PDA

View Full Version : Tony Rooke's Court Case Against BBC Coverup of 9/11 Evidence by Global Research



Corncrake
17th February 2013, 22:10
The BBC is being challenged strongly for its refusal to present to the British public the available scientific evidence which contradicts the official version of events of 9/11. Thank you very much to all those who have sent letters to their MPs asking that the BBC be held to account for withholding this evidence that the public must be allowed to see.

As a further progression of this campaign, a great opportunity has arisen. 9/11 truth documentary maker Tony Rooke has been granted a court hearing where he is challenging the BBC’s support of terrorist activity through supporting the cover up of the true evidence of 9/11. The court case will take place on February 25th at 10.00am at the address below. Real 9/11 evidence has rarely, if ever, been presented in a British court room, so this is a rare opportunity.Any support from the public on the day would be fantastic and will help to send the message that the people want to know, and deserve to know, the truth about 9/11.

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET

This court case is based around Tony making a stand and refusing to pay his TV licence fee under Section 15 of The Terrorism Act 2000 Article 3 which states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The BBC has withheld scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that the official version of events of 9/11 is not possible and could not have been carried out in entirety by those who have been accused by our officials. In addition, the BBC has actively blocked and smeared those attempting to bring this evidence to the public. By doing this the BBC are supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and are therefore supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account. A new and independent investigation is required to determine what really did occur on 9/11, and by whom, otherwise these unidentified terrorist elements will remain free to potentially commit further terrorist activities.

Tony has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence fee, however, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has formed a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding individuals:

Professor Niels Harrit

Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence which contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists proved that there was nano-thermite residue (high tech military explosive) all through the dust of all three towers and he got this study peer reviewed and published in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers. He was involved in a major interview with the BBC in 2011 where the BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit Professor Harrit rather than look at the devastating scientific evidence he had to offer. Professor Harrit’s team have video footage of this harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by the BBC both on camera and off camera as part of that interview.

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police Department. In 2010 he was fired because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that due to his extensive analysis of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the truth and he is challenging his dismissal through international court. Tony Rooke has recently produced an excellent documentary called ‘Offensive – the story of Tony Farrell’ based around the story of Tony Farrell.

Complete article and links here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-court-case-against-the-bbcs-cover-up-of-911-evidence/5322983

apollo41
17th February 2013, 22:27
The BBC should be taken down? when they reported on building seven going down? it was still standing while reporting on it? what a joke.. anyway for all the people who think you need to pay for a tv license? you absolutely don't..

you don't need to pay your tv license? its a illegal act? that's all it is,it is a act? its not law..check where the money really goes once you pay your tv license?it goes to corrupt corporations...
here is a couple of vids to enlighten you?
qI25JB4CCao
heres another with a police officer , she,s a lovely officer but as thick as f..k
PPwNgIsH9BA

andrewgreen
17th February 2013, 23:23
Unfortunately his case will fail. Regardless that his argument is supported by truth the judges will rule against him on the basis of detriment to society if they don't e.g. other people won't pay their bills either, were in a society where money rules !

Ernie Nemeth
18th February 2013, 01:39
Not true. If, and that's a big IF, this ever made it to court (which it never would) the court would throw it out and dismiss the case because if they didn't then there would be a precedent set that anyone could use in future cases. Regardless of the legality of TV licensing, the BBC is committing the offense of bias reporting, and that is strictly and expressly forbidden in their own rules of conduct.

Snoweagle
18th February 2013, 09:49
Whether the case wins or fails is irrelevant to the Corporate damage to "brand" that this event will have on the business.
The BBC is corrupt. It is run by cohorts of the Elite. They have divided the organisation now into National and International broadcasting preventing certain news items from reaching each audience.
This case is "good" to ensure its news worthiness drips into the populace where there are many waiting, watching and wishing for change. More will join the affray of contesting the BBC on a number of issues, the license fee is just one.

EYES WIDE OPEN
18th February 2013, 14:18
Hostile BBC interview with Dr Niels Harrit for 9/11 truth


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi5xg3CuILI

Flowerpunkchip
19th February 2013, 01:10
Wow, over 2 hours...
The interviewer was aggressive and quite rude with his many interruptions and going off the subject.

