has shown his inability to grasp the complexity of the WTC event and the physics behind it. Dr. Bazant was demonstrating demolition physics, something Gage has ZERO concept of.

Bazant's physics may work in a verinage situation, but that requires both sections being equal, not to mention pre-weakened. Personally, I find the idea of 20% of a structure crushing the other 80% to the ground before crushing itself beyond ludicrous. Not forgetting also that towers were constructed with the bottom 1/3 stronger than the middle 1/3 which was, again, of more robust construction than the top 1/3. It just doesn't work.

reply to post by Flatcoat

Regardless, this stupid attempt of proving conspiracy as a defence in a trivial court TV licence case will fail in a little English town on Monday. Will the OP continue to regard it as 'historic' then?

reply to post by grainofsand


Well, I can't disagree with you there. It will achieve absolutely nothing.

The biggest question is why wtc7 "collapsed" in the first place. It was never struck by an airplane. It was a 47 story tall building. Reinforced to allow sections to be removed like a puzzle. It housed the Enron papers. What was the biggest story before 9/11...

Originally posted by Oannes
The biggest question is why wtc7 "collapsed" in the first place. It was never struck by an airplane. It was a 47 story tall building. Reinforced to allow sections to be removed like a puzzle. It housed the Enron papers. What was the biggest story before 9/11...

WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and burned all day. Plenty of witnesses spoke of its increasing instability.

I haven't seen any definitive evidence that Enron papers were in the building. The scandal didn't break until October 2001. If there were any it didn't prevent later prosecutions and prison sentences.

Destroying a building would be a pretty stupid way to hide evidence. Documents were strewn over a wide area and many hard-drives, discs etc were recovered.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Destroying a building would be a pretty stupid way to hide evidence.

Nearly as stupid as the guy's 'BBC terrorist' defence for evading the TV licence fee on Monday.
I so wish I lived near Horsham, I'd be happy to lose a days work for this entertainment, but a 400 mile round trip isn't worth the effort when the verdict is already known in advance

I don't get what he's doing. There is no law that requires a television owner to have a TV Licence. The only way I can see him getting any time to present any evidence is if he is suing the BBC for breach of contract. That's all well and good, but nothing to do with needing a TV Licence.

Besides a breech of contract is common law, and the whole TV Licence thing is statute law. You wont find a magistrate running a common law court in England if they can get away with it so I'd be surprised if any evidence is presented at all. Magistrate will probably shut him up within 30 seconds and/or find him in contempt.

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
I don't get what he's doing. There is no law that requires a television owner to have a TV Licence. The only way I can see him getting any time to present any evidence is if he is suing the BBC for breach of contract. That's all well and good, but nothing to do with needing a TV Licence.

I hope you are not in the UK because it is a criminal offence to use a tv without a licence.

Apparently there are some 3000 such cases each week heard up and down the land ; and this is one of them.

It has been spun that the magistrates have granted him an opportuniyu to make his arguments when the truth is he has received a summons like all the others.

reply to post by Alfie1

I haven't had a licence for over 13 years.
I informed them that I do not use any equipment to receive live broadcast TV signals (that is the offence, not owning a TV for xbox/dvd's etc), and I refuse access to my property to confirm or deny this without a court warrant. TV licence 'enforcement officers' have no more authority over me than the guy who serves me in the local shop. They are employees of Capita PLC and there is no legislation in the UK obliging me to assist them in their investigations.
The guy in this case is a passionate 911 conspiracy theorist (take a look at their website/Fbook) and he's just using this as a way to get into court because he can't afford a private prosecution.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I haven't had a licence for over 13 years.
I informed them that I do not use any equipment to receive live broadcast TV signals (that is the offence, not owning a TV for xbox/dvd's etc), and I refuse access to my property to confirm or deny this without a court warrant. TV licence 'enforcement officers' have no more authority over me than the guy who serves me in the local shop. They are employees of Capita PLC and there is no legislation in the UK obliging me to assist them in their investigations.
The guy in this case is a passionate 911 conspiracy theorist (take a look at their website/Fbook) and he's just using this as a way to get into court because he can't afford a private prosecution.

If you genuinely aren't receiving TV broadcasting that is fair enough. But if you were I would expect them to test you out with a detector van and, if that was positive, obtain a search warrant from a magistrate.

If you are and they haven't pursued the matter you have had a long run !

reply to post by Alfie1

Have a search, there is not a single prosecution in the UK which has been based solely on the evidence of 'detector equipment' it is an urban myth. Most court cases are carried out in a batch system where 50 or so will be heard in a day without any defendant present, all having pleaded guilty in advance.
Capita PLC is contracted to 'enforce' payment of the licence fee, they lose money every time someone makes it more difficult for them. The fee is what, £120 a year or whatever, they have to pay a court for a warrant to investigate and enter a home with a police officer. I refuse access once or twice a year to their silly employees who imply that they have some authority over me, it is a game I enjoy playing because I can.
The guy mentioned in the OP is playing his own conspiracy theory game in an attempt at getting a court to hear his message. No different to me really, just I don't have the expense of time and money that his game is subject to.

reply to post by Flatcoat


But you forget that what did the collapsing was the interior flooring. The floors were suspended on floor trusses between the exterior and interior columns, attached to little welded column tabs. They were not attached conventionally like steel I beams welded together. As soon as the top section started its descent, there was nothing to stop, and each floor that was impacted added more mass to the collapsing mass. The building's design was its undoing in the end. The rest collapsed rapidly while some of the core segments survived for a few moments. Each floor structure (ie floor truss, steel pan decking, concrete slab) was the same and the connecting ends were the same. they did not get stronger down the structure. The only extra re-enforcements were on the technical floors, but by this point proved little resistance to the growing in mass and acceleration debris and structure.

reply to post by grainofsand


Are you guys serious? Why does Britain do that? A license to own a TV set? This is unheard of here in the US. (except for having cable or satellite services)