UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up!

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

It doesn't appear that he is doing this just to evade an unfair, unvoted for £145 a yr tax.

No, he's doing it because he's a nutter.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

It doesn't appear that he is doing this just to evade an unfair, unvoted for £145 a yr tax.

No, he's doing it because he's a nutter.

You're not lacking in the ability to explain your viewpoints, so why don't you elaborate on your reasoning, and then I can see what I have to counter?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

You're not lacking in the ability to explain your viewpoints, so why don't you elaborate on your reasoning, and then I can see what I have to counter?

My take on the BBC reporting the collapse early is above, on page 4. I consider it highly unlikely that a conspiracy would involve a foreign, left(ish) news organisation in its plan, just so that it could report something it would probably report anyway. That the conspirators didn't seem to want reported.

It seems to me far more likely that they got wind of the impending collapse reports and wrongly said it had already come down.

On the BBC, my (incidental) opinion is that the license fee is quite good value if you use the services. To buy the daily mail for a year would cost over 200 quid, not including the Sunday. And it doesn't have radio stations, loads of tv channels etc. I agree that it's a bit rubbish if you don't use the BBC at all, but I think there are bigger problems in the world. And paying it is basically optional anyway - I don't.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Okay then, let's run with that for a minute and suppose that they got the names mixed up. Which building collapse were they referring to in that case?

Since they were grabbing any factoid and rumor they were coming across in the rush to shove out coverage of the attack, does it really matter whether it was 30% correct, 75% correct, or 0% correct? Incorrect is still incorrect.

This sort of thing happens literally every time a critical news story comes out. During the Newtown shooting the media was originally claiming that sociopath who shot those children...and I refuse to mention that monster's name...only used a pistol and a Bushmaster rifle was found sitting in his car. It later turned out to be wrong- he brought a pistol and the Bushmaster rifle in with him and he left some another rifle out in the car- but conspiracy mongers insist on clinging to the original story and insist on ignoring the retraction to "prove" the shooting never occurred. That con artist Dylan Avery was notorious for pulling that very type of stunt by intentionally using incorrect news releases that were retracted later of flight 93 landing in Ohio.

There are only two possible explanations for the BBC report. Either there's some sinister secret plot to blow up WTC 7 which thousands of people in the BBC were in on and they deliberately risked revealing the plot by releasing false reports of the collapse beforehand for no reason even though they could look out the window and see it was false...OR...it was simply a case that the BBC was running around in panic while slipping on banana peels just like everyone else was at the time and the conspiracy mongers are deliberately blowing it way, WAY out of proportion to it's actual importance. Care to wager which one I subscribe to?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Here is my Ryugyong Hotel thread here at ATS.

Also in that thread I tackle some of the more common myths about North Korea.
Too bad discussions of that nature are not very popular.

That's probably because North Korea is literally the only country in history that makes Nazi Germany look good in comparison...but that's neither here nor there. I find it an intellectually dishonest double standard for the people here to be criticizing others for not knowing the proper name for WTC 7/Solomon Bros. building when they cannot be called upon to do it themselves.

Now I gotta go fine another weird looking building to use to stump the armchair experts with the next time they try to pull this stunt...rats...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maryhinge

i can remember that report by a woman stating that WTC7 had fallen

but you could still see it in the background

star and flag

you forgot this

I keep seeing this hoax again and again...apparently according to the conspiracy crowd all the BBC journalists should have been well aquainted with the proper name of every foreign building before they becomes famous for them to "kknow the building right outside their window was WTC 7". If that's the case then you yourselves should be able to identify the name and location of THIS building without looking it up-

In fact I'll even accept just the city it's located in. After all, if you're judging BBC reporters over knowing/not knowing where/what the Solomon brothers building was BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE it became famous then in all intellectual honesty you should be able to do likewise, otherwise all you're doing is coming up with artificial criticisms based entirely on 20/20 hindsight.

i have no clue where that is to be honest with you

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)

im british and very jealous id love to live in aussie land

Originally posted by maryhinge

i have no clue where that is to be honest with you

All right, next question- would you have been able to identify the WTC 7 building in the background without Alex Jones pointing it out for you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Now I gotta go fine another weird looking building to use to stump the armchair experts with the next time they try to pull this stunt...rats...

