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

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.

No. What's stupid is your argument that everyone would be picking up complex financial/legal documents in the dust-filled streets and instantly recognising the damning evidence in them! It's so hilarious as an argument against wanting to blow up WTC7 that I can hardly believe anyone could be serious in making it.

But of course I forgot your desperation in trying to defend the indefensible. Danny Jawenko, the CEO of one of the top demolition companies in the world, had no hesitation in recognising the collapse of WTC as a controlled demolition, not a natural collapse, when he was shown the video footage of it.

It was not merely Enron papers filed away in WTC7 but numerous Department of Justice and other US government investigations against high-profile companies that stretched back years. All lost. How convenient to the company crooks involved!

For goodness sake get yourself informed and do some REAL research, instead of continuing to hide your head in the ground in self-denial about 9/11.

reply to post by micpsi

Unfortunately the magistrates court in Horsham will simply dismiss the guy in the OP's 'research' and convict him for the trivial charge of using equipment to receive live broadcast TV without a licence. Perhaps you should present your own research and assist in this groundbreaking legal challenge?

Originally posted by GenRadek
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)

A licence is required to receive broadcasts rather than just owning a tv; although for most it will be the same thing.

It is the way the BBC gets most of its revenue and ,in return, we get some channels that aren't constantly interrupted by commercial breaks.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Historic case is epic fail as anticipated by everyone bar truthers.

Defence of Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000 rejected.

Court not prepared to hear his "evidence"

Guilty of not paying his tv licence.

Conditional discharge.

Just remains now to see how AE9/11t spin this debacle. All court officials CIA assets, in fear of their lives etc perhaps.

The Link

I don't get the OP's story. Apparently people in England need to buy a permit to watch TV and some guy didn't pay it. The local liege lord gave him three hours of court time to prove why he wasn't guilty of not buying the permit and he's going to instead spend the time trying to prove why WTC 7 was brought down by secret demolitions? Do I really understand that correctly?

How is that remotely a victory for the conspiracy theorists? I'm sure UK laws are different than US laws but I can't imagine their magistrates would tolerate three hours of a defendent rambling about topics that have nothing to do with why they're defendents any more than ours do. The moment he brings up lasers from outer space or earthquake machines they're going to force him back to discussing his own case, find him in contempt of court, or force him back to discussing his own case as well as finding him in contempt of court.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by GenRadek
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)

A licence is required to receive broadcasts rather than just owning a tv; although for most it will be the same thing.

It is the way the BBC gets most of its revenue and ,in return, we get some channels that aren't constantly interrupted by commercial breaks.

This has nothing to do with the OP so I wouldn't blame the moderators for yanking it, but this stil intrigues me.

You're saying that people in the UK are required to buy a permit to watch television broadcasting. Do you still need a permit to possess a television even though you don't watch television broadcasting (I.E. for use with a Playstation or Xbox)?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
No, I haven't had a licence for over 13 years as I use my TV's solely for Xbox & DVD's. The licence is required for using equipment to receive any live TV broadcasts in real time. It funds the BBC.

*Edit* The thread has pretty much died now anyway, the 'historic' court case failed, as I and many others said it would.
Oh, and electrical retailers are required by law to inform the licencing company of name and address of customers who purchase TV receiving equipment such as digital boxes, TV's etc.
There is no legal requirement that they verify this by ID though, or obligation by customers to provide correct details, so last time I bought a TV I paid cash and completed the form as Mr M Mouse at No Fixed Abode.
The store worker chuckled and was happy to complete the sale.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Historic case is epic fail as anticipated by everyone bar truthers.......
Just remains now to see how AE9/11t spin this debacle.

I love this headline...

The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks

www.globalresearch.ca... s/5323881

The BBC were not even there, as they were not the ones on trial....

So after 12 years this is the best effort truthers have in getting their nonsense to court - and not even a court in the USA and the court case is not even about 9/11!

As this case is about un paid licence fee, regardless of verbal acrobatics, the result will be he will have to pay up or balifs will be brought in.

As for the 911 stuff... Nothing said or demonstrated will have any bearing on the fact he will have to pay....

And none of the presentation will have any bearing on 911 truth.

Silly case really.

Korg.

The day in court has happened...

judge made Rooke pay £200 costs and gave him conditional discharge

He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: 'This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.'

dailymail

But in a twist of perspective, the 911 site calls it a "moral victory".

reply to post by alfa1


I see that the Truthers have taken over the arrows on the Daily Mail comments

Why always the 'send us money?'

www.reinvestigate911.org...

Originally posted by tommyjo
Why always the 'send us money?'

Simply because that is the main driving force of the "truth" movement. They are flogging books, or video's or getting paid on the lecture circuit. They are not at all interested in the facts, as there is no money in them. Much better to spin a conspiracy theory, and the gullible will lap it up.

Ohmygosh,nobody thought the OP's claims were bull#?! Wow, I'm shocked, wow, then discover their claims!
Lame and disappointing:

reply to post by mypan


I think the FOX reporter in this interview didn't sleep at night for a while...

S&F TA, Understanding beats Programming, always seek the truth...

Originally posted by Kram09
I think if this garners any serious attention, the judge will be under intense pressure by the establishment.

We'll see what happens.

The judge is most likely part of the establishment. An establishment wholly behind the war-on-terror dog-n-pony show. Do you recall the British police intelligence analyst who created a strategic terror assessment was fired when he told his superiors that the threat of an “internal tyranny” was far greater than that of Islamic terrorism?

Their police, like many of ours, have internalized the propaganda that 7/7 and 9/11 were attacks by Arabs.

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by mypan

 

I think the FOX reporter in this interview didn't sleep at night for a while...

S&F TA, Understanding beats Programming, always seek the truth...

Star for you.

Not many people on this thread sleep well and they know who they are.

Give them enough ropes they will hang themselves.

Originally posted by mypan

Star for you.

Not many people on this thread sleep well and they know who they are.

Give them enough ropes they will hang themselves.

I realize you posted this to bolster your faith in these conspiracy stories, but what exactly do you mean by "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"? The judge (or magistrate or beefeater or liege lord or whatever they call judges in the UK) specificlly said the trial was about the nonpayment of television fees, NOT the 9/11 attack,or even the BBC, so they're not going to allow him to waste the court's time on these conspiracy stories any more than they're going to let him waste the court's time over the neighbors dog that barks too much at night. Where is the "hanging" or even the "rope"?

This thread intrigues me becuase we had something similar happen here in the US- Judy Wood was so much in love with her "lasers from outer space" claims that she actually sued NIST for lying to cover up a conspiracy. The court kept asking her lawyers how did NIST lie, exactly, and all her team did was rant about her own theories. The court finally had enough of these hijinks and they threw the case out. You can't simply show what you think happened. You also need to prove what *didn't* happen and after twelve years not a single truther has been able to do it.

It's been twelve years since the attack. How many miles of this supposed rope are you intending to give these "them" you're referring to before it sinks in that you're barking up the wrong tree?

I guess this sound is appropriate for the whole case:

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by Kram09
I think if this garners any serious attention, the judge will be under intense pressure by the establishment.

We'll see what happens.

The judge is most likely part of the establishment.

They ARE the establishment. Try walking into a court room and claim common law jurisdiction. Then watch the policy enforcer rapidly become enraged because he doesn't like a lay person having more power than themselves in their own court. Even though it's not their court.

Slavery by consent.. Check out commonlyknownasdom on youtube. Cracking bloke.