Support 911Blogger


Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

By Peter Drew
Originally at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm

February 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -  On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, 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. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke 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 put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit

Dr. 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 that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit's team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.

Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit's team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that 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 evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

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

For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk

 

Video Embedded...

Also this short video: VIDEO: 9/11 truth movement in Horsham

VIDEO: Tony Rooke before his 9/11 court case (Feb. 24.)

Tony wasn't convicted

None of the witnesses were called into the court room.
But Tony wasn't convicted either - he cannot appeal.

So no UK citizen have to fear conviction not paying BBC-licence - somehow good news, calling for mass action :)

http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/court-victory-protestor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

Monday - 1st Hour: With Ian Henshall and Tony Rook.

02/25/2013 Monday - 1st Hour: With Ian Henshall and Tony Rook.
2nd Hour: With Tom Tvedten.

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Truth_Jihad_Radio_13.html

9/11 Truth v BBC (court case 25/2/13) - Tony Rooke

National Geographic, Myth Busters, and Discovery too!

Mainstream Media here in the US continues to air TV episodes "debunking" 9/11 conspiracy theories, using demonstrably false claims such as the claim that thermite does not have demolition applications or capabilities. In one episode they fraudulently show their own failed attempts to cut a vertical steel column using thermite and using their own failure to argue that, of course, these conspiracy theories were all ridiculous nonsense and it couldn't be done.
National Geographic did this with a column and a rather crude contraption around it that was filled with a large amount of thermite, then using this large amount to over compensate for the poor design of their cutting device while strengthening the appearance of their argument by the amounts that were used. Mythbusters did a similar thing with the SUV they tried to melt, if you recall, as well... I think they used 1000 lbs or something ridiculous.

My questions is: can legal action be taken against the media here in the US as well, and if so why is no one doing it?

Personally I think they look kinda silly airing shows with content that we have since debunked with experiments and research of our own (1935 Skyride tower Thermite Demolition) and the 9/11 Experiment Video I helped Jonathan Cole with the concepts for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

But even though it's silly to anyone who actually does the research, most people do not do research, and instead it works as a mental primer for those people so when the time comes for them to actually confront the evidence, they will have this pre-planted seed of doubt in their head from the exposure they got through mainstream media, and I believe the hope is that they will dismiss the evidence based on this before ever really looking deeper into it.

Great idea!

Take action 'WarCrime911' - there is no reason to hold back

eric

i thought his last name was lawler. good going, guys!! should do same here!! thanks so much. inspiring.

Dr. Niels Harrit @ Tony Rooke v BBC - Horsham Feb 25

Yes, the universally acknowledged freefall of WTC 7, for over

100 feet during its initial fall, sure is a problem for anyone supportive of the fire and damage did it story. Unfortunately, the present official story has thus far been able to get away with not bothering to explain it.

Dr. Harrit was right to force this issue in the court case to get right to the heart of the matter.