And when Dr Harris mentions something of interest which can't be explained, the interviewer moves on to another question.... (when Harrit talks of the fires after the towers went down)

I really do think it's worth watching but the interviewer may really frustrate you.

Apparently this will be aired on BBC 2 and most probably edited in such way to discredit Dr Niels Harrit of course, so cudos to Harrit for filming it himself.

Vitalux
19th February 2013, 02:15
Unfortunately his case will fail. Regardless that his argument is supported by truth the judges will rule against him on the basis of detriment to society if they don't e.g. other people won't pay their bills either, were in a society where money rules !

His case did not fail because he got his message out to others about what is really REAL.
His case did not fail because he showed that he is MAN enough to stand up for his rights and say "I am not going to take it"

Even if this man was to lay down his life to defend his human rights......He will not fail.

Only a coward lays at the slave masters heals and licks the slave masters balls

EYES WIDE OPEN
19th February 2013, 09:51
Wow, over 2 hours...
The interviewer was aggressive and quite rude with his many interruptions and going off the subject.

And when Dr Harris mentions something of interest which can't be explained, the interviewer moves on to another question.... (when Harrit talks of the fires after the towers went down)

I really do think it's worth watching but the interviewer may really frustrate you.

Apparently this will be aired on BBC 2 and most probably edited in such way to discredit Dr Niels Harrit of course, so cudos to Harrit for filming it himself.

This was aired long ago. It was called "the conspiracy files".
That is what this case is about. Maybe you misunderstood?
The BBC used about 1 min of this interview with him and were biased in their presentation.

Muzz
19th February 2013, 10:31
Thank you for posting this important story Corncrake. However the case turns out the important thing for me is to make sure it gets the publicity it deserves. Bump.

(and thanks for Tony Farrel (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?24832-Terror-threat-is-in-UK-Government-says-a-police-Principal-Intelligence-Analyst&p=637869#post637869) vid you mentioned, he has been a real hero for truth movement)

Flowerpunkchip
19th February 2013, 23:45
Bump


Wow, over 2 hours...
The interviewer was aggressive and quite rude with his many interruptions and going off the subject.

And when Dr Harris mentions something of interest which can't be explained, the interviewer moves on to another question.... (when Harrit talks of the fires after the towers went down)

I really do think it's worth watching but the interviewer may really frustrate you.

Apparently this will be aired on BBC 2 and most probably edited in such way to discredit Dr Niels Harrit of course, so cudos to Harrit for filming it himself.

This was aired long ago. It was called "the conspiracy files".
That is what this case is about. Maybe you misunderstood?
The BBC used about 1 min of this interview with him and were biased in their presentation.


TOtally my fault, i just listened to the videos on this thread without reading... I was doing something else on another computer whilst listening. It's a very bad habit of mine. Many apologies.

Only one minute of this interview??? Outrageous (but not surprising).

GlassSteagallfan
25th February 2013, 13:49
BUMP for Feb 25

:bump:

Corncrake
25th February 2013, 23:16
Disappointing though not unexpected result:

Published on Monday 25 February 2013 15:05

Charged with not paying his TV licence, Tony Rooke had claimed at Horsham Magistrates’ Court that the BBC’s treatment of the 9/11 attacks made it complicit in acts of terrorism.

He asked to submit evidence which he said would show that the BBC had consistently failed to report the true story.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said that, even if he accepted and agreed with the evidence, that would not give him grounds to rule that Rooke was not guilty.

He imposed a six month conditional discharge, with £200 legal costs.

Outside court, Rooke said the case had been a ‘score draw’ since the judge had looked at the evidence - albeit in private - and had decided not to fine him.

He called for anyone who has evidence which challenges the official version of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to pass it to the authorities.


For video go to: http://www.westsussextoday.co.uk/news/county-news/video-tony-rooke-after-his-9-11-court-case-1-4825350

Pilgrim
26th February 2013, 00:01
This BBC interviewing team is real shame of journalism.That is unbelievable how they behaved. It shows quite a lot....Dr.Niels Harrit has real guts his stance is admirable.

Cidersomerset
26th February 2013, 11:51
Tuesday, 26 February 2013 Posted by David Icke

Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False

http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/Feb201397/wtc7-bbc.jpg

'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.'

Read more: Court Victory for Protestor

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/80578-court-victory-for-protestor

ExomatrixTV
27th February 2013, 08:35
K_hfJJSbA-M