So When do we see Americans pick up on this?

Question

A British 9/11 truther is claiming victory following a court ruling that said he did not have to pay a fine over his refusal to pay his annual £130 TV license fee.
 
Tony Rooke claimed the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks when it reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed “due to an office fire, which, even the NIST report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.” The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the U.S. government agency charged with investigating collapses.
 
In an act of civil disobedience, Rooke refused to support the BBC and pay the license fee because he believed the BBC has covered up the events of that day. To pay the license fee, he said, would be tantamount to supporting the terrorists responsible for the controlled demolition. He also argued that supporting terrorists would violate the UK’s Terrorism Act, which states: “It is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.”
 
Rooke was charged with not paying the license fee. Prior to his hearing, Rooke provided the court with evidence that both WTC towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than by the airliner impacts and subsequent fires. The judge gave Rooke an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months. He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine but had to pay court costs of £200.
 
The BBC first reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it occurred. The “official line” from the U.S. government is the building fell due to fire damage. But it collapsed into its own footprint and was the first steel-reinforced high-rise to ever collapse due to an uncontrolled fire. Explosions were heard and reported prior to the collapse.
 
Bob Livingston
personalliberty

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

He was convicted and the District Judge said, 'Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.
 
'I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html#ixzz2QWSWjSJr

So your point is....?

Anonymous · Answer

Tony Rooke was convicted.  He just didn't have to pay a fine.  That a Truther such as yourself considers this some sort of great victory is more laughable than what is left of the pathetic Truther movement.  

By the way, every news networkd that day made dozens of errors in its reporting.  That is what happens in live reports of chaotic and confused events. The BBC wasn't even the first to report in error on 7 World Trade - Rueters, CBS and NBC all beat them to it by hours.

Finally, what does it matter if no other "steel-reinforced high rise" ever collapsed from fire before?  Does that mean it is impossible?  History books are full of things that never happened before.  Steel framed buildings perform badly in fire.  This is why hundreds of steel framed structures ("reinforced" isn't even correct here" have collapsed due to fire.  The fact that WTC7 is taller than the rest of them makes no difference.  Fire doesn't care how tall the building is. And if 7 fell "in its own footprint" then how did it cause a billion dollars in damage to the Verizon building, destroy Fiterman Hall and block 3 major streets when it fell?  And oh yeah, nobody heard or saw any explosions when 7 went down.  In fact the collapse was characterized by its silence.

No wonder you Truthers think the Rooke case is a "great victory".  In eleven and a half years you have accomplished nothing but to present bad facts and bad data.

sobus · Answer

i did no longer think of every person accomplished in an astounding way final nighttime. i presumed David Archuleta substitute into the suited out of the 8 and that i did like Jason Castro, too, yet in basic terms because of the fact i like that music. i like Brooke lots yet she by no ability changes lots. i actually concept that Kristy Lee cook dinner substitute into between the extra constructive ones final nighttime. David cook dinner's music selection substitute into undesirable and so substitute into Carly's. i think of it's going to be a toss up as to who is going dwelling house. I desire it would be Syesha. I nevertheless think of it's going to be between the Davids as to who wins all of it. My money (and vote) is on David A.!

microni · Answer

i did no longer think of everyone accomplished in an impressive way final evening. i presumed David Archuleta replaced into the suited out of the 8 and that i did like Jason Castro, too, yet basically as a results of fact i admire that music. i admire Brooke a lot yet she in no way ameliorations a lot. i in my opinion thought that Kristy Lee prepare dinner replaced into between the extra desirable ones final evening. David prepare dinner's music determination replaced into undesirable and so replaced into Carly's. i think of that's going to be a toss up as to who is going domicile. I wish it may be Syesha. I nevertheless think of that's going to be between the Davids as to who wins all of it. My funds (and vote) is on David A.!

Clark K · Answer

Are you one of those douchebags who does not believe that the Trade Centers collapsed asa result fo the plane crashes and fires?  If you are, stuff it up your ***.  I had friends that died there. it was not a government conspiracy, it was a bunch of islamic extremist terrorists, very simple.

? · Answer

interesting, people of all nations believe what they are taught, and if there is a conspiracy to cover-up, they wont believe anything until they listen to what the conspiracy is.

yep he was found guilty without punishment. many  might take the philosophy that he was willing to pay the higher fine while getting the admission of false representation to be true in the BBC

John · Answer

You need to do some better research he was found guilty and had to pay
£200 costs which more than the cost of TV Licience

? · Answer

Cost him £200, BBC Licence £145.50.


where's the win ??

Trending News

So When do we see Americans pick up on this?

8 Answers