Alright, haha.

I'll hold my tongue , because I am a bit of a 'architecture aficionado', so to speak.

To OP...

How to make a failure look like a victory. All this guy did is rant and rave as an excuse for not paying a TV licence. He was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The fact that his costs were twice as much as the licence fee is telling. How is that a victory?

I’m not surprised this is unreported. It is not news, else every nut-case in court with a silly theory would expect to have full worldwide coverage.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
The fact that his costs were twice as much as the licence fee is telling. How is that a victory?

I believe that's known as a Pyrrhic victory.

Then again, it doesn't surprise me in the least

Fitz

Originally posted by paraphi
All this guy did is rant and rave as an excuse for not paying a TV licence. He was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The fact that his costs were twice as much as the licence fee is telling. How is that a victory?

Also he now has to buy a license, as that was a condition of his conditional discharge....

a conditional discharge is a sentence vitiating the finding of guilt in which the offender receives no punishment provided that, in a period set by the court (not more than three years), no further offence is committed.

en.wikipedia.org...

But truthers are so desperate to have any victory at all they somehow claim this is a win....

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


no , it is not a phyrric victory - it is a loss - no matter how you spin it

he was found guilty of operating a TV reciever without a licence

his " argument " was ignored

I love the stance that it's a brave victory until it's pointed out that it's not, at which point the court becomes bent. Like when Truthers see stuff in the MSM they like, it's all "look, the Guardian and the NYT said so!!!", but when mainstream sources (as is overwhelmingly usual) disagree with them they are all run by a cabal of NWO shills.

Such a shifting sense of validity. It's an odd way to look at the world.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


alex who i didnt here it from him im NOT an alex jones fan

i think if my memory serves my correct

it was on ,on the edge theo charmers ,i think

just out of what killed the cat what was that building ?

it looks very cool indeed (russia) idk

reply to post by winofiend

Either way, I rekon I'll be hearing about this till the day I die. And not a single thing will have changed.

You'll probably be hearing about Murders, Rapes and Muggings until the day you die too...and it'll still be no reason to not go after the Murderers, Rapists and Muggers then either.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

no , it is not a phyrric victory - it is a loss - no matter how you spin it

My bad. I meant Phyrric 'victory'. I don't see it even remotely as an actual victory (as the word is understood by the non-'truther' world) and the wood that 'truthers' got prior to the day was almost sad given that it was repeatedly pointed out that this court would have no interest whatsoever in the intended long-winded 'explanation'.

Fitz

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

alex who i didnt here it from him im NOT an alex jones fan

i think if my memory serves my correct

it was on ,on the edge theo charmers ,i think

Ah, in that case I stand corrected. Alex Jones is definitely the one who invented that whole "Pull it is lingo for controlled demeolitions" hoax so I assumed he was the one who invented this "BBC was in on the conspiracy" hoax as well, namely because he covered this on Prison Planet too.

just out of what killed the cat what was that building ?

That was the Ryugyong hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea. That building was at least somewhat known as it is/was infamous for being a prime example of what happens when Soviet style planned economy bungling meets North Korean totalitarian bungling.

Wikipedia article on Ryugyong Hotel, Pyongyang, North Korea

Well, this thread should certainly win most deceptive thread title of the year

Although a few things to point out-

- The judge never outright dismissed the guy as a 'nutter', he just stated this it was not relevant to the case and even said, that if his evidence was of importance (so the judge never actually dismissed the 9/11 theory) then there was nothing that could be done in that court.

- Yes, he was made to pay £200 costs, he never won the case, the BBC was not even in court, but the overall point, and why I flagged the thread is because this man had the courage to stand up for what he believed in, that 9/11 should be investigated. He think he should be applauded for being so brave and standing up for what he believes in.

For the record, I think having to pay a TV license for a channel that feeds the British public propaganda (Syria or their recent 'conspiracy road trips' to undermine conspiracy theories) is disgraceful but there is not a lot people can do if they wish to watch TV...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


GoodOlDave