It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
what is less well known is that while the terrorist attacks were taking place and for many hours after, numerous additional aircraft gave indications that they had been hijacked or, for other reasons, were singled out as potential emergencies.
According to Glover, the FAA says to NORAD, “Hey, this may be a possible hijack, or this aircraft may be a possible hijack.” As a result, those in the operations center “did not know how many more there were. Were there five, six, seven, or eight?” [
However, most of the additional hijackings that the FAA is reporting to NORAD turn out to be false alarms. Glover will say that most of the reports “were not true.”
Originally posted by stumason
Originally posted by Rubic0n
What was the point of those points since the points you made are a lie!?
No, they are not. Actually check your facts, don't just believe the OP.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.
Er, no. He was up on charges of non payment of his TV license.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.
He was given a conditional discharge and fined £200.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.
No, he didn't.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.
I dreamed up nothing, it's you making stuff up.
Here is an actual report (albeit it's the Mail) on the caseedit on 10/4/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
This story is so bizarre. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket and talking to a judge about having it dismissed..... and then surprising him by making him sit through a long presentation with evidence and graphs about a huge conspiracy theory that happened over a decade ago.
You know when you're in a room with a crazy person, and you'll do or say anything to get them to leave? I think that's what this story is about.edit on 10-4-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)
I'm only guessing, but it seems to me his point was "why should I pay a license fee to a company I think is as bent as a banana, or at least failing in its duty to keep the populace as informed as it needs to be?"
Originally posted by winofiend
but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?
No, the BBC had no involvement at all in this court case - why do you think that they did?
Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Originally posted by winofiend
but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.
Bad media reporting? I'd guess that any reporter that can accurately predict major events twenty minutes before they occur would be in high demand. This was awesome media reporting.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?
No, the BBC had no involvement at all in this court case - why do you think that they did?
Erm... because he was up before the beak for non-payment of his BBC tv license fee. Who else do you think might be able to call for someone to be brought into court for such a thing? British Gas, pehaps?
Originally posted by gps777
Two things I find ridiculous with this
1. This guys reasons for not paying the fee. (as if 100% fact needs to be broadcast in relation to the fee)
2. Being made to pay a fee in the first place.
Oh and that many British love to call Aussies criminals.
I`ll just do a little dance while saying "we get free to air TV and the British down here love it" come on over we`ll heat the barbie up and hopefully Australia`s not playing for the Ashes,but at least it would be free.(minus the cost of a humongous big ass TV)
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
The TV Licensing Authority is not part of the BBC.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Who are they working for? They aren't chasing license fee evaders for their own benefit, they are doing it on behalf of the BBC Or am I missing something major here?. I''l happily read your explanation as to why they have nothing to do with each other.
Originally posted by CJCrawley
If Building 7 had not been hit by a plane, how come the firefighters were anticipating it would collapse?
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
They don't have "nothing to do with each other" in a complete sense. But the BBC was not involved in this case since the TVLA, as I understand it, is mostly made up of subcontracted agencies and anyway the charge is brought by the crown (I think). Complaining that the BBC doesn't do what it says on the tin - never mind how ridiculous the specific charge - is kind of irrelevant because they aren't present in the case.
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
But in this particular instance the guy is just making himself look stupid. He hasn't won the case. He's just been told to belt up and get a license and stop wasting everybody's time with his nonsense. In a tiny provincial court. For him to paint this as some kind of victory is just weird.
Tony Rooke is a very brave individual indeed. Yesterday he was in court at Horsham following his candid refusal to pay for a BBC TV Licence and an earlier appearance on 17th December 2012 before the Magistrate Court at Crawley.
Yesterday, in a hearing before the same Magistrate Stephen Nicholls, Mr Rooke risked being convicted of a criminal offence over his non-payment stance. However, yesterday the Magistrate Judge decided after reading the evidence not to convict him. Instead, Tony was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £200 court costs. Being a Gunner supporter, he afterwards described this to me as a draw. However, most of the 100 or so people present saw it as a moral victory for him.